By Onwubiko Emmanuel Okonnaya

To say that the administration of justice in Nigeria is hampered by the inefficiency of the various relevant institutions is a pedestrian statement. The judiciary, a major role player in justice administration is bedevilled by numerous impediments which hinders its effective performance in justice administration, so much so that the saying that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man holds no waters in the Nigerian setting.

As a matter of fact, a considerable majority will rather resort to self-help and have justice done instantly to their taste, than to wait for the slow wheels of justice being propelled by an incompetent judiciary. Just as the sick is in constant need of medical attention, so also is the Nigerian judiciary in need of reforms to keep it in shape to efficiently perform its duty of justice administration. Hence, this paper will X-ray some of the reforms which the judiciary had undergone over the years and the impact they have had on the administration of justice in Nigeria.

Administration of justice is concerned with the fair, just and impartial enforcement of rights and punishment of wrongs according to the rule of law. It is a compound term that encompasses the process which allows for the resolution of disputes by the institutions recognized by law for that purpose. It is the means by which the legal system of a country is executed.

The administration of justice in Nigeria is championed by three distinct institutions, they are; the judiciary, the Police and the Prisons service. The law has clothed these institutions with enviable powers in the sphere of justice administration, maintenance of law and order, preservation of national tranquillity. Major focus will be turned on the judiciary for the purpose of this paper.

Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) vests the judicial powers of the federation in the Courts. The court is an indispensable institution in the administration of justice in all jurisdictions; municipal and international.[i] It is saddled with the responsibility of the interpretation and application of the laws enacted by the legislature and enforced by the executive, in the settlement of disputes.

Over the years, the Nigerian judiciary have been faced with certain challenges that have hampered the justice administration system. These challenges include interference by other arms of government, temptation to corruption in deciding cases, incidences if conflicting judgements, prevalence of misconduct among members of the judiciary, delay in the dispensation of justice and so forth.

For this reason, Nigeria has had a Chequered history of series of judicial reforms.[ii] Whether these reforms have served or are serving their purposes is very much debatable, as the problems which they were made to address remain ever-abiding in the justice sector. This has resulted in the clamour for a holistic reform in the judiciary, such that will meet the demands for efficient justice administration in Nigeria. This is yet to be achieved. Nonetheless, some of these reforms will be considered.

Judicial reform is not a novel phrase in the Nigerian justice system. It is the complete or partial reform of a country’s judiciary.[iii] It is what is required to keep the judiciary in shape so as to enable it dispense justice effectively and efficiently. It addresses aspects such as appointment and discipline of judges, improvement of judicial systems, maintenance of social fairness and justice, strengthening human rights protection and enhancing judicial capabilities and powers.

The judicial Service Commission

Since independence, the Nigerian judiciary has undergone several reforms. The establishment of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) by the 1979 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was one of such reforms. The commission was established to guarantee the independence of the judiciary in the new republic as it was a common feature during the military rule for the military governments to usurp the powers of the judiciary by ousting the jurisdiction of the courts over certain matters[iv] and overriding the rules[v] of the court with the promulgation of certain decrees. The effect of this reform was rather short lived as the military found their way back to the seats of power.

The National Judicial Council

Another notable reform in the judicial history of Nigeria is the establishment of the National Judicial Council (NJC) in accordance with the provisions of section 153 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The council was established with the purpose of protecting the judiciary from the whims and caprices of the Executive arm of government.[vi] It has the duty to ensure that the judiciary carries out its duties courageously and independently, without fear or favour. The council is vested with the powers to recommend for appointment, discipline and remunerate the members of the judiciary. It has proven to be one of the significant steps taken to ensure judicial independence in the

Federation.

Reforms by the Chief Justice of Nigeria

During the administration of the past Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Walter Onnoghen, the judiciary underwent some reforms. The reforms took the form disciplinary directives which were to be adopted in the bid to curb unprofessionalism and misconduct within the judiciary. The honourable Chief Justice (as he then was) outlined them during a speech[vii] and they will be considered thus.

