A legal practitioner and law publisher, Mr. Layi Babatunde, SAN, is one of the few lawyers advocating for reforms in the judiciary. He is also the publisher of Supreme Court Law Reports. With the recent happenings in the country, the legal luminary, in this interview with Ayodele Olalere, he bares his on the state of the judiciary as well as measures to be taken to reform the sector. He also spoke on how politicians are fueling corruption in the temple of justice
|
|
With all that is happening in the country today, especially the current crisis over the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, would you say that the three arms of government are truly independent, as enshrined in the constitution?
What I can say is that it can be better managed, in the sense that if you look at the provisions of the constitution, sections 4, 5 and 6, they seem to follow after each other, but they are not alike. They are like neighbours, occupying different compounds, perhaps, demarcated by fences, to use that illustration. In anyway, they are not even similar, in terms of the responsibilities and what is expected of each of them. And I think in the case of the judiciary, it is with a view to further strengthening their independence and ensure none interference, that the National Judicial Council, NJC, was also separately provided for in the constitution. The NJC is constitutionally empowered to handle issues of appointment, promotions and discipline of judicial officers. So in essence, to a very large extent the constitution envisages that the judiciary, the executive, the legislature, of course they co-habit, within the system, but they are supposed to be independent in their actions.
By practice, the president still appoints the CJN, with recommendation from the NJC, and some people have reasoned that if someone is responsible for appointing someone into a certain position, then the person so appointed won’t really be independent?
If you look at the procedure for appointment, I do not think it is as simplistic and straightforward as that. It is a chain of processes. At the federal level, the president doesn’t start by recommending anybody for judicial appointment. The president doesn’t do that. It is the NJC, for instance, that recommends a person to be appointed into the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria; President of the court of appeal etc, after which they are screened by the legislature and if found fit, further sent to the president to be appointed. So, it’s a combo sort of to use that word.
READ ALSO:Atiku’s going to court would expose APC – Enwenerem
But does that still also not interfere with the independence of the judiciary?
Not exactly, in a way it doesn’t. Because the judiciary on their own, through the Federal Judicial Service Commission, SJSC or FJSC, as the case may be and the NJC, they spot the candidate, look at their paper work, then they recommend them. They look at their pedigree and recommend them. They will ask them questions and they will look at their background and their pedigree and then if they consider them suitable, they will say ok you are good to go and then it goes to the next stage, then to the president’s table in the case of the CJN; president of the court of appeal etc. Neither the head of the legislature nor the executive branch tells the NJC ab initio who to recommend for appointment.
The suspension and removal of anybody, does it also have to follow that process?
If you talk about removal, it also emanates from the NJC, and goes through the process. In terms of the CJN, of course, it involves the legislature in ceramic circumstances. The fundamental thing is that it is the NJC that recommends the removal of the judge, even for judges who are in the states. If anyone has a complaint against a judge and believes strongly that a judge is not worthy of his calling and ought to be removed from the branch, he sends a petition against such a judge and the NJC will deal with the petition on its merit.
So, anybody that has an issue must come before the NJC, then NJC will take the decision?
The issues of appointment, promotion and discipline, is strictly for NJC. There are judicial authorities in support of this position.
So you mean there is no interference from any other body?
It is the NJC that looks at issues and then take a decision and then put it forward for the appropriate authority to implement if you will. It may not be a perfect process because the NJC is itself listed in the constitution as one of the federal executive bodies, ditto the CCT (Code of Conduct Tribunal). Perhaps these are some of the issues to be looked at in the future as our democracy matures. The independence of the judiciary should not be toyed with but reinforced.
READ ALSO:Investors fret as Lagos defaults on N4.85bn Green Note Issue
What would you say was the idea behind it?
To be honest with you, I don’t know what informed it. But on one hand, I get the impression that the intension is to ensure that the judiciary should be able to function, without any interference from outside bodies. But when you now have the NJC, and you say its part of the federal executive bodies, there is something to be looked at in that regard and very closely. May be it has to do with funding.
The current crisis between the presidency and the judiciary over allegations of non-declaration of asset by the suspended CJN has thrown up issue of corruption in the judiciary. As a senior lawyer, how corrupt is the judiciary and what is the nature of corruption you find in the judiciary?
I do not wish to comment on the ongoing proceedings for obvious reasons, but the point must not be missed that what is before the CCT are allegations, bordering on assets declaration, not bribe taking or perversion of justice. Having said that, the truth of it is that, in spite of the challenges, the judiciary has been more forthcoming than other arms of government in exposing and punishing its members found to be corrupt or otherwise wanting. From the NJC output, it appears that a number of the casualties are victims of corrupt practices related to the conduct of election petitions.
They probably could do more in swiftly fishing out and punishing bad eggs on the bench. So, to the extent that the NJC has shown some judges the exit door on grounds of corruption, it does not require my saying that there is corruption in order to validate what is already in public knowledge and is being addressed. How effective it has been is a different question. At least, the judiciary admits there are enemies within and they are making efforts to deal with the situation. The legislature and the executive will do well to look inwards too so that we can cover the field as it were.
