The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Dahiru Musdapher, recently set up a judicial reform panel headed by Justice Mohammed Uwais, a former Chief Justice of Nigeria, as part of his pledge to restore the image and dignity of the judiciary as the bastion of hope to the common man.In this interview with BERTRAM NWANNEKANMA, a Lagos-based Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and commercial lawyer, Adekunle Ogunba, said the panel should come out with recommendations that will curb delays in the administration of justice in Nigeria. He also spoke on the recent arrest of some journalists by some security agents over alleged publication of offensive letter and the controversy over government's plans to remove fuel subsidy, among other issues.ExcerptsWHAT is your reaction to the Justice Mohammed Uwais' panel recently set up by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) on justice reform'In view of the chequered antecedent of our judiciary, setting up such a panel is a welcome development. It is, indeed, highly expected and anticipated, especially with the coming in of the new Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).During his swearing-in ceremony, first as the acting CJN and later as the substantive Chief Justice of Nigeria,he promised that he was going to begin an overhaul of the judiciaryand restore the sagging image of that arm of government.To that extent, it is a welcome development and we look forward to seeing what recommendations the panel would come out with.For me, I will make a caveat. I think the panel is a bit unwieldy. It is too much for the period of time that it is given. I don't know the terms of reference though, but generally, if we refer to the agitation that led to it, it should try to address the issues of delay and sliding image of the judiciary generally.Even though I feel it is not what should be within the purview of the committee to instill. It can still make recommendations. It can recommend the promulgation of some laws to curb that.But generally, it is for our judges and the entire stakeholders of the judicial system to ensure that the image of the judiciary is restored as soon as possible.Why are you particular about the image of the judiciary'I just came back from Abuja and I saw an image of what ordinarily shouldn't be. If you go to the three arms zone, opposite the Eagle Square, there is a billboard, which I feel is scandalous, especially as it concerns the judiciary. The billboard simply says; 'Public office is held on trust', at the bottom, there is an inscription that says, 'don't abuse it'.Now, there are four photographs on the billboard, the first photograph on the right is that of a corporal in the Army marching. The second on the left is a picture of a building, may be connoting a secretariat or where-ever the civil servants work, below that picture is seemingly an image of the National Assembly in session, the Senate or the House of Representatives and States' Assembly, portraying an Assembly in session. The fourth picture is that of judges in robe, a close examination of the judges shows notable faces of the Supreme Court justices during the tenure of the immediate past CJN, Justice AlphonsusKastina-Alu.For me, I felt so bad that we could use such pictures to portray the image of the judiciary.Was the picture showing Justice Kastina-Alu'Yes, and all the other justices of the Supreme Court. It was the full panel of all the Supreme Court justices in their ceremonial regalia. And they wrote below, 'public office is a trust, don't betray it.'Really, there is nothing wrong in portraying the image of a judge. But, I don't think we should use the picture of the serving justices of the Supreme Court. For me, it would have been better if they had merely put somebody in a judge's robe to depict that kind of office. To put their actual picture, I think is scandalous. If you look at itfrom the angle I am coming from, the picture of the soldier was not thatof the Chief of the Army Staff or any of the serving chiefs. It was justan unidentifiedperson. If you also lookat the picture of the building, it is not the Presidency orHead of Civil Service, and at the foot of that billboard, they wrote the Presidency, I don'tknow who authorised it. The picture of National Assembly also wasn'tthat ofthe principal officers. I couldn't see the face of either David Mark or Aminu Tambuwal, so why the picture of the Supreme Court'For me, that billboard depicts the extent of which the image of the judiciary has gone. I think that should be properly addressed. The first job of the committee is to ensure that the picture is ratified because the longer it stays there, the more people would have the impression that justices are corrupt and all that.Having said that, I know that the root of the perceived corruption within the system is delay.Don't you think that since the new CJN has a limited time of eight months to stay in office, he may not be the right person to constitute such a panel'You know, it is a continuum. He met the institution there and certainly, even if he spends 10 years, he is going to leave it one day. But we are talking of an institution that will outlive all of us. We are talking about a legacy that will be for the overall wellbeing of the society. I do not subscribe to the view that since the CJN has a short time to stay, then, he should merely fold his