Mr. Lawal Pedro (SAN), a former Lagos State Solicitor General,
speaks to OLADIMEJI RAMON on how the judiciary can gain public
confidence
Court decisions are now generally
received with cynicism by the public; how can the judiciary regain
public confidence?
There are some court judgments that should command voluntary
compliance; those judgments are referred to as declaratory
judgments. Those declaratory judgments should be complied with in
the absence of any appeal. On the other hand, there are executory
judgments. And these are the ones that people often feel frustrated
about. And it is because of the length of time it takes the
judgment creditor to enforce the judgment. So, there’s apathy,
there’s frustration on the part of people. If, for instance, there
is a land matter and the judgment is in my favour, it is a
Herculean task, enforcing the judgment. Despite that the court has
made orders, giving me possession, I have to first submit the
judgment at the police station, where one Commissioner of Police or
an Assistant Commissioner of Police will sit on the order that the
court has already given me. Ordinarily, the order should be
enforced within a maximum of seven days, in the absence of any
appeal. But by the time the police begin by sending someone from
the headquarters to verify the judgment, frustration begins to set
in for the judgment creditor.
owed five years’ rent, but he cannot enforce the judgment by
himself. He has to go through the police, who will now set their
own rules and make some unprintable requests. If he doesn’t meet
the conditions, the judgment does not get enforced for weeks,
months. So, how do you expect that kind of person to react? And
this is what I believe we should address.
The solution is to have what we call Court Police Units to be
headed by not less than an Assistant Commissioner of Police, who
will be subject to the control of the Chief Judge. If the Railway
Corporation, the Nigeria Ports Authorities have police units, why
should the judiciary not have? With the police unit next door to
the CJ, for every order of court, every judgment, he ensures
enforcement. The judgment creditor doesn’t have to go to one DPO to
seek the enforcement of the order. That Court Police Unit should be
manned by an ACP and about nine other policemen to start with.
Their job is enforcement of court orders and judgments. Once they
are there and there’s a litigant who has an order to take
possession of a land and so on, it is the ACP that he would
approach. Then people will begin to have confidence in the justice
system. You were in court for five, 10 years and you eventually get
judgment but you cannot enforce it for three, six months, that is
not judgment. Justice delayed is justice denied. The way out,
if it will be permitted, is to ensure that the judiciary itself has
its own police unit.
Will this suggestion not conflict with the
constitutional provision that vests the control of police in the
executive?
No; we are talking about interrelationship among the arms of
government. Will a judge sit without being sworn in by the
executive? It is an interrelationship that must exist. The beauty
of the separation of powers is to be able to have what we call
institutions and not individuals.
How do we get past a situation where the government
flagrantly disobeys court orders and citizens are helpless like in
the case of Ibrahim El-Zakzaky?
It is really unfortunate that we have found ourselves in such a
situation, which should not be. There are processes to be followed.
There is no order of court, whether rightly or wrongly made, that
should not be obeyed, unless that order is stayed or set aside.
Court orders must be complied with by every government. That is how
to build and strengthen institutions. It is you today in power; it
will be someone else tomorrow. What will you do if you are at the
receiving end tomorrow? We must ensure that we develop and protect
our institutions. A court cannot give an order that should be
flagrantly disobeyed, no matter how highly placed the person is. It
is an abuse of institutions and the consequences will boomerang on
all of us. The best thing to do is to also use the law. That is why
there is constitutional right of appeal. That, I think, is the way
to go round it.
From your experience in public service, do you think
financial autonomy for the judiciary is realistic or should we
rather scrap that provision from the constitution, seeing how
difficult it has become for most states to comply?
There is nobody that should be against the autonomy of the
judicially either financial autonomy or independence in their core
responsibility, which is adjudication of disputes; nobody should
interfere. For judges to be able to adjudicate properly there must
be judicial independence and it is the operation of this that
people do not understand. Does the judiciary have enough source of
revenue for itself? The answer is ‘No’. Even the legislature
does not have. But there must be transparency in the budget
process. Once the budget has been prepared and passed, and we know
what is due to the judiciary, same should be released to the head
of the court. As of today, I am sure the judiciary has its own vote
in the budget but where the problem is is the issue of
transparency. I don’t believe that the judiciary should go
cap-in-hand to the executive every time to say I need approval for
this and that. Once the budget is passed and we know what is
budgeted for the judiciary, that percentage of the revenue should
go to the head of court who will decide how it should be expended
and of course there is an auditor.
the judiciary to be independent. I worked in government and I saw
it happen and I know that is really not the case. We should push
for it and ensure that any hiccup in the arrangement is resolved.
