James Dadzie
17 March 2008
opinion
Lagos — JAMES DADZIE urges the new Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to hold FHC staff accountable to clear standards of ethical behavior and improve the court's efficiency
After another round of monitoring and collating spanning close to two years, Access to Justice, in February 2008, issued its second report on its findings on a performance audit on justice services delivery at the Federal High Court.
The report titled Balance of Justice: A Second Report, exposes a tenacious entrenchment of administrative corruption at the Federal High Court. The report also exposes a systematic pattern of inefficiency in service delivery, poor work habits, rampant indiscipline and a distressing slack of oversight in the work of the administrative staff of the court. Surprisingly, the report rates judges performance quite well, which may come as a surprise to some.
Besides its own investigations, AJ's report mirrored the views of a court user sample group. The survey showed that "respondents were mostly approving of judges, ranking them high on the integrity scale. Those who said there was a perception of corruption did not give reasons behind their perception. But with non-judicial personnel, responses on corruption were markedly different. Opinions about the perception of the existence of corruption among court personnel in the registry were stated a little emphatically, with 31.3% of respondents describing corruption as existing on the average. 37.5% of the respondents said there was "very little level" of corruption while 23.5 said they had not experienced, seen or heard of it or were not in a position to say".
Of special mention for corruption and indiscipline were bailiffs and court clerks. Among bailiffs and other clerical staff, inducement was the unspoken norm that exerted an invidious influence over services delivery.
To ascertain the degree of these vices, Access to Justice filed applications for Certified True Copies of records of proceedings in four separate cases. During visits to the court, three of the four applications could not be found. A court clerk advised that with respect to one of the supposedly "lost" applications, they could expedite the process if we "mobilized' them and we would get the CTC of the record of proceedings in just a few days. Access to Justice declined and several months after the records have not been typed.
As for bailiffs, the report notes: "the attitude of bailiffs especially as it affects service of processes gives the feeling that they are money minded. They practically have you by the jugular in demanding for outrageous gratification before they undertake service".
What is even more shocking to Access to Justice is that some judges may not only be aware of these illicit demands for gratifications but also actually condone or encourage them as one judge openly did when a counsel appeared in a case before him. While reprimanding the attorney for the bailiff's failure to effect service on the respondents the judge had asked: "Are you not a Nigerian?" a question that carries all the implicit acknowledgement of the norms of "practice and procedure" at the administrative sections of the Court.
The report contends that "the bailiffs make no pretences about the fact that service of processes depend on the court user's payment of extra service fees (in cash) to them (the bailiffs), in spite of the service charges paid at the cash office". Another AJ investigative officer had an actual exchange with three bailiffs who did not veil their demand to be mobilised to serve a court process.
The report notes that process inefficiencies at the Federal High Court are remediable, and that AJ's legal officers could have obtained their CTC's in no time if they had bribed the court clerks sufficiently. AJ is deeply concerned that notwithstanding that there are better working conditions and a noticeable improvement in judicial productivity, corruption and ineptitude are still very present factors in service delivery patterns in the Federal High Court. Accordingly, the report strongly recommends the urgent need for the leadership of the Federal High Court to vigorously confront and extirpate systematic graft within the court bureaucracy.
Access to Justice which, among others seeks to attack corruption in justice administration and defend rights of equal and non-discriminatory access to courts of law suggests that efforts to do this must not wait for, or be tied to, complaints because very little will come from those who are already accustomed to seeing extortion and gratification as "normal".
According to Access to Justice, reports of illicit demands for money by court officials before delivering service to the public should alert the leadership of the Court of the need for wide-ranging reform of the overall court services delivery system. "The leadership of the Federal High Court needs to exercise rigorous oversight over those who conduct its business" it urged.
On the raging debate on delays in justice administration and the quality of the nations' legal education, the report said most of the delays had human causes: proceedings either could not go on because the counsel or litigant was absent from court or the bailiff had failed to effect service or file proof of service. Delays are also foisted by the courts' failure to sit, or owing to lawyers' lack of readiness to proceed with cases (or lawyers' failure to show industry (diligence)), poor familiarity with procedure or applicable rules or even the facts of the case. AJ found that though lawyers' sometimes resorted to delay gimmicks - such as the use of interceptive and frivolous interlocutory applications and frequent requests for adjournments - judges could avoid the bait if they exerted greater control over those manipulative gimmicks.
The report carries a fuller portrait of the state of services and procedures of different departments of the Federal High Court; it observes proceedings in the courtrooms, looks at administration of the functions of the Chief Judge, the speed and efficiency of the preparation of processes and records of proceedings and the handling and service of processes at the bailiffs section.
Altogether, the report should be a guide to the new leadership of the court in its arduous task of ensuring efficiency, fighting corruption and improving the courts total service delivery profile and the court's new leadership should take the exposures in good faith. The report is a diagnostic inquiry into the operational health of the Federal High Court, in an era where government is shifting emphasis to the quality of service delivery by public sector institutions.
The report looks at a Court otherwise known for its extraordinary stature, in terms of its jurisdiction and its prestige. Like other institutions operated by humans a culture of "bribe-for-service" was permitted to flourish by simply looking the other way. The new leadership of the court must now make a bold effort to reform the court system, hold court staff accountable to clear standards of ethical behavior, improve efficiency and restore the respect and credibility of the Federal High Court.
Dadzie, a freelance journalist, wrote from Lagos
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
