The immediate past President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Okey Wali, at the opening ceremony of the NBA Judiciary Committee’s judicial reforms conference held in Abuja on Monday, July 7, 2014, broached a critical issue that impugned the integrity of our judiciary when he stated: “…there is a development in our judiciary that needs some attention, and that is organisation and funding of conferences for some courts within and outside the country by some organizations like AMCON (Assets Management Company of Nigeria) and EFCC (Economic and Financial Crimes Commission), litigants or prosecutors before these courts. This is quite disturbing. Like Caesar’s wife, our courts must not only be above board, but they must, at all times, be seen to be above board”. Recall that the theme of the said conference was, ‘‘Putting our best foot forward: Judiciary and the challenges of satisfying justice needs of the 21st Century’’.
Terse as Wali’s remark would seem, it has sparked a running controversy on how the judiciary manages its independence as an arm of government distinct from the executive and the legislature. Chief Yemi Okulaja (SAN), in March this year, openly challenged a Federal High Court judge at a seminar organised for judges of the court by AMCON, which many considered unethical. “What they are doing is unethical, and judges should know better. You, who will judge and decide cases of others, should not be the breaker of the law”, Okulaja lamented in an interview he granted on the subject.
AMCON, for example, was established by an Act of the National Assembly in 2010. But some of the powers vested in it, such as seizing, confiscating or detaining the assets of debtors through mere exparte application, are viewed by legal luminaries as draconian, strange and subject to abuse. It has been argued, for example, that through such unlimited powers, AMCON can make a claim for a certain amount of money and seize property in satisfaction of the amount allegedly owed without informing the debtor in question. But if it turned out that the debtor did not owe AMCON or did not owe as much as was stated in the claim, the debtor would have to be in court to establish this position. In the process, the business of the alleged debtor would have been ruined before the situation is redressed.
Worse still, the nation’s judiciary has been strongly accused of pandering to the whims and caprices of AMCON since the latter’s establishment, as well as acting as if it is the enforcement arm of the assets management body. The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, according to reports, issued the AMCON Practice Directions 2013, which created an AMCON Track Court and an AMCON Track Judge. Clause 1 (2) of the AMCON rules states that an AMCON Track Court, for example, “must administer, apply, construe and interpret these directions purposively and holistically to secure the efficient and speedy determination of every AMCON’s claim”. The rules also provide that “all proceedings in AMCON’s claims should be conducted from day to day, every week day, but the court may, in the interest of justice, sit on Saturdays”. The emphasis is on ‘speedy determination of every AMCON’s claim’ without any reference to dispensing justice to all parties involved. Quite strange, indeed! At best, what such a practice direction can yield is abridged justice, in other words, justice for AMCON alone. Other parties can go to hell! We think this is an aberration the judiciary should reverse without further delay.
Mention had earlier been made of seminars being organised for judges by AMCON and other extra-judicial bodies, which represent a glaring assault on the responsibilities of the National Judicial Institute (NJI). On two occasions, it has been alleged, AMCON organised seminars for ‘its’ (AMCON) judges at a Lagos hotel, perhaps to review AMCON’s practice directions. Free accommodation, feeding and transport were provided for the judges with an allowance of $5,000 each. If this is true, the judiciary has stringed the rope to hang itself; and the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhtar, should step forward immediately to save the judiciary from further embarrassment. It is ridiculous that the judiciary is seriously craving to be independent as an arm of government, on the one hand, but on the other, it is cheapening and making itself available as a pliable tool in the hands of the agencies of the executive. This mistake has to be redressed most urgently.
In order to further protect our judiciary from executive, legislative and political interference, a Jury legal system should be introduced so as to give the power of interpreting the logic of a case for the court, to the masses.
Inspite of our seeming loathsome to the concept, most seemingly because it is foreign, I candidly believe it would rid Nigerians of the jungle justice mentality, help us be more objective and give us a sense of partnership in the Nigerian project.
Of course, these same judicial officers want to remain in the good books of the government of the day, hence many would do the needful to protect the pipers, however, if we remove most of these moral burdens of choosing between what’s right and wrong, or if to serve justice for the masses or skew it for the oligarchs, we can help them develop a conscience by our own interpretation and stance for the truth.
Justice is the last hope for the common man, so why doesn’t the common man become a custodian of the law through JURY judicial system?