However, the fact that the NJC has punished some judicial officers for corruption and some others are yet to be identified and sent packing is no justification for branding the entire judiciary as corrupt and rotten. That will be unfair to the majority of judges who are hardworking and honest too. As the NADL pointed out in their well circulated statement ‘Nigerians must realize that sleaze is not the defining characteristic of the Nigerian Judiciary’.
Come to think of it, if the reverse were to be the case, every practising lawyer will probably have explanations to make as to whether or not they are bribe givers. But I know from my experience in practice that is not the case. That is not to say there are no bad egg; there are. It’s our duty to decimate their number, working with the NJC. It is indeed a time for sober reflection for the bar and the bench. This is not a time to play to the gallery.
Most of the corruption cases against judges usually involve politicians, why do you think this is so?
I think it is the nature of do-or-die politics politicians practise in this country. For most politicians, it is do-or-die. They want to get whatever position they are aspiring for at any cost and see the judges as obstacles to be overcome by all means possible. It is unfortunate that they sometimes find some willing judges and justices who play along with them. But I think those in the judiciary are already learning their lessons because when the chips are down, it is the judges and justices that gets punished and nothing happens to the politicians. Some of the politicians on account of which some justices were punished and sent packing are still on the ballot or party leaders.
How do you think the judiciary and by extension judges and justices can handle this sinister encroachment by politicians?
The Bar and the Bench has to come together to fashion out a workable solution. Even retired judges with institutional memory can be of tremendous help. A lot of them are still around and their experience will be of tremendous benefits. We have to come together to ensure that politicians don’t create political wings on the Bench. The work of the judiciary is too sensitive for us to stand aloof and allow people to deal with it the way they want to, by ensuring that they get their boys and supporters appointed into the Bench. You cannot use judiciary for political compensation. You can’t do that because the bench is meant for the best, the diligent, courageous, and industrious and those not lacking in integrity. If we allow people who are being pushed unto the Bench, so that politicians can fall back to them later in life, we are all going to be in trouble. And the Bar and the Bench must work together to arrest this situation. You cannot use judicial appointment as compensation for your political lackeys and ‘Man know Man’.
In the interest of the future of our profession, and the need to deliver justice unpolluted, the Bar and the Bench need to come together and stand firm against the onslaught on the judiciary by politicians. It is in our best interest and if we fail to do so, the consequences will be disastrous.
We need to do something about the perceived rupture of trust between us the consumers of our service; the general public. Doing something about it means that only the best of us end up on the bench and those who find their way there somehow and are not doing well are removed. Trust is very key in justice delivery and we must work hard at building and nurturing it
Financial autonomy is still a major challenge for the judiciary. Do you think there is a need to rethink the constitution in other to solve this challenge?
I think as at today, what is required is the political will to give vent to financial independence for the judiciary. There is so much talk about financial independence but in actual fact, it is not being carried out. I believe that if the Bar and the Bench work together, we can defeat the problem.
Some people have suggested a political solution to the current CJN trial. Do you subscribe to this?
We can’t speak from both sides of our mouth. This issue is before the NJC. Under our constitution, they are empowered to deal with the issues that have been referred to them. My candied opinion is that let us wait for the outcome. The Justice Salami, former President of the Court of Appeal saga should remind us of the danger of the judiciary playing into the hands of the executive. We should not carry on as if we learnt no lessons.
The Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, has made some interventions on the current issue involving the suspended CJN. How would you access the effectiveness of the NBA in tackling national issues in the country?
The NBA intervened in its own way as soon as it could and I believe the process is still ongoing. However, I believe NBA has to revise its strategy, such that we are not merely reactive but pro-active in a number of ways. The Justice Salami saga for instance provided a good opportunity for us to have addressed some of the problems that challenge the relationship between executive and judiciary but we seem to have lost the opportunity.
Is there any forum where judges and lawyers come together to interact and set a common goal?
I think we need to make the activities of the Bar less ceremonial and more serious in nature. Sometimes we have functions like the Bar and the Bench forum, but they look more to me like events than a consistent process geared towards attaining particular goals in the overall interest of the profession and justice delivery that inspires confidence. It’s a forum that we need to strengthen and build on. Co-operation between the Bar and the Bench as a group does not translate to compromise of cases.
Some have suggested that retired judges and justices be appointed to handle petition matter. Do you agree with this suggestion?
I think it is an idea that should be seriously considered. I know that there was an argument in the past that if we engage retired justices and issues come up, the NJC may not be able to discipline them because they are no longer under the NJC control. But I believe that that is something that can be dealt with. If you are a retired judge and you go and sit on a tribunal, and you are corrupt, the ICPC and EFCC can always take up the matter. If we have the tribunal comprising of retired judges and justices, then there is no harm in also engaging respected members of the society, people of unquestionable integrity to serve on the tribunal. After all in the composition of the NJC, there are non-lawyers as members. Of course there are issues to be looked at but I think it is worth given serious consideration. The idea of removing several judges from their various jurisdictions and their regular court schedule to serve on tribunals is a major cause of delay and congestion in courts.
