- Need for speedy action to decongest our courts
The National Judicial Council (NJC) has successfully held its 91st meeting, online. It was the first of its kind, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the meeting, the council recommended the appointment of Justice M. B. Dongban as the substantive President of the Court of Appeal. The council also recommended the appointment of 69 other judges as either the heads of court, or judicial officers. The appointments span the federal and state arms of the judiciary.
In accordance with the 1999 constitution (as amended), the ball is now in the court of the respective process of the executives at the federal and state arms of the government, to complete the process of appointing the judicial officers. We urge the respective executives to treat the recommendations expeditiously, and if there are no genuine reasons to withhold the approval of any of the recommendations, the various judicial officers should be confirmed so that they can get down to business.
There is no doubt that the judiciary is depopulated at the various levels. The result is that matters linger in court for eons, and that clearly impacts negatively on Nigeria as the preferred destination for foreign investment. Locally, the confidence in the judiciary is also affected by the delay, and in a number of instances, there is the resort to self-help, since the judiciary is slow to come to the aid of potential litigants.
Another clear evidence of the slowness of our judicial process is the delay in the criminal justice system, which substantially affects the fight against corruption. Even with the effort to create specialised courts, delays are still evident, substantially because the number of cases assigned to the judicial officers are still very high. So, the appointment of more judges, hopefully, would improve the dispensation of justice, both for the accused and the state, especially in matters pertaining to corrupt practices.
Again, the welfare of the judicial officers would improve with the increase in the number of judges, particularly as it affects their health. A diligent judge who has too many cases in his docket, would in an effort to dispense the matters expeditiously work himself to ill-health, if not death. Those who are laid-back either treat matters lackadaisically or allow them to linger. In both instances, the state pays a huge price, from the poor dispensation of justice.
We need to urgently fill vacancies at the high courts. Also at the Court of Appeal, there is the need to increase the number of justices. This need is usually very evident during election petition cycles, when, in an effort to meet up with the constitutional time limit for the dispensation of election petitions, other matters are left to suffer undue delay.
To make matters worse, cases at the Court of Appeal linger ordinarily for as long as a decade, and no doubt, such delays affect the public confidence in the judicial system. While litigating through the Court of Appeal takes as much as that long, it is even worse in the Supreme Court. There, it takes, in some instances, 15 to 20 years to dispense a case; and that clearly is justice delayed.
Not long ago, we urged the president to assent to the pending nominations made by the NJC for the Supreme Court. We reiterate that call, and urge the president to expeditiously attend to all the pending nominations from the NJC, in the interest of the rule of law. The case of the Supreme Court is even more expedient, so that the court will have enough justices to muster two full panels. Delay is dangerous in these matters.