The first reform which he outlined was a directive which he issued to reduce the number of appearing counsels in a lawsuit at the Supreme Court to five for each party. According to him, this directive was motivated by the prevalent unruly attitude which some politically inclined persons exhibit, in that they bask in their abilities to be represented by a large number of counsels, such that the court room will be filled to its mouth with their legal representatives even to the detriment of the common man who will now be forced to seat on the floor as there will be no room for him to seat and observe the proceedings. The then Chief Justice observed that such behaviour amounted to wastage of the time of the court and it ought not to be so, hence the directive.

The second reform which he outlined was a directive for the discipline of the legal practitioners who engage in ‘sharp practices’ to intentionally delay the conclusion of criminal trials. This has been a major problem of the judiciary—the problem of delay in the dispensation of justice. It is interesting to find that the problem is not always as a result of the judges’ inefficiency but the unprofessionalism of some legal practitioners. The directive mandated the courts to report such cases to the National Judicial Council (NJC), which will in turn, engage the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC),for Senior Advocates and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), for other legal practitioners, to take disciplinary measures against the legal practitioners found wanting.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Another notable reform which the Nigerian judiciary has undergone is the establishment of the Multi-door Courthouse system, also known as Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms (ADR). The Multi-door Courthouse system simply entails the resolution of disputes via alternative methods order than litigation. This alternatives include mediation, conciliation and arbitration which will be done under the supervision of the Courts.

The first Multi-door Courthouse in Nigeria was introduced in Lagos state in the year 2002. It is known as the Lagos state Multi-door Courthouse (LMDC). It happens to be the first court connected ADR Centre in Africa.[viii] In the following year, the Federal Capital Territory followed suit with the establishment of the Abuja Multi-door Courthouse (AMDC). At the moment, fourteen other states have established theirs.

In the same vein, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria which is responsible for the hearing of matters involving labour and industrial disputes, has established Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) centres at its divisions in Abuja, Kano, Gombe, Enugu, Calabar, and Ibadan. This is in line with the provision of section 254C (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (third alteration) Act, 2010.

The purpose for these establishments is to afford disputants various alternatives to settle their other than litigation and at the same time give them the benefit of being supervised by the courts. The decisions reached via these alternatives are binding and enforceable in the courts when breached.[ix] So far so good, these establishments have helped to reduce the backlog of cases in courts.

Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015

The last reform to be considered is the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ACJ Act). The ACJ Act is a repeal of the principal legislation that governed the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria—the Criminal Procedure Code (of the northern part of Nigeria), the Criminal Procedure Act (of the southern part of Nigeria), and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act CAP A3, Laws of the Federation 2004.

The purpose of this Act is to ensure efficiency in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria by promoting efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of the rights and the interests of the suspects, the defendants and the victims.[x] The Act preserves the procedural system inherent these statutes and also introduced innovative provisions.[xi] Hence, the reforms lies in this innovative provisions of the Act. A few of them will be examined below.

Establishment of the ACJMC

The Act provides for the establishment of a committee that will ensure that the provisions of the Act are duly enforced by the various relevant agencies. Section 469(1) of the Act establishes the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee (ACJMC) to be made up of members from the judiciary, Federal Ministry of Justice, Police, Prisons service, Legal Aid Council, Nigeria Bar Association, Civil Society Organisation and National Human Rights Commission, with the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory as the chairman, and the secretary appointed by the Attorney General of the Federation.

The establishment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee as stipulated by the Act is a great leap towards ensuring efficient administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. However the effect of this effort is yet to be fully felt as a result of the typical Nigerian issue of lack of budgetary allocation and funding which sniffs the life out of every good initiative that promises considerable development in the country.

Supervisory Role of the Judiciary

The ACJ Act has conferred on the judiciary the power to play a supervisory role over the police on matters of arrest, arraignment of suspects for trial, and bail. Section 33 of the Act mandates the Police to remit a monthly report to the supervising magistrate designated to it (usually the nearest magistrate), on the rate of arrest, bail and related matters. Section 34 of the Act mandates the supervising magistrate to carry out inspections of the Police stations and other detention centres on a monthly basis.