And how that can be done is transparency. And that is why we have
advocated for there to be court administrators, who know what to
do. We have got to the stage when we must have court administrators
— people with accounting knowledge — to present and defend
the budget of the judiciary and state what is required by the
judiciary. The judiciary is an arm of government, so, any money
coming in should be divided into three among the executive,
legislature and the judiciary and whatever is due to the judiciary
should be released to the judiciary to be expended by the
judiciary.
It is common among old lawyers to complain of falling
standards in the profession; do you share this concern or is it
mere sentiment?
It is not sentiment, to be honest and it is not limited to the
legal profession. It is a reflection of the falling standard of
education in the country. When the foundation is weak, what
do you expect to get? We have brilliant young lawyers but how many
of them? Some of them, common construction of a letter of demand,
they cannot write and you’ll be wondering, ‘which university did
this one pass through?’ To me, there is a need to properly review
the admission criteria into the law school and it is not a question
of some of us have climbed the ladder and want to remove the ladder
from those coming behind. We will be injuring ourselves if we fail
to act; there will be no more profession for us, if we don’t begin
to address it from now. For me, I think the advocacy should be if
you don’t have a first degree before coming to study law, go and
have HSC or what they call GCE advanced level; you would have been
well groomed. We must look at the foundation very well. You finish
your school cert, you want to study law, go and do advanced
learning, where you do government, economics, history at advanced
level. Law itself needs a bit of maturity and I tell you, we used
to have lay magistrates in Lagos, before it was abolished. The
magistrates didn’t go to any law school but they were adjudicating
with their wealth of experience. They were lay magistrates with
limited jurisdiction but you see some of them write beautiful
judgments. So, it is an advancement we want and people, who want to
study law, should have well grounded foundation. Then from there,
we should address the law school; to ensure it is more
practical.
In the last two years, it’s been turbulent for the
judiciary with the prosecution of some high-ranking lawyers and
judges. Are you worried for the judiciary?
The first cardinal principle of the law is that nobody is above
the law. So, anybody that is found wanting, surely, consequences
must follow. The only concern I have is how the entire process is
being politicised. Due process must be followed and that is what is
lacking. You have already arraigned the Number 3 citizen, if
there is evidence against a judge, why not? We must only ensure
that due process is followed. What is the hurry if a judge has
truly committed an offence? If the National Judicial Council sits
and says give me the evidence you have against this judge and after
sitting, it says I can’t find merit in this allegation. Who are in
the NJC? Grey-headed wise men Justices and they say we can’t find
anything from what you submitted that will justify the criminal
prosecution of this judge. But you say the NJC is protecting its
own, and then you go and arrest the judge; who are you taking the
judge before? Another judge. But it would have carried more weight
if the NJC sees the evidence and says we can’t continue to retain
this man in the justice system, please ask the person to be
dismissed or retired and the anti-graft agency then picks the
person up on the same fact; the case is as good as won already. And
that is the way I think we should go. But we have politicised the
whole thing. In spite of the turbulence, for me, the judiciary has
fared well.
Recently, the Chief Justice of Nigeria issued a warning
that people should stop commenting on subsisting court cases, and
then the Federal Government said it had begun monitoring the social
media comments of citizens. Don’t you think there is an attempt by
the government to silence the public?
I don’t really think so and I don’t think anybody will want to
go through that route. Yes, some of us will not do our cases on the
pages of the newspapers but if a journalist is fortunate to be in
court and hears the proceedings, he can report. But I won’t go to
the press and start canvassing arguments that I am supposed to
canvass in court. Let the press do their job. But arguing
cases in the press, outside the courtroom should be discouraged.
Whatever the pressmen can take from court proceedings let them
report and anybody who reports wrongly will have himself to blame
for contempt.
As to the Federal Government monitoring people’s comment on the
social media, I am not seized of that. But how can that be done in
the light of the constitution, when citizens have the right of
expression, and right to privacy? In other climes, there are
certain things that they monitor too for security purpose, but they
won’t tell you they are monitoring anything; they know what they
are looking for. Now to say someone should be picked up for what he
says! Then what should Donald Trump do in America? Jump into the
sea? But there should be consequences for reckless statements that
are defamatory. There are provisions in our law to deal with that.
And it is worrisome how pure civil matters are turned into criminal
matters in this country. Anybody that makes reckless statements or
spread falsehood could be taken up in court. You must be sure
before you start accusing somebody. We should be very cautious
about that and what the government should be looking for should be
more than this. If government is monitoring banking activities to
detect money laundering, or those funding terrorism, there is
nothing wrong in that, but not to say someone critising government
should be arrested; it is his personal opinion. What the government
can do is to come up with superior argument; let superior argument
judge. But we must not cow anybody.
