A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), J B Daudu has urged the National Assembly to pay special attention to judicial reforms that would strengthen the independence of the judiciary and raise the level of the people’s confidence in it.
Daudu gave the charge at a one day Rule of Law Foundation Webinar Series No. 14, organized to address the problems of modern day Nigeria through Constitutional Amendment.
The event was to commemorate the 45th year anniversary of the call to the Nigerian bar and 30 years of conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria on J B Daudu.
Daudu advised that while reforms like state policing, devolution of powers and local government autonomy are crucial, and therefore, special attention must be paid to them.
``Not only to protect judicial independence but to improve the quality and credibility of electoral and criminal justice.
``The reform will prioritize judicial efficiency, merit-based case filtering and systematic safeguards without compromising the right of appeal to the apex court in high stakes cases.
He frowned at the proposed bill to make the Court of Appeal the final appellate court for governorship, National Assembly, and State Assembly election petitions.
He also said that the proposed bill to remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in these matters, especially the resolution of governorship appeals, is unreasonable and retrogressive.
The learned silk noted that the location of finality of governorship appeals at the court of appeal before it was amended in 2010, led to numerous instances of miscarriage of justice.
``There was no remedy even when palpable legal errors existed.
``Considering the economic, administrative, and security powers wielded by governors, it is only fitting that their emergence through elections should be subject to the highest judicial review.
``Making the appeal court the final authority increases the risk of pressure, manipulation, or inconsistent jurisprudence, especially in politically sensitive elections like gubernatorial elections.
``Removing the Supreme Court from final appellate jurisdiction in gubernatorial and legislative elections is a retrogressive step that should be resisted.
``In a polarized and volatile polity like Nigeria, electoral decisions should inspire trust.
``Only the Supreme Court provides the gravitas and finality required to instill intrinsic confidence in the system and avoid Takeovers and State Capture by ambitious political interest groups.
He said that inconsistencies in the application of the law undermine confidence in the judiciary and the electoral process.
He said that it is imperative to insulate the main judicial stream from pollution by politicians because of the nation’s unique political culture.
``Political participants exhibit negative tendencies such as winner-takes-all approach, non-concession to opponent of clear electoral victory and the desperate desire to influence judicial outcomes.
``Some of the negative and indeed demonstrable injuries meted to the system include but is not limited to extensive delays in the resolution of regular cases in all the superior courts.
``Courts are beginning to make allowances in their diaries for the political tsunami anticipated in 2026 through to 2028.
``Consequently, the most desirable constitutional amendment would have been to insulate all those courts identified in Section 6-(6)-(5) (a)-(j) of the1999 Constitution totally and comprehensively from any political or election related cases.
He noted that politicians for obvious reasons have succeeded in irretrievably gaining the absolute attention of these courts for their own benefit and to the detriment of ordinary persons and corporate citizens.
``As things stand, it is estimated that across board 75 percent of judicial time is expended by our courts in resolving and adjudicating on civil, criminal, political and electoral matters relating to politicians and politically exposed persons.
``The only remedy is for the creation of a super court that will exist at trial, intermediate appellate level and a final appeal court.
``That court should be named and styled as the Trial Constitutional Court, Intermediate Appeal Constitutional Court and Final Constitutional Court.
``Their jurisdiction should be strictly limited to political, pre- and post-election cases, judicial review of administrative action, all cases and appeals arising from the interpretation of the Electoral Act and similar legislations’’.
The learned silk noted that the above arrangement will free the regular courts from political interference and the delays arising from the clogging of their dockets with political cases.
He added that the proposed expansion of the number of Supreme Court justices and introduction of leave requirements before election and political appeals can conveniently be taken together.
``A Supreme Court is not a Magisterial Division and should therefore not have a bloated bench. It is not the practice worldwide for any apex court to have such inflated number of justices as if it was a State High Court.
``The best way to maintain the dignity and sanctity of the court is to close some of its open-ended jurisdictions and there is no better way to achieve this standard than by taking out its jurisdiction to adjudicate on political/electoral cases and transferring them to the proposed constitutional courts.
``The judiciary already suffers from reputational crisis, whether real or malicious. Nothing should be done further by politicians to place the apex court in such an unpleasant and awkward position’’.
0 Comments