The admonition the other day by the new Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmud Mohammed, against the practice of lawyers using legal advocacy to frustrate due administration of justice is a direct identification of a problem of the legal profession in the country. Not only does the CJN’s charge touch on the root of corruption in the judiciary, it underscores the need for legal practitioners to look more inward for an enduring solution. Certainly, Chief Justice Mohammed has again struck a chord underlining his mission to reposition the judiciary.
During a courtesy call on him by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) leadership, the CJN charged the association to call to order its members who habitually compromise the judges and to consequently pervert justice. In his words: “I want to use this opportunity to urge the bar to put the interest of the system far and above individuals. Imagine this scenario: you, in the Bar decry the rot in the Bench. Yet, you are the first to jump to the court to seek restraining order on NJC to stop it from investigation and trial of a judge based on petition brought against him before the council. How then is the principle of fair hearing sustained?”
He also drew attention to some strictures in the judicial review process such that allow abuse of interlocutory injunctions and wasteful appeals, asking the NBA leadership to be involved in constitution review process and to seek amendment to core clauses relating to the judiciary in ways that would enhance its efficiency and integrity. Besides, he urged the NBA to intervene in the judicial crisis in Rivers State, where, due to disagreement between the governor and the National Judicial Council (NJC) over appointment of the state chief judge, the state has been left without a chief judge for several months.
The CJN is right on target, notwithstanding the fact that lawyers may ordinarily be caught in the conflicting web of protecting the rights of their clients, and serving honestly as a minister in the temple of justice. The truth is that self-service and corruption are the major reasons behind the lawyers’ practice to frustrate due process. Such actions are invariably embarked upon with disregard to the sanctity of the judiciary as the last hope of the common man; and as an institution that all citizens, particularly lawyers, should strive always to protect from any form of denigration.
The other day, the Chief Justice took a swipe at the prosecutors, whom he indicted for being responsible for the delay of cases burdening the judicial review process. He warned then that special courts would not be the solution; rather it should be sought in the personnel managing the judicial process.
While the issue of corruption in the judiciary is not new, particularly in the past few years when many judicial personnel (including judges) have been sanctioned, it remains germane for its far-reaching adverse consequences. It is wrong for lawyers to act as liaising agents between the judge and their clients; just as much as the judges who take bribe are guilty. Indeed, both the briber and taker are guilty of corruption. The CJN’s admonition is relevant because there should be continuous soul-searching in the judiciary; it is good both for the system and for the sustainability of the hope that the judiciary represents. Without its integrity and efficiency, anarchy would be let loose in the country.
The system needs to be improved. Despite the ascription of the constraints of the justice system to key actors in the system, there may be need to bring back the jury system to unburden the process, if it will help achieve the desired status. To be sure, corruption thrives where there is delay in the dispensation of justice. But it will also thrive where the likelihood of injustice being meted on a party is so manifestly high. This is unfortunately the case in Nigeria today. The prisons are congested due to awaiting trial inmates, many of who are innocent but made to suffer unjustly due to the delay in the dispensation of justice. As the worn saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. All hands must be on deck to free the justice system in the country from the systemic and agency induced constraints. Sanity in the judiciary will rebound to the health of the polity as a whole.
Given the weight of the CJN’s charge, the lawyers under their umbrella organisation should speak out and be part of the soul-searching train. Self-criticism is healthy for the NBA and the judicial system of which it is a part. Lawyers do have their drawbacks. But instead of seeking to prolong cases that are otherwise hopeless, they should frankly advise their clients to lay to rest such cases and free the review process of unnecessary encumbrances. Beyond mutual recrimination, both the Bar and the Bench should work together to reposition the judiciary as the third tier of government. Achieving such outcome lies in unity of purpose.
It is equally important that the NJC does its work well and prevent lawyers from disrupting the judicial review process through compromising behaviours. The council should inure itself from undue politicisation.