Culled: Punch
Mr. Lawal Pedro (SAN), a former Lagos State Solicitor General,
speaks to OLADIMEJI RAMON on how the judiciary can gain public
confidence
Court decisions are now generally
received with cynicism by the public; how can the judiciary regain
public confidence?
There are some court judgments that should command voluntary
compliance; those judgments are referred to as declaratory
judgments. Those declaratory judgments should be complied with in
the absence of any appeal. On the other hand, there are executory
judgments. And these are the ones that people often feel frustrated
about. And it is because of the length of time it takes the
judgment creditor to enforce the judgment. So, there’s apathy,
there’s frustration on the part of people. If, for instance, there
is a land matter and the judgment is in my favour, it is a
Herculean task, enforcing the judgment. Despite that the court has
made orders, giving me possession, I have to first submit the
judgment at the police station, where one Commissioner of Police or
an Assistant Commissioner of Police will sit on the order that the
court has already given me. Ordinarily, the order should be
enforced within a maximum of seven days, in the absence of any
appeal. But by the time the police begin by sending someone from
the headquarters to verify the judgment, frustration begins to set
in for the judgment creditor.
owed five years’ rent, but he cannot enforce the judgment by
himself. He has to go through the police, who will now set their
own rules and make some unprintable requests. If he doesn’t meet
the conditions, the judgment does not get enforced for weeks,
months. So, how do you expect that kind of person to react? And
this is what I believe we should address.
The solution is to have what we call Court Police Units to be
headed by not less than an Assistant Commissioner of Police, who
will be subject to the control of the Chief Judge. If the Railway
Corporation, the Nigeria Ports Authorities have police units, why
should the judiciary not have? With the police unit next door to
the CJ, for every order of court, every judgment, he ensures
enforcement. The judgment creditor doesn’t have to go to one DPO to
seek the enforcement of the order. That Court Police Unit should be
manned by an ACP and about nine other policemen to start with.
Their job is enforcement of court orders and judgments. Once they
are there and there’s a litigant who has an order to take
possession of a land and so on, it is the ACP that he would
approach. Then people will begin to have confidence in the justice
system. You were in court for five, 10 years and you eventually get
judgment but you cannot enforce it for three, six months, that is
not judgment. Justice delayed is justice denied. The way out,
if it will be permitted, is to ensure that the judiciary itself has
its own police unit.
Will this suggestion not conflict with the
constitutional provision that vests the control of police in the
executive?
No; we are talking about interrelationship among the arms of
government. Will a judge sit without being sworn in by the
executive? It is an interrelationship that must exist. The beauty
of the separation of powers is to be able to have what we call
institutions and not individuals.
How do we get past a situation where the government
flagrantly disobeys court orders and citizens are helpless like in
the case of Ibrahim El-Zakzaky?
It is really unfortunate that we have found ourselves in such a
situation, which should not be. There are processes to be followed.
There is no order of court, whether rightly or wrongly made, that
should not be obeyed, unless that order is stayed or set aside.
Court orders must be complied with by every government. That is how
to build and strengthen institutions. It is you today in power; it
will be someone else tomorrow. What will you do if you are at the
receiving end tomorrow? We must ensure that we develop and protect
our institutions. A court cannot give an order that should be
flagrantly disobeyed, no matter how highly placed the person is. It
is an abuse of institutions and the consequences will boomerang on
all of us. The best thing to do is to also use the law. That is why
there is constitutional right of appeal. That, I think, is the way
to go round it.
From your experience in public service, do you think
financial autonomy for the judiciary is realistic or should we
rather scrap that provision from the constitution, seeing how
difficult it has become for most states to comply?
There is nobody that should be against the autonomy of the
judicially either financial autonomy or independence in their core
responsibility, which is adjudication of disputes; nobody should
interfere. For judges to be able to adjudicate properly there must
be judicial independence and it is the operation of this that
people do not understand. Does the judiciary have enough source of
revenue for itself? The answer is ‘No’. Even the legislature
does not have. But there must be transparency in the budget
process. Once the budget has been prepared and passed, and we know
what is due to the judiciary, same should be released to the head
of the court. As of today, I am sure the judiciary has its own vote
in the budget but where the problem is is the issue of
transparency. I don’t believe that the judiciary should go
cap-in-hand to the executive every time to say I need approval for
this and that. Once the budget is passed and we know what is
budgeted for the judiciary, that percentage of the revenue should
go to the head of court who will decide how it should be expended
and of course there is an auditor.
the judiciary to be independent. I worked in government and I saw
it happen and I know that is really not the case. We should push
for it and ensure that any hiccup in the arrangement is resolved.
