Panel on judicial reform submits report amid controversy

justice_uwais1THE stakeholders committee raised by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Dahiru Musdapher, to effect radical reform in the judiciary yesterday submitted its report amid disagreement over some key issues.

Essentially, the submission of the report by the Committee Chairman and former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Muhammdu Lawal Uwais, was dimmed by the failure to obtain the signatures of three key members over their perceived disagreement with recommendations concerning some thorny issues.

The Guardian learnt from some committee members who spoke on condition of anonymity that members parted ways on three issues:

• whether or not the Chief Justice of Nigeria should continue to maintain the chairmanship of the National Judicial Council (NJC);

• whether or not to invite input from the public in the process of appointing judges by advertising such appointment; and,

• whether to retain the services of judicial officers who have been consistently performing below average.

A source said a large percentage of members of the panel, mostly made up of judges, voted in favour of the CJN retaining the chairmanship of NJC as well as shutting out the public from the appointment process of judicial officers.

The judges also disagreed with the suggestion that judges who preformed below average be issued with marching orders.

Disagreement on these three issues is believed to have caused some members (in the minority) to withhold their assent to the report even though Chairman of the committee, Justice Uwais said he had no official explanation to the failure of two out of the three members not to sign.

Speaking with reporters after he presented the report, Uwais admitted that three leading members of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) did not sign the report. They include the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Chief Joseph Bodunrin Daudu (SAN) and two former presidents of the Bar, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) and Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN).

Uwais said whereas Agbakoba excused himself on the ground that he was travelling out of the country, he had no official explanation as to why Daudu and Akeredolu did not sign the report. “I don’t know why they did not sign. I don’t have an official explanation as to why they did not sign. But as for Agbakoba, he excused himself that he will be travelling.”

It was gathered that some less than conservative members of the committee were more at home with answering the three questions in the affirmative.

Earlier, while presenting the report, Uwais said the committee made far reaching suggestions, some of which he said will require constitutional and legislative amendments, while others can be implemented administratively.

“The committee is confident that the acceptance and implementation of the recommendation it has made will significantly restore the judiciary to its lost glory and pride of place,” he stated.

The CJN said the Nigerian judiciary will not fail under his watch as he is committed to restoring it to its place of pride. He thanked the committee members and promised to do his best in the implementation of the report.     He said: “It now remains for me to thoroughly study the report and put into motion actions, which will lead to its implementation. I am confident that implementing the recommendations will restore the judiciary to its former glory and rekindle public trust in the judiciary.”

The CJN had on October 14, 2011 inaugurated the 29-member committee to look into the rot in the judiciary.

The committee, which had as its members, eminent Nigerian jurists and legal practitioners was mandated to look into the trial process, procedural inefficiencies, poor infrastructure, poor conditions of service for judicial and non–judicial officers, declining intellectual quality and reasoning content of delivered judgments and, corruption.  The committee also looked into how to restructure and reposition the National Judicial Council, the Federal Judicial Service Commission and the National Judicial Institute. Other areas the committee worked on included constitutional review of all Superior Courts of Records as well as the lower courts.