Reflections on the 2024 National Justice Summit 

By Olawale Fapohunda, SAN.

Not Another ‘Talk Shop’

Summits, Conferences, Workshops and similar gatherings have been given a bad name in Nigeria.They are often called ‘talk- shops’, where all that happens are endless bouts of debates with limited possibility of tangible outcomes. It would appear not so, with the National Justice Summit that held last week in Abuja. Not a few of us observed that the Honourable Attorney- General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN (HAGF), did not disappear after the opening ceremony to attend to “urgent State functions”.

The National Justice Policy 

The National Justice Summit was convened by the HAGF, essentially to present and seek the adoption of the National Justice Policy by Government and non-Government Justice Sector stakeholders. I have, in my previous columns, stated that Justice sector reform stands a better chance of success, when the Government has a clearly stated policy setting out the official vision of the reform objectives, and committing Government to specific reforms necessary to realise that vision. This is an important reference point, for any strategic approach to Justice sector development. We are making progress.  

The National Justice Policy identifies key priorities including: Strengthening the independence, responsibility, efficiency and transparency of the justice system;  Improving the pre-judicial investigation process to ensure a guaranteed observance of human rights, security for every person and decrease in levels of criminality; Promoting and implementing the zero-tolerance principle with respect to corruption within the justice system;  Improving the justice system to contribute to the creation of a climate that is favourable for economic growth and job creation, and securing effective observance of human rights by the application of legal practices and policies. I note with appreciation, the consultative and inclusive process that resulted in the Policy. Implicit in the Policy is the recognition that it must be accompanied by detailed plans for reform, setting clear benchmarks, and framed as a process rather than a single event. 

Between Judicial Independence and Public Accountability 

Quite aside from deliberations on the adoption of the Justice Policy, much of the deliberations at the Summit focused on judicial reform, with the state of the Nigerian Judiciary in view. There was a consensus that an extremely complex, diverse, Federal polity like Nigeria which is struggling to reconcile short-term expediency with long-term imperatives of nation-building, needs a credible, independent and impartial Judiciary. The Summit, for the most part, focused on finding the right balance between judicial independence on one hand, and public accountability on the other. 

Discussions on the Judiciary, often focus on the substance of court decisions – which side wins and which side loses. This focus has obscured deeper structural factors at play in the nation’s Judiciary, including its glaring inadequacies. These inadequacies are endangering the credibility of the Judiciary, and have in no small measure contributed to its poor public perception. Public trust and confidence in the Judiciary is enhanced when Judges are professional, ethical, competent, impartial, efficient and effective. Nigerians desire a judicial system that is accessible, efficient, modern, and one that produces fair and reasonably predictable outcomes.

Issues in Judicial Reform

Protecting the credibility of the judiciary is a matter of great national importance. If the general public loses confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, there is every danger that the nation will fall apart. Therefore, protecting the image of the courts, enhancing the quality of Judges, deliberately investing in their welfare, and ensuring their impeccable conduct, are matters of public importance. 

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in its advocacy briefing note to the Summit, identified six central issues that are crucial to any discussion on judicial reform. These are: (1) How to create an administrative/legislative framework that ensures that only persons of exceptional intellectual and legal ability, with sound judgement and significant legal experience from the Bench and Bar are appointed as Judges or elevated/appointed as Justices of higher courts. (2) How to reform judicial institutional mechanism, to effectively address allegations of wrong doing against Judges, so that judicial credibility is protected. (3) How to protect judicial independence by ensuring appropriate funding for the Judiciary, including regular periodic upward review of judicial salaries, allowances and pensions. (4) How to respond to the issue of the backlog of pending matters in all tiers of our courts, particularly, in the Supreme Court. (5) How to recognise the importance of lower courts in the justice delivery chain, particularly at the level of the Magistracy and such other courts of coordinate jurisdiction. (6) How to recognise and deliberately acknowledge the important role of judicial staff (non-judicial officers) in judicial administration, including how to achieve efficiency and job satisfaction within their ranks. 

The issues of Judicial appointments, Judicial discipline and backlogs of pending matters, were of much interest to participants. 

Unmeritorious Judicial Appointments 

On judicial appointments, participants identified two areas for consideration. First, is the constitution of the judicial appointing bodies (National Judicial Council (NJC), Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), State Judicial Service Commissions (SJSC). It was observed that the process for appointing members of judicial appointing bodies is unstructured, and the criteria for making appointments are not defined. This lack of transparency, sometimes leads to appointment of persons with limited capability. There was a consensus that nominees for membership of Federal and State judicial appointing authorities should be selected solely on merit, through a clear and accountable process involving fair and open competition and from a pool comprising a wide range of eligible diverse candidates.  On the process for appointment of judicial officers, participants observed that there has been an increase in the number of anecdotal reports of unmeritorious appointments. That there is growing evidence that the power of making judicial appointments, is coming to be regarded by the executive arm as a form of patronage and a source of influence that can be used to serve short-term political interests. It was recommended that the procedure for appointing Judges must be reformed, according to the principles of equal opportunity and fairness. The process must not be, and must not be seen to be heavily dependent on the Executive Arm of Government. It must be transparent. It must be accountable. And, it must inspire public confidence. There should be competitive and fair appointment of all Judicial officers. 

NJC Composition: A Stumbling Block

On judicial discipline, it was noted that the current composition of the NJC, including its disciplinary mechanism, are important stumbling blocks towards achieving effective prosecution of judicial misconduct. It is less than ideal that the membership of a body established to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers, should be dominated by serving and retired judicial officers. Consideration should be given to the appointment of more lay men into the Council.  The Supreme Court Judgement in Hon. Justice R. Elelu Habeeb & Anor v Attorney-General of the Federation & 2 Ors (2012) 49 3 NSCQR 1528 where it was held that the NJC must be involved in any disciplinary process against a judicial officer, affirms the need to pay particular attention to the composition of the NJC.

Dealing with Backlogs

Much of the discussions on backlog of pending matters in all tiers of our courts, particularly, in the Supreme Court focused on the need to review the Supreme Court Rules, as an immediate step to decongest the case-load of that court. The Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court, have undertaken a  similar exercise. Specifically, only matters of significant constitutional importance or contribution to the legal jurisprudence should be heard in the Supreme Court. Generally, it was also suggested that consideration be given to the greater use of technology, in the administration of justice. There was some debate about whether there was a need for constitutional review, to make provision for virtual court proceedings. I was interested in finding out whether the position of the Supreme court on virtual court proceedings had evolved over time, and if one could envisage a time when the Supreme Court will provide leadership in this area.   

What Next?

As it must have been obvious to all at the end of the Summit, reforms in the Justice sector will not be an event, even with the most genuine political will. It must be properly planned, carefully managed, and the process must be consultative and inclusive of all Federal and the States’ justice institutions. This should be undertaken by adopting a holistic, system-wide approach that lays emphasis on greater integration and coordination of the roles, functions and activities of the institutions of the justice system. Indeed, the multiple and many times, overlapping institutions, at the Federal and State levels, the need for consensus on the importance of the justice sector and the necessity of shared appreciation and joint -action in responding to emerging crime and security concerns, require strong leadership and commitment from the President and State Governors. It may now be necessary for the Convener of the Summit, the HAGF to facilitate a meeting, Chaired by President Tinubu, with the leadership of the National Assembly and the 36 State Governors in attendance, with a view to presenting the outcome of the Summit for necessary action. 

We have said all that needs to be said, about the state of our judicial sector. The success of the Justice Summit will be determined not only by its quality participation and brilliant presentations, but, by tangible outcomes that respond to the yearnings of Nigerians for a justice system that works in their interest.