hands and mark his time. We can well say, all cases are adjourned till after he retires, because it is still a long time. In our judicial firmament, it is still such a long time that you cannot afford to do nothing. Whether that would be workable depends on time. Maybe when the panel forms a quorum, it could be effective, I feel the panel is too large and some people that are supposed to be there are not there. Within that context, the CJN has given the panel a short time to make its recommendations and lets wait and see what they will be able to do. Eight months in the life of the judiciary is such a long time. The alternative for him is to sit down and do nothing but he has to start something in view of the controversy in the midst of which he was appointed and sworn-in.What are the critical areas you would you like the panel to address'The critical factor in the administration of justice is delay, delay and delay. If the panel is able to put a panacea for timely dispensation of cases, it will be a welcome development. I don't think we should even make a mistake by trying to situate the current agitation for judicial reform to be the dispute between the former CJN and former president of the Court of Appeal. They are just individuals. We are talking about the institution. I don't think it is fair for the panel to be limited to the probe of that dispute or whatever. It will not be nice. I don't want to even comment on the issue. I know Justice Kastina-Alu very well and the Justice Salami, the PCA and more so the issues are well entrenched now. The matter is in court and we are not entitled to comment on it. But as it were, I think the primary focus of that panel shouldn't be that dispute. I believe that if the panel is able to tackle delay, because if you look at it, all the problems and agitations are brought to the fore by delay. If you are sure that you are going to get judgment, right or wrong, in the next three months in a matter you file, the tendency to do things that are uncalled for would become unnecessary. Really, what we need is quick justice delivery. Like it is normally said that, 'Justice delayed is justice denied.' More importantly, I don't believe that our judges are well- paid. I believe that in terms of welfare packages, the judges should be paid more and the panel should look at the work-load in the judiciary. The judges are over-worked. They sit in courts up till 2.00 p.m. and go home at 4.00 p.m. to start writing rulings and others, unlike the Executive. There is a governor, who is said to have appointed over 1,000 senior advisers, but the judges all work by themselves and work alone. For me, the condition of service of judges should be the primary focus of the committee, because if the judges are well-paid, then, corruption would be less. There is no sector that you will not find a few bad eggs, no matter how much they are paid. If somebody is interested in circumventing the rules of going behind, he can still conveniently do that.Can we sacrifice justice on the altar of speed'There must be transparency in doing these. In our society, you still see cases lasting up to 10 years. I have seen a judge comment on a case that had lasted for 13 years, and that appeal was on interlocutory. So the Supreme Court should not be an all-comers' Supreme Court, a court that every appeal should go to. The committee should find a way of recommending that appeals on certain interlocutory decisions should stop at the Court of Appeal so that the substantive appeal, if need be, willgo to the Supreme Court.These days, when interlocutory appeals go to the Supreme Court, it is very not good for us. More so, when we have precedents that can guide us. There are cases that fall within the previous precedents that have been laid. So, there is really no need to over-flock the issues and take it on an appeal. So, if the panel can make good recommendations on welfare of the judges and on delay and that cases should be heard on time, then it will be better for the judiciary.Don't you think that such attempt to limit the right of appeal up to the highest court in the land may be an infringement on the rights of the citizens'You see, it is the peculiar nature of our own judiciary and society. I have heard people make such an agitation in other climes, where appeals could go as far to the Supreme Court. But you know that every judicial system has its own peculiarity. But the position we are in now is that the judges are over-worked. The simple arithmetic of the workload of the Supreme Court is: the current panel of the Supreme Court is about 16, 17 judges, the Court of Appealthat originates the appeal that is brought to them has expanded. There was a time the number of justices used to be 13, 14, 15 and 16, now they are about 64 or 65. If you do a comparative analysis of the number of justices, like I said at the Supreme Court, they are about 13 or 14 justices now. I understand constitutionally, they could go up to 25, but with the current panel, there is a limit to what they can do. They are, indeed, over-worked. If you look at the judgment they deliver, which runs into several pages, it is not that easy to come by. Now in Lagos High Court alone, we have about 60 or so judges not to talk of the Federal High Court and others. While the courts that the Supreme Court takes appeal from keep enlarging, keep expanding, keep changing their