Painting a gloomy picture, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmud Mohammed, has decried the high volume of pending cases at the registry of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. In his overview of the pendency rate, Mohammed lamented that the Supreme Court alone had 5,000 cases waiting to be decided. Some of the cases were instituted in 2005, he said. This threatens efficiency and the timely delivery of justice.
It is argued that the executive and the legislature are the branches of government that should facilitate an effective and efficient judicial system. And, for the most part, this is right.But when these two branches continually fall short in ensuring that the judicial arm of government runs smoothly, judges have to devise a means to step in and decongest the courts.
To clear the backlog, Mohammed needs to embark on a bold reform of the system. Anything short of this will bog down the justice system further and ultimately prolong the agony of appellants. Litigants are undergoing excruciating delays, although they are in the courts to seek succour. They need to be lifted out of their nightmares, and the way to do this is for Mohammed to energise a new order that will lead to a quick dispensation of justice.
The CJN, who assumed office last November, said at a forum organised by the Nigerian Bar Association, “As of the third quarter of 2014, there were 38,307 cases pending in the Federal Courts alone. If one considers the number of cases pending in State High Courts and other courts of record, you will all agree with me that the situation is indeed disturbing and sobering. At the Supreme Court, there were over 800 appeals filed in 2014 alone, with another 10 appeals filed already in 2015 alone.”
In truth, some of the cases have been tried for decades, with parties involved no closer to getting judgement. According to statistics from the Court of Appeal, 900 cases were instituted between 2013 and 2014 alone. This is discouraging. Some of the litigants have died in the process. This can lead to unpleasant consequences for the society, especially if delay is being seen as a deliberate ploy to frustrate a party in a dispute.
In a particularly distressing dispute over the traditional stool of Somji, Pankshin Local Government Area, Plateau State, it took 31 years for judgement to be delivered. Strikingly, all the parties involved in the case, which was initially instituted at a lower court in 1984, had died before the final Supreme Court judgement on February 13, 2015. The CJN should do all within his power to fast-track our justice delivery system.
Mohammed’s tenure will be defined by what he can do to significantly ameliorate the alarming situation. Knowing that his recent predecessors spent a few years in the saddle because of the retirement age, and which could also affect him, the CJN has to move fast. India offers Mohammed a way out. In a deft move, the country created new alternative dispute resolution courts known as Lok Adalats. Through this, 2.4 million cases were resolved between 2001 and 2012. Several European courts have similarly embraced the ADR option.
An area that needs to be dealt with decisively is the issue of indolence among judges. Noticing this in the system, Mohammed’s predecessor, Mariam Aloma-Mukhtar, said in May 2013 that some judges didn’t deliver up to four judgements in a year, and wouldn’t open their courts by 9am. Some even travelled abroad without permission, she said. This is scandalous. A firm administrative procedure by the CJN will alter this scourge of indiscipline among judges.
Apart from indolence, corruption is another monster attenuating performance in the Nigerian judiciary. As far back as 2007, the late Justice of the Supreme Court, Kayode Eso, had warned of the existence of “billionaire judges.” These were arbiters who enriched themselves illegally after the atrocious general election of that year led to massive litigation. As a result of corruption, the justice system is compromised. Judges grant frivolous orders and applications that simply lack merit. To save the system from itself, the National Judicial Council needs to weed out judges who have tainted their robes. In addition, culpable judges have to be prosecuted to deter others.
However, a critical ingredient that can speed up the system is the provision of infrastructure. The advent of digital technology is helping courts around the world to deliver rulings timely. But the fact that the judiciary is still dependent on the executive arm of government for its sustenance is notoriously slowing down the justice system. The financial autonomy for the judiciary, as stated in Sections 121 (3) and 162 (9) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, should be implemented.
With a cautious approach, the CJN needs to embark on a project to modernise the system. The taking of notes in long-hand belongs to the past. The judicial system needs a bottom-up integrated technology network that will aid the judges in their cramped schedules.
Effective justice administration is crucial to the growth of our democracy, which is still standing on a slippery slope. In concert with the Bench, the NBA should have a system that debars lawyers from deliberately frustrating the system, making for a faster regime. For instance, the United Kingdom Supreme Court received 229 applications between April 2012 and March 2013, but granted only 81 applications, heard 120 appeals and delivered 115 judgements.
Also, the parliament should be patriotic to amend the constitution and make some cases – governorship elections for instance – end at the Court of Appeal. This will lessen the burden on the courts.
