Yemi Akinseye George, SAN is a renowned Professor of Public Law and Executive Director, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies. In this interview with Ise-Oluwa Ige, he spoke on the need for the judiciary to have a Roll of Dishonour to name and shame judges and justices who are adjudged to have deliberately refused to follow judicial precedents. He also spoke on sundry issues such as the current moves to whittle down the powers of the EFCC and ICPC, backlog of cases before the Supreme Court, and what the new Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, must do to redeem the image of the judiciary.
The claims by Femi Falana, SAN, and Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN on the legal status of the EFCC Act are still generating controversy. Who between the two do you align with?
Well, if they argue that EFCC and ICPC should be written into the constitution so that they can be stronger and for their chairmen to have independence and security of tenure like judges, I agree with them. The EFCC and ICPC should not just exist at the level of ordinary legislation, they should be elevated to the status of constitutional bodies. But if they argue that EFCC does not have the jurisdiction to apply anti-corruption laws at the state level, they are completely wrong.
Anybody who argues along that line is an enemy of Nigeria because we know that the only bodies that can call our politicians to order are the EFCC and the ICPC. These are the only agencies that can call the big men in Nigeria to order. That is why they were able to recover money from the wife of a former President. Billions were recovered from her. For many former governors, billions were also recovered from them.
Many are undergoing trials. These state governors are now instituting cases against the EFCC and the ICPC. They should not be allowed. Nigerians should stand up and civil society must stand up. Rather than weakening the anti-corruption agencies, we should strengthen them so that they can continue with at least the little they are doing. You can imagine if the EFCC and the ICPC were not there, they would have looted the economy completely and there would be no place for accountability.
Already, the governors are too powerful at the state level and they are the greatest threat to democracy. If the state governors are allowed to spend money anyhow and there is nobody like the EFCC, the ICPC, to ask them questions when they leave office because the constitution allows that they can only be asked questions when they leave office, and they are now asking for the abolition of these bodies, that is most unfortunate, most unpatriotic, dishonest and I hope that the Supreme Court will not allow them.
A senior lawyer, Anthony Idigbe, SAN, at a forum, recently appealed to Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SAN to consider serving as judges to transform the nation’s jurisprudence. How do you react to this?
This is a very sound idea. You need to diversify the pool from which judges are drawn. The advantage of having scholars and more legal practitioners on the court is obvious. You don’t leave the appointment into the judiciary only to judicial officers. You need to broaden, especially at the level of the Supreme Court. Doing that would enrich the jurisprudence because the scholars would bring in intellectual perspective which will help to develop the substance of our laws. There is so much emphasis now on procedure to the detriment of substantive law. The jurisprudence is not being developed. Many judges don’t have enough time to look into jurisprudence. So, our law is not being advanced. So, I agree that it is important to broaden the pool from which judges of the trial courts and justices of the appellate courts are drawn.
What is your view on the engagement in judicial rascality by judges of the High Court and justices of the appellate courts?
It is important that the new Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, should demonstrate zero tolerance for judicial rascality. She should also have a strategic plan. She should have a standing body that enforces decisional accountability from judges. Decisional accountability is quite different from appellate accountability. Appellate accountability requires those who are not satisfied with the decision of the trial High Court to go to the Court of Appeal. However, there is the need to have decisional accountability whereby judges are personally called to explain when they have done something untoward like giving contradictory judgment.
The head of court has the responsibility to do this. This is one way by which we can restore the image of the judiciary. A situation whereby a judge can give any order even when such order is not founded in law, calls for intervention administratively at the highest level. Such judges should be called out to explain their actions. Chief judges cannot wait to allow a few judges to bring the judiciary down. We are in full support of the decision of the CJN to enforce decisional accountability on the part of judges. This is the only way we can restore the dignity of the judiciary. It is also important that we have what is called the ‘Roll of Dishonour’. The idea behind this is to name and shame judges and justices who are adjudged to have deliberately refused to follow judicial precedents. If judges know that their names will enter the Roll of Dishonour apart from being just sacked and given a soft landing, they will sit up. We must document such judges for posterity.
What about the lawyers that are bringing such cases to court?
The same must apply. Judges don’t work alone, some lawyers file applications that they know they should not file. And where a lawyer now goes to court to file such a case, he should not go scot-free. In England, they don’t practice law the way we practice it in this country. What we do in this country, nobody can do it in England. If a point of law has been established at the highest court, you now file a case in a trial court to confuse the court, it is a case for withdrawal of your practice licence. I think we need to enforce discipline not only on the judges but also on the bar. Senior lawyers, middle-level lawyers, and junior lawyers who deliberately confuse the law in filing cases that they know they are not supposed to file should be sanctioned. If the legal profession does not get it right, our democracy can’t get it right. This is because we are the ones who are supposed to apply the law to stabilize the country. But here, we just pander to the wishes and caprices of our clients because they have money. It will not do this country any good. And if Nigeria fails, we will all fail. We have the responsibility to ensure discipline in the legal profession so that when we apply the law the way we ought to apply it, there will be a significant reduction in the indiscipline perpetrated by politicians.
