 |
| Nigeria's first female Chief Justice, Mariam Aloma Mukhtar |
ADE ADESOMOJU, in this piece, writes on the prominent features of the nation’s judiciary since it became independent of English Privy Council in 1963.
Nigeria attains its 52nd year of independence today, but the independence of its judiciary only coincides with the period the nation became a republic in 1963. The Nigerian judiciary had no independence until 1963 when the country finally proclaimed itself a republic. Prior to 1963, decisions from the Federal Supreme Court of Nigeria were not final as final appeals still had to be laid before the jurisdiction of the Privy Council of the House of Lords in England. That meant that final decisions of Nigerian courts were still subject to judicial views handed down from England- through the Privy Council. A case that changed that was the Akintola v. Adegbenro case in which the Privy Council gave a decision at variance with that which the Nigerian Federal Supreme Court gave. After that decision, Nigeria became a Republic and the independence of the Nigeria judiciary from Britain’s Privy Council was effected.
The personnel of the Nigerian judiciary, including the Chief Justices and Judges, were reflective of the colonial past until the appointment of the late Justice Adetokunbo Ademola as the nation’s first indigenous Chief Justice. That gradually paved way for the weeding out of foreign influences from the personnel of the Nigerian judiciary until what is today a judiciary peopled by largely Nigerians.
Also, prior to becoming a Republic, decisions and cases decided in England were largely binding on Nigerian courts by virtue of the influence of the Privy Council on the Nigerian judicial heirachy system. However, since 1963 and over the years, the Nigerian courts are no longer bound by decisions made in English courts or any foreign court for that matter. At best, decisions made in English or other foreign courts can only be cited in Nigerian courts for persuasive effect. They are not binding on Nigerian courts.
In the areas of jurisprudence and the espousal of legal principles, Nigerian courts have taken advantage of opportunities offered by some Nigerian cases to propound legal theories to suit our localised dynamics. For instance, the issue of ‘local standi’ now have Nigerian cases, such as Fawehinmi v. Akilu, Abraham Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Fawehinmi v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, etc; decided on the applicability of the doctrine in Nigeria; as against the former practice of relying on British cases and foreign jurists’ opinion on such matters. Also, on the issue of judicial integrity and bias, the practice before independence was to rely on the views of English jurists, especially Lord Denning’s view in such cases like that of Metropolitan Properties Co. ltd v. Lannon (1963) 3 All ER 304 at 310. However, today, Nigerian jurisprudence has evolved and cases such as Adigun v. A.G. Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.53) 678 at 719 – 720, L.P.D.C v Fawehinmi (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.7) 300 at 346-347, have had Nigerian judges propounding brilliant theories on the subject of judicial bias and integrity such that recourse to English jurisprudence on the subject is now often dispensed with.
Generally, the question of the competence and integrity of judges was hardly in doubt as at the time of independence but it appears that as the system declined, the judiciary also commenced its downward slope into corruption.
Some factors have been argued to have contributed to the decline in both competence and integrity on the Nigerian bench since independence. One of such is the process of appointment of judicial officers. At independence, merit was considered more important than place of origin. It was such that renowned academics such as Dr. Taslim Elias, who was Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, got appointed to the Supreme Court and even went to the World Court as Nigeria’s representative on the International Court of Justice’ Bench. Today, appointments in the judiciary has been afflicted by the turn-by-turn syndrome of a decaying bureaucracy.
The country is being administered as a fragment of ethnic nationalities so its appointments to the judicial arm of government have witnessed an unhealthy rise of the primordial sentimental considerations which have caused a steady decline in the quality of judgments and the society is the worse for it.
Over the years, military rule also contributed to the corruption of the judiciary. The military decrees many times attempted to abrogate and oust the jurisdiction of the courts. The military largely turned the courts to toothless bull-dogs and even where judgments were handed down against arbitrary government actions, they were hardly obeyed thus contributing to the peoples’ apathy towards the capacity of courts to do effectual justice.
Nigeria’s judiciary has rendered capacity-building assistance to fellow African countries such as Liberia, Gambia, Sierra-Leone etc. For instance, the Late Justice Akinola Aguda was once the Chief Justice of The Gambia. Similarly, the incumbent CJN, Justice Aloma Mukthar, would have been the Chief Judge of another African country, but for the fact that she declined and otherwise preferred to continue to render her services to the Nigerian judiciary.