rules, the Supreme Court is static, so really and truly, this should be the focus. That is why I am saying, may be, the panel should make a recommendation for interlocutory appeals to stop at a stage.Ultimately, the appeal on the final decision will get to the Supreme Court if you so wish, but not on interlocutory and dilatory processes that are meant to waste time and capitalise on delay.Why is it difficult to increase the number of justices at the Supreme Court'There are constitutional inhibitions in terms of the number. But the constitution says it should not be more than 25. Why are they not even reaching that number even when you look at the history of the court' I know that it may not be unconnected with funding, the conditions of the office, because if you have to appoint a judge at the Supreme Court, for example,there are so many things thatgo with that office. May be the funds may not be able to take more judges. So, if you appoint a judge of a Supreme Court, you don't expect him to stay at Nyanya, on the outskirts of Abuja, you have to ensure that he has a good house and car and others that would make him comfortable.Generally, inadequate funding of the judiciary may be the reason the panel has not been able to perform its constitutional function.How do you react to the recent arrest of some journalists over the publication of a letter alleged to be seditious by some security agents'The action is condemnable. I don't think it is right for security agencies to take laws into their hands. If you look at the recent history of how we got here, we had seen such manner of arrest and prosecution in the past. But this is democracy, whatever the issues are, I think there should have been due process. The security agents should not have been high-handed in the way and manner the arrest was carried out. That, to me, is the issue. I also understand that in place of some people, others were arrested. Those are issues that have been consigned to the dustbin of history in our socio-economic firmament. Now that it happened, many people have risen against it.Can those arrested seek legal remedy'Yes, it can be a test case. They can really take it up. There have been instances of arrests and unwarranted seizures, let us see what the judiciary will say about it and what the police hierarchy will say in an attempt to defend their actions. It is only when we do that that we can grow. It is only when we subject such cases to judicial ventilations that you can now say, yes, this is what the court has said. That will serve as a deterrent in future. It is even because it happened to the press that the thing was so exposed. It happens daily to the common man who does nothing but to cry. I think our entire Police Force needs re-orientation.The removal of fuel subsidy has attracted a lot of comments. As a commercial lawyer, is there any legal backing for subsidy'The issue of subsidy has been a bolus. I am at a loss as to what it is really. It is difficult to fathom how this issue of subsidy came about. Let me not confuse you by saying that I don't really know what the government is trying to say but the plausibility of it is what baffles me.The government is saying: 'we bring these things at this amount, then because of that, we have to sell at this amount, andbecause of the distance between the imported product and thesale, we have to pay somebody that imports this'. So that cycle is what I don't really understand. As an oil-producing nation, does it stand to reason that something that is found in our soil is now being subsidised for us to buy' The dynamics is what I don't know. There is something hidden somewhere that we really don't know. Will there really be an end to subsidy even if you say, the removal will lead to the price of fuel selling for N200 today' The answer is hanging in the air. What is subsidy'It really agitates me. If you compare the price of what we pay for fuel with a country such as Dubai (it also has oil), it is almost at par and nobody is talking. I think the fact that our refineries are not working has accentuated the so-called subsidy issue. We have to think outside the box, that we have to protect our local consumption of fuel and know that it is our crude oil that is taken from Nigeria, that is being recycled and provide a way to beat that subsidy by inventing a process where an importer is sold crude to at a subsidised rate, so that when the crude comes back as fuel, nobody will talk of subsidy.To me, it is not really the end of the issue. What is our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as compared to the other places'Our problem has not been the absence of resources. Even with the fuel subsidy argument, there is a move for the government to create a Sovereign Wealth Fund, which to me, is a well-thought out plan. We should not spend all the profits that we make. Can we harmonise removal of subsidy and the creation of Sovereign Wealth Fund' If the subsidy is much, where is theexcess to put on the Sovereign Wealth Fund' I think that government has to be sincereand be open to us. One, we want to know those that are benefiting from the fuel subsidy. If the government wants to be transparent and carry the citizens along, it should open the book and let us know because the removal of fuel subsidy will touch everybody and its reverberation will impact on every facet of the economy.
Click here to read full news..
