What really is unveiling in the last one week or thereabout is disturbing as allegation of compromise of the institution of judiciary has become a regular item in public discourse.
While it is disturbing when such allegations are made during the election petitions period, it is more worrisome when the institution is not spared even when there are no elections.
The issue of Rivers State has brought to the fore again the issue of compromise of the judiciary.
The ways and manners orders are flying between Port Harcourt and Abuja is mind boggling, to the extent that each dramatis personae now appears to have his preferred jurisdiction.
Politicians may not be cured of the malaise of wanting to influence all institutions to serve their personal political interests, but an institution that cannot survive perception of compromise is the judiciary.
It is an old aphorism that Caesar’s wife must be above board and our judicial officers must be able to resist politician’s destructive influences.
The case of the judiciary dancing to the tune of the highest bidder or bowing to primordial influences of power is that of an institution preparing itself for self-immolation.
It is a case of a sword destroying its home and claiming it is injuring the scabbard. Once the public loses confidence completely in the institution, no one takes his case there and the outcome is settlement of disputes by self-help.
We are all now living witnesses to comic statements, often genuinely now made in the country, “go to court”, the implication of which is simply to proceed to court to waste your time, or obtain injustice.
This depicts the helplessness and hopelessness the institution for the administration of justice has been reduced to. As most commentators now put it, the judiciary is the lost hope of the common man.
This speaks volume to the precarious situation of the judiciary.
In my X (Twitter) intervention of last Sunday, I had called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to rise up to the occasion that is fast leading to the demise of the institution.
It is gladdening to read the very next day the setting up of a panel by the Council to probe, not only the conflicting judgments of the different courts on the Rivers State issues, but the embarrassment and ridicule the judicial institution is being subjected to.
In that intervention, I demanded that the Council must probe situations in which political litigants leave the natural territory of dispute only to institute cases in another unconnected jurisdiction.
No case of forum shopping can be worse than what we are experiencing now. Beyond the abuse of jurisdictions, some judicial officers are also getting reputed to be highly disposed to giving favourable decisions to whomsoever can grease their greed.
The authorities cannot pretend to be unaware of such perception of the public. Discreet efforts must be made to fish out such officials otherwise the regulatory authorities would not be different from the proverbial ostrich.
In addition, as these extremely few continue to smear the comfortable majority of the judges who are above board, I also pray that the clean judges resist the attempt to be guilty by association by exposing the bad eggs.
They need, through whatever means, to start exculpating themselves. In the sanitization exercise, we must not leave out the culpable lawyers, particularly seniors that are involved in the sleezy practice?
As gladdening as it is to hear of the establishment of the panel, this is not the first time we are witnessing this without any remarkable change.
All eyes are, therefore, on the Chief Justice of Nigeria, and by extension, the Council on this.
As widely acknowledged, justice is rooted in perception. The situation the dramatis personae have driven the institution to is deplorable.
Although, it is common knowledge that for some time now, the institution is wobbling but we must not permit it to collapse, as predicted by some prophets of doom.
As I write this piece, I must confess that I am in a depressed state. The depression is borne out of the multiple and several afflictions beleaguering the judiciary and the dispensation of justice in the country.
It seems that as we address one, several others are creeping in. The scenario is now partaking of the Yoruba proverb that, egbinrin ote, bi a se n pa ‘kan, n’’kan n ru.
Nothing could be so frustrating as to be crusading over an institution, while the institution is not reciprocating by way of impressive conduct, at least by way of perception.
This is truly my predicament. I believe so much in the judiciary as an institution, not merely because I am legal practitioner but due to my love for justice.
As recommended by the prophetic tradition in Islam, my religion, I am ever prepared to die for the cause of justice. If there is anything I cannot endure, it is injustice.
I have actively and practically spent almost four decades of my life, not only in pursuit of justice in Nigeria but have equally been sermonizing justice by way of lectures at all levels.
This certainly is not out of joblessness but for the love of the institution.
When I now notice the institution eclipsing, I get devastated.
As I remarked above, it is certainly no news that the image of the institution has for some time now been under scrutiny, to put it mildly and courteously; but it becomes worrisome where the triggers are unabating, but rather festering.
One is further bewildered as all the efforts of genuine stakeholders are gaining not so much traction. It is now becoming a case of the more we struggle to salvage the situation, the more the situation is degenerating.
The tearful situation is best appreciated when one realizes that the only permanent institution/organ of governance is the judiciary.
While in any military intervention, the executive and the legislature are often causalities, the judiciary is usually insulated.
This further underscores the significance of the institution. When, in spite of the greatness of the institution then, operators of the institution appear not to cherish the inherent virtue by denigrating it through their acts and conducts, it becomes shameful and saddening for all of us.
In contemporary times, I must say that what we ought to be witnessing is improved brand of the institution, not a degenerating one.
Gone were the days that My Lords, the judicial officers, were being paid peanuts; that their emoluments could not take them home, but now due to the concerted efforts of many stakeholders, we can say conveniently that their current emoluments can at least take them home.
