Follow Us on Google
Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen’s order to the heads of the judiciary throughout the states to create special courts for corruption cases is bound to be mired in controversy. Justice Onnoghen used the auspicious occasion of the swearing in of the 23 new Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) to make the significant declaration. But, does the country need special courts to resolve the seemingly intractable corruption cases?
Section 6(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) makes list of the courts in the land and how they may be created. Special courts for corruption cases are not presently part of the listed courts. The question now is: Can the CJN create or designate any court for whatever purpose without the backing of the National Assembly? In fact, does the CJN’s order amount to a creation per se or a mere designation of special courts only?
Whatever the case may be, we are concerned about the long-term health of our democracy, the harmonious working of the separate arms of government and ultimately, the sustainability of whatever the system throws up. It is very important that the principle of separation of powers is obeyed and strictly adhered to, no matter the pressures and exigencies of the moment.
There is no doubt that the CJN may have acted under pressure from the executive and the citizenry who feel that the judiciary has not done enough to tackle the scourge of corruption in the country. There appears to be a consensus that one thing that has plagued the nation’s progress, the most, is the endemic corruption in the polity and that until it is dealt with decisively, the nation may be headed nowhere. The fight against corruption was also a major plank on which the present Muhammadu Buhari administration fought and won the presidential election of 2015.
Since its inception in office, therefore, the pressure has been much on the judiciary to add more verve in its handling of corruption cases. The pressure even led to the controversial raid of eminent members of the bench, with earth-shaking allegations of corruption made against them. Some of them are still facing trials today at a level many would have thought was impossible until now.
All these extenuating factors may have prepared the ground for the present situation with the special courts for corruption cases. But, we believe that the way to go may be to find the means to expedite the trial of corruption cases even with the regular courts we have now. The idea of a designation of special courts for specific cases is, in fact, not new to our legal practice. What has been common in all the cases is that the wheel of justice seems to move too slowly or not at all. This has led to wide-spread frustration with the judiciary in the land and questions raised about their commitment to the fight against corruption.
Unfortunately, the legislature has not been of much help. Saddled with the duty of making laws for the good governance of the country, the privileged members of the various legislative houses tend to put their self-interest over and above the long-term survival of the country. This has resulted in the absence of action concerning matters that mean the most to the generality of the people. The CJN’s action with the creation of the special courts for corruption may be a deliberate effort to accede to the popular clamour.
But, we are concerned about the sustainability of the initiative. Some dissenting voices are already accusing the CJN of playing to the gallery. This is not completely unexpected as the forces against the corruption fight are formidable and unrelenting. So, it becomes a struggle to separate genuine concerns for due process and the rule of law from mischief and self-interest. There is also the concern about whether a change in nomenclature alone automatically translates to a change of the mindset of the persons concerned or not.
This is why some people have argued that it may perhaps be more useful and pragmatic if the justice delivery system can be made to be more efficient and effective. This would require the speedy dispensation of justice with clear timelines, which are within the powers of the CJN under the regulation of practice and procedure methods. A lot has been said about the need to computerise the court processes.
This, in addition to regular training and retraining of judicial officers in modern and specific areas of the law, can go a long way in meeting the expectations of the people in the dispensation of justice, especially corruption cases.
