Inside story of alleged judicial corruption in Nigeria, by Justice Dattijo Mohammed
Justice Dattijo Muhammad served in the judiciary for over 40 years before exiting the Supreme Court in October 2023. In his valedictory speech, Dattijo criticised the over-concentration of powers in the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) office and judicial corruption in the polity. We are republishing his reflections in the valedictory speech in light of the claims of misconduct against some judicial officials, especially judges, reckless granting of ex-parte orders and granting of conflicting orders by judges of the same jurisdiction.
The claims have led to some judges being called 'Cash and carry judges', indicating that judgments can be sold and bought, and the demand for reforms in the judiciary. Only recently, CJN Kudirat Kekere-Ekun invited the Chief Judge of Rivers State to Abuja over the granting of an order by a judge in his state over the local government election in Rivers that conflicted with that of a Federal High Court judge. The Dattijo speech exposes the bad and the ugly judges in the polity. Excerpts:
Cracks
Through the years, I rose to become the second most senior justice of the country's apex court and Deputy Chairperson of the National Judicial Council.
Considering the number of years I have spent in the judicial service and the position I have attained by the grace of the Almighty, I feel obligated to continue the struggle for reforms for a better judiciary and would be leaning on the earlier submissions of those who had exited before me.
Now, how has the judiciary fared in the course of my journey?
The journey was calm and fulfilling until about half way through my Supreme Court years when the punctuating turbulent cracks made it awry and askew.
As presently structured, the CJN is the Chairman of the National Judicial Council NJC, which oversees both the appointment and discipline of judges.
He is equally Chair of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), the National Judicial Institute (NJI), and the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) that appoints Senior Advocates of Nigeria.
In my considered opinion, the oversight functions of these bodies should not rest on an individual alone.
A person with absolute powers, it is said, corrupts easily and absolutely.
As Chair of NJC, FJSC, NJI and LPPC, appointments as council, board and committee members are at his pleasure.
He neither confers with fellow justices nor seeks their counsel or input on any matter related to these bodies.
He has both the final and the only say.
The CJN has the power to appoint 80 per cent of members of the council and 60 percent of members of FJSC.
The same applies to NJI and LPPC.
Such enormous powers are effortlessly abused.
This needs to change.
Continued denial of the existence of this threatening anomaly weakens effective judicial oversight in the country.
By the provision of Paragraph 20 of Part One of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, the NJC shall comprise the following members: The Chief Justice of Nigeria, who shall be the Chairman; the next most senior Justice of the Supreme Court who shall be the Deputy Chairman.
Regrettably, the next most senior justice of the Supreme Court like Deputy Governors of State, shorn of any official function except at the pleasure of the Governor, is neither consulted on anything nor does he have any official function.
His job as No. 2 is purely as the CJN pleases.
It is incumbent that the system provides for more inclusion and consultation among the stakeholders.
The conversation about the diminishing number of justices at the Supreme Court has become a refrain.
As I bow out today, the number is further reduced to 10 against the constitutional requirement of 21 justices.
That this avoidable depletion has affected and will further affect the court and litigants is stating the obvious.
We are in an election season where the Election Tribunals and appellate courts are inundated with all manner of petitions and appeals.
The Supreme Court is the final court in the Presidential, Governorship and National Assembly election appeals.
Yet, there are only 10 justices left to determine these matters.
Constitutionally, each of these appeals requires a panel of seven justices to sit on them.
When a panel of seven justices is constituted to sit on a particular appeal, only three justices are left out.
Even when regular appeals are being heard in the Supreme Court, a panel of five justices is required to sit.
We must not forget that the court, being the highest in the land, receives all manner of appeals from the court below.
Presently, there is neither limit nor distinction to the manner of appeals that come to the apex court.
Again, besides election matters which are seasonal, the Supreme Court's docket is overflowing with civil and criminal appeals, some of which took many years to arrive. Most of these are still pending.
Several have not even been assigned hearing dates. The court also exercises original jurisdiction.
As the justices who hear these matters are grossly overstretched, unable to meet the demands of their onerous assignment, the litigants who approach the court seeking justice are left in limbo; waiting endlessly for justice to be served.
These, as I have said before, are avoidable.
When I exit today, the North-Central zone that I represent ceases to have any representation until such a time new appointments are made.
My lord Hon. Justice Ejembi Eko, JSC, who also represented the zone, retired on the 23rd of May, 2022.
It has been a year and five months now. There has not been any replacement.
