From independence in 1960 till a few years ago, Nigeria’s most credible arm of government was the judiciary. It is certainly no longer so. But because it was designed to be the last hope of the common man,to reverse the situation and restore the judiciary to its old place of pride is a thing that must be done.

Happily, the starting point of this restoration has begun as the National Judicial Council (NJC) under the leadership of Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere Ekun is now attempting to redress the negatives in the system that vocal critics have been highlighting. In other words, the critics are not enemies of the NJC as some people imagine, they are instead the well-meaning and best friends of the Nigerian judiciary.

The week before, the NJC handed down a one-year suspension without pay to three judicial officers, including one Justice of the Court of Appeal, for actions considered as judicial misconduct. An official statement by the NJC listed the affected officers as Justice Jane Inyang of the Court of Appeal, Uyo Division; Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, and Justice Aminu Baffa Aliyu of the Federal High Court, Zamfara Division. Although the weight of the NJC’s hammer may not immediately assuage the huge public dislike for the judiciary, it is certainly encouraging that the intervention has come to remind citizens that perhaps Justice Kekere Ekun, is set to implement her promise to restore the judiciary’s dignity. 

 Notable groups and individuals almost immediately applauded the NJC for sanctioning the erring judges. One of such groups, Citizens’ Gavel, a civic-tech organisation promoting access to justice, transparency, and accountability in Nigeria, praised the NJC for implementing disciplinary measures against erring judges over acts of judicial misconduct.On his part, Professor Akinseye-George, President of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), said the NJC’s recent actions serve as a beacon of reform and integrity which deserves commendation for its principled and courageous decisions. No one should however be surprised that not every analyst is prepared to commend the NJC’s efforts. Indeed, some critics are not convinced that the sanctions are strong enough to deter other compromised personnel.

In fairness, the sanctions do not quite fit the offences but it is praise worthy as a departure from the posture of homily of the immediate past leadership of the NJC. Rather than dealing squarely with the specific judges who issued conflicting directives on the same Emirship tussle in Kano, Justice Ariwoola-led NJC decided to summon the heads of the relevant courts to a meeting with the then CJN. The promise to tackle the unnecessary struggle for territorial power at the expense of societal harmony by the judges concerned never saw the light of day; making the historic city of Kano to become a throne with two Kings. Interestingly, the current sanctions are not related to the Kano debacle. If it is still coming, it qualifies to be recorded as a clear case of a disciplinary action that was deliberately delayed.

 One of the current decisions of the NJC to restore sanity to our judiciary is its intervention in the plot by politicians to play politics with the appointment of a Chief Judge (CJ) for Imo state. It is good that the NJC intervened swiftly to restore the old constitutional order which states that theChief Judge of a state or indeed any judge “cannot be removed or disciplined without the input or participation of the National Judicial Council NJC.”The danger of the executive and legislature colluding to remove a CJ that is difficult to manipulate speaks for itself. The prompt intervention of the NJC in the Imo case would certainly push states such as Benue away from politicising the office of the CJ. Thepositive point here is that the NJC has successfully thwarted the cherished goal of state governors who are anxious to replace CJs that are difficult to be compromised. 

  However, one must necessarily be cautious in applauding the NJC for its current professional standing because history tells us that the Council is always only able to do so at state level as it did in the past in Kwara, Abia, Rivers, Plateau and Ekiti states. But whether it can similarly behave when it concerns the position of the CJN where the other side to the case is the President is not certain. Our position is influenced by the story of how Justice Walter Onnoghen was wrongly replaced by Justice Tanko Muhammad as CJN in 2019. In that case, it was the executive branch headed at the time by President Muhammadu Buhari that removed Onnoghen without the NJC’s consent.It was the same President that solely proceeded to appoint and swear in Justice Tanko Muhammad to serve as Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria. The NJC neither rejected Buhari’s action nor did it penalize Tanko Muhammad for accepting a constitutional breach which favoured himself.   

 That was not all. The NJC was also coerced into taking two questionable steps. First, it recommended an extension of Tanko’s illegal acting appointment and second, proceeded a few months later, to confirm the same appointment.Since then, the NJC is yet to tell the nation why it timidly accepted the President’s position to which it had made no input as required by law. Now that the NJC is rejecting the same unconstitutional posture from the Imo state governor, is it a case of double standard or a reflection of better leadership by Justice Kekere Ekun? Until the latter is able to reject such behaviour from the President, we can only clap with one hand for now as it would be easier to rescind the half-hearted clap if latter events suggest that the applause was rather in a hurry.

 If the intention of the NJC as currently constituted is to win back the confidence of the public, it should deal quickly with the cases which have turned the spotlight on the judiciary. An obvious bad trend is the struggle between federal and state high courts for territorial empire. This should not happen as no one can change the fact that the federal high court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It therefore has no business getting enmeshed in chieftaincy matters by fashioning some cases with the garb of enforcement of fundamental human rights.Even non-lawyers know that this has the been stand of the Supreme Court in the case of Alhaji Umar Abba Tukur V The Governor of Gongola State which was decided about four decades ago. Should the NJC have tolerated for one minute, the refusal ofthe federal high court in Kano to faithfully abide by the principle of stare decisis?

Many members of the public were expecting not only a speedy handling of such cases but huge fines imposed on the lawyers who filed them before the wrong courts. That did not happen just as the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) surprisingly failed to perform better than the NJC that many of its members often criticise. Otherwise, what has happened to the call by a former NBA President, Y.K Mikyau, SAN that the lawyers who filed the cases before the wrong courts be investigated and be sanctioned by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers if found wanting? Has the call been swept under the carpet or handled secretly so that we all forget about the case in due course?

Then, there is the annoying issue of the NJC making retirement from office, the punishment for criminal offences such as perjury. It is not only that the punishment does not fit the crime, it allows lay persons to suspect the existence in the judiciary of discrimination in some cases while in others, it projects a deepinstitutional hesitation which seeks to protect the principle of esprit des corps. Perhaps those who are dissatisfied with the stand of the NJC are hyper critical but we need to answer Professor Ndikalu’s question: ‘Will a judge who is suspended for one year without pay not more likely to come back more hungry and more corrupt?’

Finally, the greatest challenge today in our justice delivery system is located within cases emanating from politics and elections. They are therefore those that the NJC should handle with iron fists. We are thus at a time when the nation is in dire need of judicial activism in which politicians should no longer be helped to cover their reprehensible acts. Political events that are widely known or transmitted on national television are notorious facts. In a good system notorious facts need no proof; instead, judicial notice is taken of them. This is a courageous posture that can keep Nigerian politicians at bay.