Chief Justice, Mariam Aloma Mukhtar, pushed her anti-corruption efforts a notch higher, the other day, when she sought to identify forces fostering illicit activities in the judiciary. According to the CJN, lawyers, particularly Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), working in tandem with corrupt judges are equally corrupt. And her point basically that there are no corrupt judges without corrupt lawyers is incontrovertible. If the Bench stinks of corruption, the Bar may stink even more, a situation that poses grave danger to the entire legal profession and dispensation of justice. Considering the notion that the judiciary is the last hope, the only avenue for the ordinary citizen seeking justice and fairness if all else fails, the CJN’s assertions should be worrisome to all Nigerians.
Justice Mukhtar was not saying anything that any casual watcher of development in the judiciary did not know. If anyone was to get close to a judge with an instant to corruptly prevent justice, it would most probably be a lawyer. In any event, corrupt judges would rather trust a known lawyer to deal with than an unknown litigant who could betray “the deal” and open the lid for public inquiry. When the lawyer in liaison with a corrupt judge is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), the stake is higher and the depth of corruption must be really grave.
Speaking at the opening session of a conference on judicial reforms organized by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), in conjunction with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and some Non-Governmental Organisations, the Chief Justice accused SANs working in tandem with corrupt judges being investigated by the National Judicial Council (NJC) of being guilty of corruption and misconduct. She cited a particular instance where a judge accused of corruption invited about six SANs to represent him before the NJC.
The conference on judicial reforms in which the Chief Justice spoke could not have come at a better time in view of dwindling public confidence in the judiciary. It is indeed noteworthy and commendable that Chief Justice Mukhtar has waged a relentless war on corruption in the judiciary since she assumed office.
Lawyers may very well hide under the guise of their rules of professional practice to defend anyone that seeks their legal representation and the issue of fair hearing which some of the judges being investigated raise is always germane to the cause of justice. Nevertheless, the CJN’s position remains a call on lawyers to be more alert to their responsibility as ministers in the temple of justice. Where senior lawyers rise to defend judges accused of corruption to the extent that the accusation is not allowed to see the light of day, let alone the accused judge allowed to defend himself, there is obvious danger to law and order. In such a situation, the society is threatened and ordinary law abiding citizens are not motivated to remain so; indeed they are encouraged to embrace impunity, knowing that the judiciary can be compromised.
Against this backdrop, the desire by lawyers, through the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), to be part of the process of making judicial appointments, is welcome. However, while the desire is legitimate, perhaps potentially useful in getting the best judicial personnel, the NBA ought to first purge itself of the demeaning actions of some of their members, particularly among SANs. The association so far, has not demonstrated a willingness or desire to demand the best of discipline and honesty of their members, a situation that cannot support their wish to be part of the process of appointing judges.
There may be a need, for instance, for the association to set up machinery to examine cases of suspected connivance of lawyers with erring judges. This may be independent of, or in conjuncture with the National Judicial Council. And where such illegal connivance is established, the lawyers involved should be made to face the wrath of the law. No effort should be spared in restoring the dignity of the legal profession which obviously has been stained by a few corrupt members. The judiciary can only be the last hope if the institution is above board and clearly seen to be so.
To this end, it is important to note that the CJN, at the same forum, hinted that the NJC would soon issue guidelines for appointment of judges in furtherance of the efforts to ensure that only good men and women are appointed.
But such guidelines, relevant as they may be, should not portray the body as a central appointing organ. Rather, the rules should only be made to complement the screening responsibilities of the appointing bodies, including the President, governors, the Judicial Service Commission, the legislature, and of course, the NJC. The council may set rules beyond appointments, to the maintenance of acceptable conduct by all serving judicial officers. The NJC must, however, avoid the temptation of giving insufficient allowance for those accused of corruption or misconduct to defend themselves. The fair hearing doctrine is a constitutional grundnorm to the dispensation of justice; and where it is breached in any manner, will always be a ground for the accused to cry foul, using every means at his disposal, including lawyers and SANs.
Corruption, as the CJN noted, is a cankerworm that has refused to go and at its present scale, the nation can hardly survive it. All efforts must be mustered to fight it and the judiciary must be corruption’s number one enemy.