With the passing of my lord, Hon. Justice Chima Centus Nweze, JSC, on the 29th of July 2023, the South-East no longer has any presence at the Supreme Court.
My lord, Hon. Justice Sylvester Nwali Ngwuta, JSC, died on the 7th of March 2021. There has not been any appointment in his stead for the South-East.
To ensure justice and transparency in presidential appeals from the lower court, all geo-political zones are required to participate in the hearing.
It is therefore dangerous for democracy and equity for two entire regions to be left out in the decisions that will affect the generality of Nigerians.
This is not what our laws envisage. Although it can be posited that no one expected the sudden passing of Hon. Justice Nweze, JSC, yet, it has been two years and seven months since previous justice from the South-East died and no appointment was made.
Ditto for the replacement of Justice Eko, JSC, of North-Central who exited nearly two years ago.
Hon. Justice Sidi Bage, JSC, now his Royal Highness the Emir of Lafia, from the North-Central, had earlier voluntarily retired.
He equally is yet to be replaced.
Also, it was clear ab-initio that I would be leaving the court this day on attaining the statutory age of 70.
It is then not in doubt that there has been sufficient time for suitable replacements to have been appointed.
This is yet to occur.
When on the 6th of November 2020 the Supreme Court, for the first time in its history, got a full complement of 21 justices with the swearing-in of eight justices, little did anyone know that we were only a few steps to unimaginable retrogression.
As it stands, only four geo-political regions -the South-West, the South-South, the North-West and the North-East are represented in the Supreme Court.
While the South-South and the North-East have two serving justices, the North-West and South-West are fully represented with three each.
Appropriate steps could have been taken since to fill outstanding vacancies in the apex court.
Why have these steps not been timeously taken?
It is evident that the decision not to fill the vacancies in the court is deliberate. It is all about the absolute powers vested in the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the responsible exercise of same.
Independence
Allusions have been made innumerable times about poor funding and how the judiciary has been emasculated by inadequate funding.
My lord, the late Hon. Justice Mustapha Akanbi, CFR, a former President of the Court of Appeal, in a publication titled, 'The Main Obstacles of Justice According to Law,' said: "[A] good judgment flows from a mind that is not bogged by the thought of-where do I get my next meal? Or where do I get the money to pay my son's school fees? Poor conditions of service disturb the mind. It is an obstacle to clear and positive thinking..."
Beyond the issue of the salaries of justices remaining static with no graduation for over 15 years now, it is instructive to enquire what the judiciary also does with its allocations.
Who is responsible for the expenditure?
An unrelenting searchlight needs to be beamed to unravel how the sums are expended.
In 2015 when President Muhammadu Buhari became the president, the budgetary allocation to the judiciary was N70 billion.
In the 2018 Appropriation Bill submitted to the National Assembly, the President allocated N100 billion to the judiciary.
The legislature increased it to N110 billion; N10 billion above the N100 billion appropriated for the 2017 fiscal year.
At the end of President Buhari's tenure in May 2023, the judiciary's allocation had increased to N130 billion.
That is an increase from N70 to N130 billion in eight years.
The present government has allocated an additional sum of N35 billion to the judiciary for the current financial year making the amount of money accessible by the judiciary to N165 billion.
More than 85 percent of the amount appropriated by the 8th Assembly has so far been released to the judiciary.
It is envisaged that the additional N35 billion will equally be released by the present government.
Notwithstanding the phenomenal increases in the sums appropriated and released to the judiciary, justices and officers welfare and the quality of service it renders continues to decline.
It may interest one to know that the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court earns more than the justices.
While she earns N1.2m per month, justices take home N751, 000 in a month.
The CJN, on his part, takes home N400, 000 plus.
The salary of a justice, curiously, drops rather than increases when he gets the added responsibility of being a CJN.
That the unjust and embarrassing salary difference between the justices and the Chief Registrar still abides remains intriguing to say the least.
Valedictory session after valedictory session lapses and challenges that should be nipped are restated to no avail.
Why the silence and seeming contentment?
Appointment, quality
A couple of years ago, appointment to the bench was strictly on merit.
Sound knowledge of the law, integrity, honour, and hard work distinguished those who were elevated.
Lobbying was unheard of.
I never lobbied, not at any stage of my career, to secure any appointment or elevation.
As much as possible the most qualified men and women were appointed.
That can no longer be said about appointments to the bench.
The judiciary must be uniquely above board. Appointments should not be polluted by political, selfish, and sectional interests. The place of merit, it must be urged, cannot be over-emphasized.
