Follow Us on Google
The row over the delay in the prosecution of high profile corruption cases between the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN), Justice Tanko Mohammed, is unnecessary. Malami was reported to have blamed the Nigerian judiciary for the delay in the prosecution of high profile corruption cases during a programme on television.
According to the report, the AGF exonerated the executive arm of government over the delay in the trial of high profile corruption cases and laid the blame squarely on the judiciary. He also cited the lingering case of the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir Lawal, who has been on trial at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) over alleged abuse of office, to buttress his point.
According to him, the Federal Government has been applying the innovative provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015) to ensure speedy dispensation of justice in the country. However, corruption cases involving politically exposed persons have reportedly lingered for too long despite this provision in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
He also accused the judiciary of having an opaque budgeting system but later retracted the claim. According to his spokesman, Umar Gwandu, his comment was an “innocent statement” aimed at showing the tripartite division of power among the three arms of government. He also said that his comment was “misconstrued to evoke an unintended and non-existing inferences, which some mischief makers projected him as blaming the judiciary” for the delay in the trial of high profile corruption cases.
Despite the denial, the CJN issued a strong rebuttal to the AGF’s claims. According to the spokesman of the CJN, Ahuraka Isah, while not exonerating the judiciary in the intermittent delay of such cases, the CJN pointed out how the government had also contributed to the delay in the trial of high profile corruption cases. For instance, he noted that government’s prosecution team often filed more charges than it can prove or provide witnesses to prove its case, ostensibly making its case to fail. On the issue of budgeting, the CJN explained that the judiciary has an internal mechanism for budget control and implementation as each court has its budget office and other units for checks and balances.
Besides, the CJN mentioned the existence of the Due Process Committee of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Judicial Tenders Board that awards contracts on expenditure above the approved limit of the accounting officers of the courts and judicial bodies. He equally stated that these layers of control were set up by the judiciary to ensure transparency, accountability and effective budget implementation. It is unfortunate that these two high ranking judicial officials should be involved in a needless row over the delay in the dispensation of justice. Their unbecoming altercation does not show good example, especially at this critical time of our democratic dispensation when the two vital arms of government ought to be working in synergy to ensure quick dispensation of justice. The duo should work together to ensure that the judiciary is still seen as the last hope of the common man. Nothing should be done to diminish the important role played by the judiciary. Since justice delayed is justice denied, the two judicial officials ought to work in concert to ensure quick dispensation of cases, whether high profile or not.
It is vital that all concerned should focus on their Constitutional roles and avoid comments capable of eroding public confidence in the judiciary. It is important to note that the AGF has seemingly become more controversial than providing the much-needed legal advice to the President that will advance the cause of democracy. As the chief law officer of the country, his position is one of the most critical in the administration of justice. As the office entails, it is his responsibility to ensure that the interpretation of the law is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, and that the President gets the right legal counsel in all matters.
Going forward, there should be restraint on the part of public officers, especially in matters that pertain to public good and national interest. Beyond high profile cases that border on graft, there are many other cases in courts that have been unduly delayed, largely due to lack of due diligence by those in charge or unnecessary adjournments. In this regard, there is need to fashion out ways of dispensing justice as quickly as possible. In all, Nigerians need a transparent and accountable judicial system that will command the confidence and respect of the populace and the international community.
Democracy will not thrive well when institutions and officials entrusted with the dispensation of justice are at loggerheads. To strengthen our democracy, we need to build a strong political culture where the institutions and officials are aware of their responsibilities.
