Nigeria’s judiciary inefficient, not fit for purpose

February 12, 2023February 13, 2023 Mary

A corrupt judge, said Samson Uwaifo, a retired justice of Nigeria’s Supreme Court, “is more harmful to the society than a man who runs amok with a dagger in a crowded street. While the man with the dagger can be restrained physically, a corrupt judge deliberately destroys the foundation of society”.

In January 2023, the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) announced that 52 ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) of government had declined to respond to the Ethics and Integrity Compliance Scorecard (EICS) deployed in 2022 by the ICPC, and were hence classified as ‘High Corruption Risk’.

Among those so classified were the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the National Judicial Institute.

“Failure to respond to such simple demands by ICPC for reviews or tools to improve operational practices may be symptomatic of a system deficit, impunity or a cover-up for fraud and administrative felonies. This calls for a systems study and review of the MDAs, and where necessary, investigation and other law enforcement interventions,” ICPC warned.

In December 2020, the ICPC said that the judicial sector led the Nigeria Corruption Index between 2018 and 2020. The commission further said that about N9,457,650,000 was offered and paid as bribes by lawyers to judges.

Overall, Bolaji Owasanoye, chairman of the ICPC said that “the justice sector had the highest level of corruption with a score of 63. The level of corruption in the justice sector was heightened by stupendously high amounts of money offered as bribes to judges by lawyers handling high electoral and other political cases.

“Follow-up discussions indicated that the cases of outright demand and offer of bribes are mostly linked to election matters.

“Money involved in the high-level corruption in this sector was categorised into money demanded, offered or paid. Demands are made by court officials, including judges, while lawyers or litigants make bribery offers and payments.

“The total amount of money reported by the justice sector respondents as corruptly demanded, offered and paid between 2018 and 2020 was N9,457, 650,000”.

According to the study, percentage of those most responsible for bribe for judgement cases were: Lawyers (27.17 %); litigants personally (21.96 %) court staff (clerks, registrars etc.)— (21.54 %); judges (16.88 % cent), government MDAs (7.37 %); no experience on the matter (3.06 %); chose not to say (1.01 %), and others 1.01 percent.

Bobby (not real name) works with a Federal Government parastatal. He had previously served as a personal assistant to a justice of the Supreme Court. He admits that he was involved in receiving bribes and inducements on behalf of his principal.

“It started when he became a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal,” he said, “and he invited me to work with him as his personal assistant. We had this discussion in Kaduna, and it was a long discussion about his expectations and my role. This included working with lawyers to receive bribes on his behalf as well as with litigants. They started from several millions and by the time we got to the Supreme Court, we were working with SANs who were offering the high side of tens of millions of naira”.

Bobby says bribes for favourable judgement are rampant in Nigeria’s judicial system. “It is a given that most election cases involve lawyers offering bribes to judges. Of course, there are a few judges who would not take bribes, but I can tell you that they are very few”.

In June 2022, Odein Ajumogobia, Nigeria’s former minister for energy and petroleum resources accused the law firm of one of the senior advocates of Nigeria (SAN) of professional misconduct in the $130 million Rivers State Government vs Saipem SPA, Saipem Contracting Nigeria Limited and Ors case.

One of the partners in the law firm had claimed in her letter to Saipem that her firm’s leading partner was close to Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges and, “the presence of our lead partner in the matter will significantly switch things in favour of Saipem”.

In 2017, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) preferred an 11-count charge bordering on perverting the course of justice and offering gratification to public officials against a senior advocate, Joseph Nwobike. The EFCC alleged that Nwobike offered gratifications to some judges of the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court to influence them to act contrary to their official capacities.

In October 2016, Nigeria’s secret police, the State Security Service (SSS), raided the homes of several judges in six states of the federation arresting and detaining 15 of them.

During the raid, the SSS said it recovered a huge stash of money in local and foreign currencies. Seven judges were arrested, and have since been released on bail.

The National Judicial Council (NJC), the body responsible for recruiting and exercising disciplinary control over judicial officers, rejected a request to investigate the judiciary, citing separation of powers and rule of law.

The NJC also informed the SSS that it was not amenable to “invitations being extended to judicial officers by departments and agencies of government for any reason”.

In May 2022, Ejembi Eko, a retired justice of Nigeria’s Supreme Court bemoaned the corruption and indiscipline that pervades Nigeria’s judiciary.

In a valedictory speech, the retiring justice accused the NJC of applying double standards in the discipline of erring judicial officers.

Eko said that while some judges found culpable of misconduct were barred from getting promotions, others that committed similar breaches had their promotion stalled for some years.

“With all deference to the NJC; the punishment fell short of the expectation of the public that these bad eggs should have been broken or smashed and/or exterminated, to serve as deterrence.

“When the punishment for an outstandingly bad and outrageous conduct is far too lenient, it encourages impunity and/or repeat by others of errant or atrocious misconduct,” he lamented.

