Lobbying Culture In The Judiciary

In a recent public outing, a former Chief Justice of Nigeria,
Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, sated that the rising culture of
lobbying to influence appointments in the judiciary is capable of
destroying the integrity of the judiciary if steps were not taken
to curb it. Justice Mukhtar described as sad the negative impact of
lobbying, favouritism and god-fatherism in the appointment of
judicial officers.

Before one begins to wonder if there are no set rules guiding
appointments of officers in the judiciary, it is instructive to
note that in June 1998, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association,
the Commonwealth Legal Education Association, the Commonwealth
Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association and the Commonwealth Lawyers’
Association held a conference at Latimer House, Buckinghamshire,
United Kingdom. The conference drew a set of guidelines governing
relations between the executive, legislature and the judiciary in
the promotion of good governance, the rule of law and human
rights.

At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in Abuja in
December 2003, the heads of government fully endorsed the
recommendations of their Law Ministers on the Latimer Guidelines,
which specify the Commonwealth principles on the accountability of
and relationship between the three branches of government.

In Nigeria, the judiciary has assured in several fora that it
has made significant progress by not only complying with the
Latimer House Principles but also with the Bangalore Principles as
well. It insisted that these have formed an important part of the
ethical character that underpins the operation of the Nigerian
courts. The commitment to higher ideals of impartiality, propriety,
diligence and competence, among others, the judiciary boasted, are
no longer mere watchwords but actual standards that the nation’s
Judges have to attain.

The Latimer House Principles insist that an independent,
impartial, honest and competent judiciary is integral to upholding
the rule of law, engendering public confidence and dispensing
justice. Indeed, Value 6 of the Bangalore Principles states that
competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance
of any judicial office. To secure these aims, judicial appointments
should be made on the basis of clearly defined criteria and by a
publicly declared process. The process should ensure equality of
opportunity for all who are eligible for judicial offices and
appointments on merit. Judges should be subjected to suspension or
removal only for reasons of incapacity or misbehaviour that clearly
renders them unfit to discharge their duties. These are what member
countries are expected to imbibe.

The National Judicial Council (NJC), the apex body of the
nation’s judiciary, is one of the Federal Executive Bodies created
by Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The Council is
vested with enormous powers and functions, which no such
institution in the 1979 Constitution or any other previous
Constitution had.

By the provision of Paragraph 21 of Part One of the Third
Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, NJC is empowered to recommend to
the president or governors from among the list of persons submitted
to it by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), Judicial
Service Committee of the FCT and State Judicial Service
Commissions, for appointment as Justices, Judges or Kadis of all
the superior courts of record in the country. According to the NJC
new guidelines on appointments, the council however interviews all
candidates, Kadis, Judges, Justices for appointment to all superior
courts of record to allow for competition among candidates and
transparency in the selection mechanism for judicial
appointments.

It is sad that despite all these rules and guidelines, lobbying,
favouritism and god-fatherism still play major roles in the
appointment of judicial officers in the country. This has been
argued to be a norm in pluralistic, ethno-religious and democratic
society like Nigeria. This is particularly so because unlike the
Executive and Legislature that, in most cases, appoint their
personnel and officers solely by themselves, all judicial officers’
appointment involve all the three arms of government.

We agree with Justice Mukhtar that if what held sway in the past
must be revived, which is maintaining a strong and competent
judiciary, then merit should be the watchword. We share the view
for a change in the criteria for the appointment of judicial
officers in Nigeria and therefore urge the NJC to begin to
implement the 2014 Revised NJC Guidelines and Procedural Rules for
the Appointment of Judicial Officers of all Superior Courts of
Record in Nigeria.

It is worthy of note that part of the reform of the current CJN,
Justice Walter Onnoghen, who doubles as the chairman of NJC is to
ensure that the overall appointment procedure maintains the
institutional integrity of the judicial appointment process so that
only the most competent persons are elevated.

In a recent public outing, a former Chief Justice of Nigeria,
Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, sated that the rising culture of
lobbying to influence appointments in the judiciary is capable of
destroying the integrity of the judiciary if steps were not taken
to curb it. Justice Mukhtar described as sad the negative impact of
lobbying, favouritism and god-fatherism in the appointment of
judicial officers.

Before one begins to wonder if there are no set rules guiding
appointments of officers in the judiciary, it is instructive to
note that in June 1998, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association,
the Commonwealth Legal Education Association, the Commonwealth
Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association and the Commonwealth Lawyers’
Association held a conference at Latimer House, Buckinghamshire,
United Kingdom. The conference drew a set of guidelines governing
relations between the executive, legislature and the judiciary in
the promotion of good governance, the rule of law and human
rights.

At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in Abuja in
December 2003, the heads of government fully endorsed the
recommendations of their Law Ministers on the Latimer Guidelines,
which specify the Commonwealth principles on the accountability of
and relationship between the three branches of government.

In Nigeria, the judiciary has assured in several fora that it
has made significant progress by not only complying with the
Latimer House Principles but also with the Bangalore Principles as
well. It insisted that these have formed an important part of the
ethical character that underpins the operation of the Nigerian
courts. The commitment to higher ideals of impartiality, propriety,
diligence and competence, among others, the judiciary boasted, are
no longer mere watchwords but actual standards that the nation’s
Judges have to attain.

The Latimer House Principles insist that an independent,
impartial, honest and competent judiciary is integral to upholding
the rule of law, engendering public confidence and dispensing
justice. Indeed, Value 6 of the Bangalore Principles states that
competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance
of any judicial office. To secure these aims, judicial appointments
should be made on the basis of clearly defined criteria and by a
publicly declared process. The process should ensure equality of
opportunity for all who are eligible for judicial offices and
appointments on merit. Judges should be subjected to suspension or
removal only for reasons of incapacity or misbehaviour that clearly
renders them unfit to discharge their duties. These are what member
countries are expected to imbibe.

The National Judicial Council (NJC), the apex body of the
nation’s judiciary, is one of the Federal Executive Bodies created
by Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The Council is
vested with enormous powers and functions, which no such
institution in the 1979 Constitution or any other previous
Constitution had.

By the provision of Paragraph 21 of Part One of the Third
Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, NJC is empowered to recommend to
the president or governors from among the list of persons submitted
to it by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), Judicial
Service Committee of the FCT and State Judicial Service
Commissions, for appointment as Justices, Judges or Kadis of all
the superior courts of record in the country. According to the NJC
new guidelines on appointments, the council however interviews all
candidates, Kadis, Judges, Justices for appointment to all superior
courts of record to allow for competition among candidates and
transparency in the selection mechanism for judicial
appointments.

It is sad that despite all these rules and guidelines, lobbying,
favouritism and god-fatherism still play major roles in the
appointment of judicial officers in the country. This has been
argued to be a norm in pluralistic, ethno-religious and democratic
society like Nigeria. This is particularly so because unlike the
Executive and Legislature that, in most cases, appoint their
personnel and officers solely by themselves, all judicial officers’
appointment involve all the three arms of government.

We agree with Justice Mukhtar that if what held sway in the past
must be revived, which is maintaining a strong and competent
judiciary, then merit should be the watchword. We share the view
for a change in the criteria for the appointment of judicial
officers in Nigeria and therefore urge the NJC to begin to
implement the 2014 Revised NJC Guidelines and Procedural Rules for
the Appointment of Judicial Officers of all Superior Courts of
Record in Nigeria.

It is worthy of note that part of the reform of the current CJN,
Justice Walter Onnoghen, who doubles as the chairman of NJC is to
ensure that the overall appointment procedure maintains the
institutional integrity of the judicial appointment process so that
only the most competent persons are elevated.