Public perceptions of the judiciary have over the years become witheringly scornful and monstrously critical.
It has been in the public space that court officials and judges are easily bribed by litigants to obviate delays and or obtain favourable judgments.
His lordship Adefope-Okojie JCA, at the point of exiting, had enthused, inter-alia: "Pleas are expressed everyday by the generality of the public begging the judiciary to be just to be truthful; and to save the country from collapse. My question is whether the judiciary needs to be begged or cajoled? What is it that qualifies any person to bear that exalted name 'Honourable Justice'? Is it not for him to administer justice without fear or favour?..."
Unfortunately, it has been severely vilified, with the apex court so denigrated and called by a social commentator as a voter gaggle of useless, purchasable judicial bandits.
How did the judiciary get to this level?
Why is the whole country on edge for fear of what the public regards as unpredictable judicial pronouncements? There must be a rethink and a hard reset.
If the people we have sworn to defend have lost confidence, there is a problem that must be addressed.
Allegations
Recently, fresh allegations have been made that children and other relatives of serving and retired judges and justices are being appointed into judicial offices at the expense of more qualified candidates lacking in such privilege and backing.
It is asserted that the process of appointment to judicial positions are deliberately conducted to give undue advantage to the "children, spouses, and mistresses" of serving and retired judges and managers of judicial offices.
At the Court of Appeal, it is also asserted that presiding justices are now being appointed out of turn.
And there is the further issue of the unpredictable nature of recent decisions of the courts as well.
A number of respected senior members of the bar, inter alia, citing the Ahmed Lawan, the former President of the Senate and the Imo governorship appeals, claim that decisions of even the apex court have become unpredictable.
It is difficult to understand how and where, by these decisions, the judicial pendulum swings.
It was not so before, they contend.
In some quarters, the view is strongly held that filth and intrigues characterize the institution these days!
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Judges are said to be comfortable in companies they never would have kept in the past.
It is being insinuated that some judicial officers even campaign for politicians.
It cannot be more damning!
President Muhammadu Buhari, in 2016, ordered the forceful entry into the houses and the arrest of justices some of whom were serving at the apex court.
Not done, in 2019, the government accosted, arrested and arraigned the incumbent Chief Justice before the Code of Conduct Tribunal for alleged underhand conduct.
With his retirement allegedly negotiated, he was eventually left off the hook.
In 2022, a letter signed by all other justices of the Supreme Court, including the current Chief Justice, the aggrieved protested against the shabby treatment meted to them by the head of court and the Chief Registrar. At the centre of the friction were their welfare and the cavalier attitude of the Chief Registrar thereto.
In the event, his lordship Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad disengaged ostensibly on grounds of ill-health.
Now, it must be said, Chief Femi Falana is right that the safeguard in our appointment procedures against judicial appointments for improper motive is increasingly being compromised.
Certainly, by Rule 8.3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct", any judge who takes advantage of his judicial office for personal gain or for gain by his or her relative or relation abuses the power vested in him!!!"
It is obvious that the judiciary I am exiting from is far from the one l voluntarily joined and desired to serve and be identified with. The institution has become something else.
What to do?
Allow me at this point in time to recall that the 1999 Constitution as amended allows each and every one of us the freedom of choosing his religion, the company he keeps and what to say.
I am sure we all know where these rights abate and where the rights the very same Constitution grants others take off.
I am a Muslim for whose conduct the Holy Quran in Chapter 4 (Nisa) Verse 135 provides: "O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves or your parents or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts) lest you may avoid justice,and if you distort your evidence or refuse to give it, verily Allah is ever well a Acqunted with what you do."
Chapter 9 (Tauba) verse 71 further requires that believers, both men and women, enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil.
In the A-Z of Quotes I got stuck to this:
"This is how a society goes down the drain really quickly first overlook evil, then it permits evil, then it legalizes evil, then it promotes evil, then it celebrates it and then persecutes those that still call it evil."
Lastly, Adam Grant's words, in moments like this, are also instructively apposite:
"When you follow a concept, consider what would lead you to withdraw your support. If the answer is nothing, your integrity is in jeopardy. Your highest loyalty belongs to principles not concepts. No concept deserves unconditional love. Commitment is earned through character."
My contribution towards reforming the judiciary is founded on the foregoing precepts.
Intrinsic in what I have said today are indices to dampen, nay eradicate, the lapses in the judiciary.
The duty to revive the institution remains a collective one.
We must persist.