In June 2022, Tanko Mohammed, the chief justice of Nigeria resigned, citing ill-health as the reason for his decision. Mohammed had, before his resignation, been denounced by his colleagues at the Supreme Court.

Fourteen Supreme Court judges in a protest memo accused Mohammed of not giving justices their legitimate entitlements.

In response, Mohammed told the judges that the Supreme Court was cash-strapped and cannot grant their requests.

“My Lords, the heads of court in the federation have enormous budgetary resources from which they can improve the welfare of serving judges,” Justice Eko had averred in May 2022 in his valedictory speech

“Nothing stops the office of the auditor-general of the federation, the ICPC and other investigatory agencies from opening the books of the judiciary to expose the corruption in the management of their budgetary resources,” retired Justice Eko posited.

“That does not compromise the independence of the judiciary. Rather, it promotes accountability,” he said in apparent response to people who may claim that such a probe compromises the independence of the judiciary”.

Expressing the lack of financial transparency in the judiciary, Eko said, “As it is, presently, and as the director of budget in the Federal Ministry of Finance disclosed recently at the memorial lecture in honour of the late Abdullahi Ibrahim, SAN, it is baffling that the welfare of judges remains in abject state in spite of the increase of the budgetary allocation to the Judiciary under this regime. Why?

“The said director of budget suggested that the panacea to the often-touted underfunding of the judiciary would be for ‘the judiciary to allow its books to be opened’ by the relevant authorities”.

On February 6, the Supreme Court declared Ahmed Lawan as the All Progressives Congress (APC), authentic candidate for Yobe North Senatorial District.

Lawan, who is the president of the Nigerian Senate, never participated in the party’s primaries, a fact affirmed by the Federal High Court Damaturu division and Appeal Court, Gombe division, which confirmed the decision of the trial court that declared Bashir Machina the Senatorial candidate for Yobe North.

In the lead judgement, Justice Cletus Nweze faulted the approach of Bashir Machina in commencing the suit at the Federal High Court Damaturu division by way of originating summons and without oral evidence to prove allegations of fraud.

But in a dissenting decision by Justices Emmanuel Agim and Adamu Jauro, the apex court said Ahmad Lawan never participated in the APC primary held on 28 May, as he withdrew voluntarily to participate in the presidential primary held on June 8, 2022.

The minority decision held that the conduct of another primary on June 9, 2022 where Lawan emerged was in breach of Section 84 (5) of the Electoral Act as the APC never cancelled that held on 28 May before organising another. Some legal minds have described this as a curious judgement.

In January, the Supreme Court also declared Godswill Akpabio, a former governor of Akwa-Ibom State and ex-minister of Niger Delta Affairs, as the validly nominated candidate for the APC for Akwa Ibom North-West Senatorial seat election holding on 25 February.

In a unanimous judgement of its five-member panel led by Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, the Supreme Court held that the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal were wrong to have assumed jurisdiction in the suit because the issue of candidate nomination lies squarely with political parties.

The Abuja division of the Court of Appeal had on 14 November 2022 set aside the judgement of the Federal High Court Abuja, and removed Akpabio as the APC candidate for Akwa Ibom North-West Senatorial District.

A three-member panel of justices led by Danlami Senchi held that Akpabio, having contested the presidential primary of the APC, could not participate in the valid primary of the party held on 27 May 2022 and monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which produced Ekpoudom as the candidate.

Two years prior, on January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court removed Emeka Ihedioha as governor of Imo State and affirmed Hope Uzodimma as winner of the March 9 election.

INEC had declared Ihedioha winner of the election but Uzodimma, who came fourth, challenged the outcome of the election in court.

According to INEC results, Ihedioha, who ran under the platform of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), secured 273,404 votes in the election; Uche Nwosu of Action Alliance had 190,364 votes; Ifeanyi Ararume of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) polled 114,676 votes while Uzodimma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) secured 96,458 votes.

In a unanimous decision on Tuesday, a seven-man panel held that Ihedioha did not win a majority of votes cast in the election, and gave it to Uzodimma who came fourth and ordered that he be sworn in as governor.

“The recently released Supreme Court’s decision in MACHINA V. LAWAN offends the conscience, common sense and basic justice of all Nigerians,” Castro Ginigeme, lawyer and former adjunct law professor in the United States said in a response to the Supreme Court’s judgement.

“Increasingly, Nigeria courts have become courts of Mumbo Jumbo and technicality rather than courts of justice. Technical legal rules are supposed to be a guide to justice, not a tool to thwart justice. That was the track that imposed Hope Uzodimma as governor of Imo State, even though he came fourth in the governorship elections,” Ginigeme said.

Nigeria’s judiciary, he added, “is not fit for purpose as the method for recruiting judges is nepotistic and political.”