Arising from this ‘benevolence’, if I am to situate it in that manner, the temptations to be complicit or corrupt ought to reduce, as I know elimination could be a mirage.
By this, I am not generalizing as I am sure, and I know that those involved in these acts of compromise/escapades are in the extreme minority.
With the crusade for living wage attaining a safe terminus, we have resuscitated the struggle for the total financial autonomy for the judiciary, though still dragging, we are quite positive that, in due course, that will equally be achieved.
The need for this is becoming daily imminent as the independence of the judiciary is continuously threatened. It is financial dependency that is the source of the present disparaging state of the institution.
Two areas I will adopt in illustrating the challenges associated with this. The first area is the enhancement of the capacity of judicial officers.
Although there is the National Judicial Institute, amongst others, that are meant to constantly update the knowledge of judicial officers, chronic underfunding has been the bane of the realization of its mandate.
In view of the fact that this is a noticeable fact, opportunistic organizations, particularly government parastatals and agencies are catching in on the lacunae.
Under the pretext of building capacity of judicial officers by sponsoring training programs, they are tacitly compromising the integrity of the institution.
How does one explain a situation in which these organizations that are parties in litigation before the judicial officers are the sponsors of their training programs? In a whole lot of the capacity programs, the staff equally participates alongside the judicial officers, at times even constituting part of the faculty.
They indoctrinate the manner and ways their matters should be handled or treated through the said training. This , in my humble view, is against the tenets of justice.
Why not allow other litigants that are willing to sponsor such capacity building programs to come in also, so as to maintain the balance of the scale of justice?
I hate to deceive myself or pretend not to see the reality. Judges and litigants are human beings with natural tendencies.
The worst aspect of such engagements is the payment of what is considered to be allowances by the organizations.
How do we describe this? Compensation or advancement? I believe this is not tidy enough and must be discouraged. In other respects, they supply judicial officers with extraordinary ‘gifts” couched as logistics support.
Due to this largesse, some go to any length, regardless of being arbiter, in pleading the cases of the organizations.
I have had cause in several instances in contending that bribery is not limited to exchange of cash. It transcends that border into peddling of influence and unofficial provision of comfort.
The truth is that the fund the organizations are using for this purpose of capacity building is certainly public fund that is appropriated for by the organization.
The challenge I have is that since the fund is from the same source through which the National Judicial Institute derives its funding, why is it impossible to consolidate the funds under the training fund of the Institute directly at the parliamentary level?
This is the plausible way of eliminating any form of probable or real bias.
The other instance of our narrative is that of ‘he who pays the piper, dictates the tune’. In so far as the executive continues to serve as the treasury of the judiciary, the independence of the judiciary will continue to be impaired.
Since my days in constitutional law class, I have been hearing of the drive to enthrone financial autonomy for the judiciary without which its independence will continue to be endangered and elusive.
Since that period of over three decades ago, till date, not much has happened in terms of achieving financial autonomy for the judiciary.
This explains why the executive, and in recent times, the legislature, continue to take advantage of the precarious situation of the judiciary.
It will be recalled that in the pursuit of the desire, the Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) embarked on a strike action lasting months on the issue; this is quite apart from the judgments of courts involving JUSUN and Chief Olisa Agbakoba, SAN respectively on the issue. I equally recalled that there was a memorandum of understanding executed with the Governors to implement the resolution on ensuring financial autonomy for the judiciary, the implementation of which was to be monitored by the National Judicial Council.
I was a member of the monitoring committee of the Council before my exit as a member. The status and progress of the committee is unascertainable. There was also an Executive Order of the former President Buhari to the same effect.
The whole rationale behind all these struggles is to ensure and maintain the impartiality of the judicial officers. Recent events, as painted above, have thrown up the challenge again with the rampage of some political office holders discharging their mandate in a manner suggestive of favouring the judiciary.
Must official provision of vehicles for the judicial officials necessitates the presence of the entire compliment of the judiciary led by the Chief Judge? Where is that done? Where have you seen the launch of vehicles for the cabinet members? What is the big deal in providing the entitlement of the judicial officials with fanfare? What is the joy in it that merits such celebration? Is this not an insult to the institution? Why must the judiciary kowtow to such obnoxious practices?
At times, the foundation of a building that will never finish must attract the presence of judicial officials, are they administrative staff? The point I am struggling to make is that now, more than ever before, we must liberate the judiciary from the shackles of the other arms.
Financial autonomy for the judiciary is a must. The good news is that there is ongoing constitutional amendment which can put paid to the challenge.
If anyone or entity feels that it is enjoying the status quo, it is a matter of time for such person or entity to realize his/its folly. It must be noted that positions or offices are ever transient. Occupiers of office will leave ultimately, or the office leaves them.
This is the reality of life that speaks to the need to ensure propriety in our dealings and affair, wherever position we find ourselves.
This is my simple admonition and plea.