And heads of court must be accountable for what judges under them do. If a judge in your court does something wrong and you don’t call him to order as the head of court, then, why are you there as the head of the court? So, it is important that before the chief justice or CJN intervenes, heads of court must ensure that their judges apply the law and nothing else but the law.
Your suggestion sounds good, but how can it be implemented, bearing in mind that recently, the immediate past CJN intervened in Kano emirate tussle but no scapegoats were made and today, we have two emirs in the domain, courtesy of the conflicting judgments from both the state and federal high court judges?
The buck stops at the table of the CJN. The CJN is one of the most powerful chief justices in the world. Apart from being CJN, she is also the chairman of the NJC. Besides, most of the members of the Council are appointed by the CJN. So, if the CJN stands her ground, she will leave a good legacy behind. Once the CJN is tolerant of some of these aberrations, it will multiply. You remember when Justice Aloma Muhktar was the CJN, many judges toed the path of rectitude, judicial excellence and integrity. This is because they knew that any case that came to the NJC then, Justice Aloma would take it seriously. We have not had such CJN since she retired.
Those who came after her merely marked the time, occupied the position, and left. Some even abused their office to enrich themselves and enrich their relations and then did all sorts of things. Many of our CJNs have turned to politicians. They are now using powers like politicians. And the judiciary is supposed to be above board. It is supposed to stand out of the crowd. It is a shame. If the judiciary cannot set a standard, who will set the standard? Is it the political branches of government? The political branches; the executive and legislature, can misbehave but the judiciary is the one that should call them to order.
It is the judiciary that should call a spade a spade. In India, it is the judiciary that stabilized their democracy. This is because their judiciary does not tolerate nonsense. Here in Nigeria, our judges play to the gallery, especially our senior judges. Many of our chief judges themselves are neither here nor there. That is the reason why it is possible for a President to just wake up and remove a Chief Justice because they know that some of their hands are not clean. But where a Chief Justice has the support of the public, as has happened in some jurisdictions, where a Chief Justice has the support of the legal profession because of their rectitude, commitment to justice and fairness, it will be difficult for any head of state to just toy with them and throw them out of the place as they like. But when there is a skeleton in your cupboard as a Chief Justice, it is difficult for you to transact your office. So the buck stops at the table of the CJN.
And I sincerely think that the current CJN has the opportunity to write her name in gold. I know some things happened in the past which are not very good. Unfortunately, today, judges are doing what they like. Many of them are not sitting. Even when they sit, they don’t deliver judgment within the time stipulated by law. Nobody is calling anybody to order. Even some heads of court don’t even assign cases for months. These are things that the Chief Justice must say no, we can no longer tolerate these practices. Let’s put justice on its right footing. This is because if justice is not on its right footing, our country, democracy, economy, and security are threatened. Many of the problems of the country can be traced to the fact that justice is not applied the way it ought to be applied. This is an opportunity that Nigeria has to set the democracy on the right footing.
Given your rich knowledge of the Nigerian legal profession, what is your advice for Justice Kekere-Ekun?
Three things I would like to beg of the new Chief Justice of Nigeria by way of an agenda. One, she needs a strategic plan. Luckily, she knows the number of years she is likely going to spend in that office. She cannot run the Supreme Court alone. She needs a management committee. The work is too much. She is the CJN of the whole of Nigeria. She needs to bring in eminent senior members of the bar and the bench and the academic to constitute committees to assist her in implementing her strategic plans. And there are development partners that are willing to support her if she comes up with this plan. This strategic plan should give the justice sector a three, four or five-year plan.
Number two is technology. Delay in our trials, both civil and criminal is worrisome and it threatens justice. It threatens the economy. It threatens the future of Nigeria. It is shameful that in this day and age, our trial courts continue to take proceedings in longhand. Nigeria is too big for that. That is why there will never be justice because the cases can never be completed on time. When justice is delayed, it is denied. A situation in which you have several thousands of pending appeals in the Supreme Court is worrisome. Unfortunately, many people file these appeals at the Supreme Court, not for justice but to delay to make sure that many people do not enjoy the fruits of their judgments; to make sure that successful litigants at the high court and the Court of appeal do not enjoy the fruits of their judgments. That is why many cases are filed.
They know that when such cases get to the Supreme Court, they will be there for many years. Therefore, the new CJN must declare a state of emergence about the backlogs of appeals at the Supreme Court. She should constitute a special panel and look for funding to help those special panels quickly reduce the backlog of appeals in the Supreme Court.
And luckily, we have local software now that can be used to expedite trials in our courts. I don’t see why we cannot take advantage of some of these local software. At our Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, we have supported the automation of some courts. And those courts are some of the most efficient courts in the country today. We plead with the CJN to bring in technology to assist our judges. The judges are dying because they have too many cases to deal with.
Number three which is the most important is that the Chief Justice must ensure the appointment of competent judges. Every wrong appointment to the bench is a big threat to justice. We should make our system of appointment to the bench to be transparent so that we are sure that only the best people get to the bench in terms of character and integrity. If she can do these three things, she will leave a legacy for posterity, and forever, people will be singing her praise.
Vanguard