During this inspection, the magistrate is to take record of arrests, direct the arraignment of suspects who have been granted bail, and grant bail to any suspect where appropriate. It is worthy to note that the supervising magistrate designated by the Chief Judge, reserves the power to deal with the defaults or misconduct of the officers-in-charge of the police stations and detention centres in accordance with the relevant laws.

Reasonable Timeline for Criminal Trials

Section 110 of the Act provides for a timeline in which criminal trials must be commenced and concluded in Magistrate Courts. The Act stipulates that trial must commence within 30 days of filing and must be concluded within a reasonable time. It can be construed from the provisions of that section that what constitutes ‘reasonable time’ is 108 days. This is in line with the provisions of the constitution on the fundamental rights to personal liberty. Where there is a failure as to the commencement and conclusion of a trial, the magistrate is obliged to forward the particulars of such charge, with reasons for failure, to the Chief Judge.

Finally, section 111 of the Act mandates the controller-general of the Prisons to make returns of persons who have been held in custody for more than 180 days after the date of arraignment to the Chief Judges of the Federal High Court, Federal Capital Territory High Court, and State High Courts, president of the National Industrial Court as the case may be; and the Attorney General of the Federation, every 90 days. This is to be done in order to ensure that the person’s right to personal liberty is not violated, as well as to speed up their trials.

The enactment of the ACJ Act has, among other things, proffered solutions to the problem of prolonged trials in Federal Courts. Hence, if this Act is adopted and properly implemented in all states of the Federation, it will in no little way restore the confidence of the people in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, as at April 14th 2019, it was observed that only 18 out of 36 states of the country have adopted the Act as their Administration of Criminal Justice Law.[xii] It is important for the other states to do so.

In summary, this research article has reviewed some of the reforms which the Nigerian judiciary has undergone in order to meet the pressing need for efficiency in the administration of justice. If we are to be truthful to ourselves, we will realise from this, that what is needed now to have the judiciary dispense justice efficiently is not further judicial reforms but the strict implementation of the reforms that have been made over the years. This will translate to the adequate funding of the various councils and commissions established for the improvement of the judicial system, to enable them carry out their duties effectively. Also the reorientation of the general public on the resolution of disputes, such that the average Nigerian will normally resort to the Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms provided by law, before resorting to the Courts when the outcome of the former process is not satisfactory. In the same vein, the various directives, as well as the ACJ Act, should be strictly enforced, they should not just serve cosmetic purposes in the justice system.

[i] Yinka Olomojobi and Oluseyi Apampa “Towards an Effective Dispensation of Justice: a Comparative Analysis of the Appropriateness of Court Structures in Nigeria and France vis-a-vis the International Criminal Court”, date accessed 31/03/2020

[ii] Muhammad Kamaldeen Imam-Tamim & others, Judicial Reform in Democratising Nigeria date accessed 31/03/2020

[iii] Judicial reforms

[iv] Appraisal of Judicial reforms in Post-independence Nigeria date accessed 31/03/2020

[v] The promulgation of Federal Military Government (Supremacy and enforcement) of powers Decree of 1970 annulled the Supreme Court’s decision in Lakanmi’s case.

[vi] National Judicial Council (Nigeria),

[vii] “Nigeria’s Chief Justice outlines radical reforms in Judiciary”, Evelyn Okakwu

[viii] Alternative Dispute Resolution in Nigeria: New Frontiers in Law, date accessed 31/03/2020

[ix] In the owners of the M’s case, the court opined that “the court should not be seen to encourage the breach of a valid arbitration award.” See also, Sections 8(3) of the Trade Dispute Act, 2004.

[x] See section 1 of the ACJ Act.

[xi] Saviour Akpan, Assessing the Administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria, premiumtimesng.com, date accessed 31/03/2020

[xii] The Role of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act in the Speedy Dispensation of Justice in Nigeria, date accessed 31/03/2020