And how that can be done is transparency. And that is why we have
advocated for there to be court administrators, who know what to
do. We have got to the stage when we must have court administrators
— people with accounting knowledge — to present and defend
the budget of the judiciary and state what is required by the
judiciary. The judiciary is an arm of government, so, any money
coming in should be divided into three among the executive,
legislature and the judiciary and whatever is due to the judiciary
should be released to the judiciary to be expended by the
judiciary.
It is common among old lawyers to complain of falling
standards in the profession; do you share this concern or is it
mere sentiment?
It is not sentiment, to be honest and it is not limited to the
legal profession. It is a reflection of the falling standard of
education in the country. When the foundation is weak, what
do you expect to get? We have brilliant young lawyers but how many
of them? Some of them, common construction of a letter of demand,
they cannot write and you’ll be wondering, ‘which university did
this one pass through?’ To me, there is a need to properly review
the admission criteria into the law school and it is not a question
of some of us have climbed the ladder and want to remove the ladder
from those coming behind. We will be injuring ourselves if we fail
to act; there will be no more profession for us, if we don’t begin
to address it from now. For me, I think the advocacy should be if
you don’t have a first degree before coming to study law, go and
have HSC or what they call GCE advanced level; you would have been
well groomed. We must look at the foundation very well. You finish
your school cert, you want to study law, go and do advanced
learning, where you do government, economics, history at advanced
level. Law itself needs a bit of maturity and I tell you, we used
to have lay magistrates in Lagos, before it was abolished. The
magistrates didn’t go to any law school but they were adjudicating
with their wealth of experience. They were lay magistrates with
limited jurisdiction but you see some of them write beautiful
judgments. So, it is an advancement we want and people, who want to
study law, should have well grounded foundation. Then from there,
we should address the law school; to ensure it is more
practical.
In the last two years, it’s been turbulent for the
judiciary with the prosecution of some high-ranking lawyers and
judges. Are you worried for the judiciary?
The first cardinal principle of the law is that nobody is above
the law. So, anybody that is found wanting, surely, consequences
must follow. The only concern I have is how the entire process is
being politicised. Due process must be followed and that is what is
lacking. You have already arraigned the Number 3 citizen, if
there is evidence against a judge, why not? We must only ensure
that due process is followed. What is the hurry if a judge has
truly committed an offence? If the National Judicial Council sits
and says give me the evidence you have against this judge and after
sitting, it says I can’t find merit in this allegation. Who are in
the NJC? Grey-headed wise men Justices and they say we can’t find
anything from what you submitted that will justify the criminal
prosecution of this judge. But you say the NJC is protecting its
own, and then you go and arrest the judge; who are you taking the
judge before? Another judge. But it would have carried more weight
if the NJC sees the evidence and says we can’t continue to retain
this man in the justice system, please ask the person to be
dismissed or retired and the anti-graft agency then picks the
person up on the same fact; the case is as good as won already. And
that is the way I think we should go. But we have politicised the
whole thing. In spite of the turbulence, for me, the judiciary has
fared well.
Recently, the Chief Justice of Nigeria issued a warning
that people should stop commenting on subsisting court cases, and
then the Federal Government said it had begun monitoring the social
media comments of citizens. Don’t you think there is an attempt by
the government to silence the public?
I don’t really think so and I don’t think anybody will want to
go through that route. Yes, some of us will not do our cases on the
pages of the newspapers but if a journalist is fortunate to be in
court and hears the proceedings, he can report. But I won’t go to
the press and start canvassing arguments that I am supposed to
canvass in court. Let the press do their job. But arguing
cases in the press, outside the courtroom should be discouraged.
Whatever the pressmen can take from court proceedings let them
report and anybody who reports wrongly will have himself to blame
for contempt.
As to the Federal Government monitoring people’s comment on the
social media, I am not seized of that. But how can that be done in
the light of the constitution, when citizens have the right of
expression, and right to privacy? In other climes, there are
certain things that they monitor too for security purpose, but they
won’t tell you they are monitoring anything; they know what they
are looking for. Now to say someone should be picked up for what he
says! Then what should Donald Trump do in America? Jump into the
sea? But there should be consequences for reckless statements that
are defamatory. There are provisions in our law to deal with that.
And it is worrisome how pure civil matters are turned into criminal
matters in this country. Anybody that makes reckless statements or
spread falsehood could be taken up in court. You must be sure
before you start accusing somebody. We should be very cautious
about that and what the government should be looking for should be
more than this. If government is monitoring banking activities to
detect money laundering, or those funding terrorism, there is
nothing wrong in that, but not to say someone critising government
should be arrested; it is his personal opinion. What the government
can do is to come up with superior argument; let superior argument
judge. But we must not cow anybody.
Culled: Punch
Read more https://nairalaw.com/courts-need-personal-police-to-fast-track-judgment-enforcement-pedro-san/