The amendment of the constitution on Administration of Justice
to strengthen the judiciary for timely justice delivery has been
the concern of judges, lawyers and the litigants, especially the
backlog of appeals lying at the Supreme Court.
Dilemma of stakeholders is the nature of matter or appeal that
should lie or not rest in the Supreme Court due to incessant
conflicting judgements chewed out by the Court of Appeal.
A ministerial nominee for Delta state Festus Keyamo (SAN), had last
Friday said during his screening for confirmation canvassed for the
unbundling of the Supreme Court also. According to him, it was
“scandalous” to have only one apex court in Abuja, attending to the
whole country.
Keyamo said he would press for constitutional changes to create
six regional Supreme Courts if he is appointed the minister of
justice and attorney-general of the federation.
Several renowned Law Professors and Senior Advocates of Nigeria
have asked Keyamo to bury his thought for the creation of Regional
Supreme Court on the grounds that not everything being successfully
practiced in other climes are practicable in Nigeria.
They reminded him that his suggestion that appeals climbing to
the Supreme Court be rationalized is not a new idea and that
several proposals including the amendment of the 1999 Constitution
have been made or are ongoing.
The creation of six Regional Supreme Court in order to unbundle
the apex court would end up doubling the journey some cases may
have to travel before they rest at the apex court, the lawyers
said.
Below is their reaction.
CHIEF EMEKA NGIGE (SAN)
Regional Supreme Court otherwise referred to as unbundling of the
court is not the solution to the congestion of cases at the apex
court.
The full complement of 21 justices should be put in place as a
matter of urgency. The Nigerian constitution should be amended to
allow for appointment of ad hoc justices comprising of retired
justices of the apex court and erudite SANs to sit and clear the
backlog of cases. ‘’Appeals on customary or sharia related matters
should end at the Court of Appeal
PROF ERNEST OJUKWU (SAN)
The immediate past Deputy Director-General and Head of Campus of
the Nigerian Law School, Augustine Nnamani Campus, Agbani
Enugu.
No I do not support the creation of zonal Supreme Courts. We should
rather drastically reduce the number and types of cases that should
be heard in the Supreme Court.
Only serious constitutional causes, human rights, litigation
between arms of government and between the Federating Units, and
criminal matters with capital punishment should go to the Supreme
Court. We can also add issues concerning the election of the
President.
The Supreme Court should also be given the powers to have a
discretion on what case or case that can be heard by the
concurrence in chambers of not less than 7 Justices.
All other cases should stop at the Court of Appeal of a State that
we should create. The present Court of Appeal should also only have
powers to hear only such cases that the Supreme Court can
determine.
PROF YEMI AKINSEYE-GEORGE (SAN)
A professor of public law and president of the Center for
Socio-Legal Studies
As a matter of urgency the backlog of cases pending at the Supreme
Court must be reduced. Unless this is done, the the appellate
system may become a major instrument for delaying justice. And
justice delayed is justice denied. We can borrow a leaf from the
way elections matters are handled. A situation where commercial
cases are delayed for so many years in the Supreme Court is bad for
the economy. The same goes for other cases as well.
There are several ways to reduce the backlog. I do not subscribe to
the idea of regional regional Supreme Courts. Rather, the Supreme
Court should issue new practice directions limiting the types of
cases going before the court. Many interlocutory matters should end
at the Court of Appeal. There should be a panel on restatement of
Settled principles of Nigerian law. Any appeal on such matters
should not attract detailed judgements. Heavy costs should be
awarded against parties bringing appeals against the current of
settled principles. Creating regional Sup Cts is a simplistic
approach. It will not solve the problem. It will lead to the
problem of conflicting judgements as we presently have with the
court of Appeal. It is better to make the Supreme Court stronger.
Improve the working conditions of the judges and their retirement
benefits. Introduce scientific case management system.
PROF ITE SAGAY (SAN)
Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption chairman.
The situation is highly embarrassing and disturbing for the
hardship litigants are subjected as they are made to suspend their
legal rights or forfeiting same. Current system that allows
automatic right of appeal in all matters to Supreme Court has to be
reviewed. The interlocutory appeals has to be taken together with
main matter rather than allowing appeals separately on it to the
apex court.
Appeal on subject matters permissible to lie at the Supreme Court
has to be reviewed. We need not allow appeals on torts, matrimonial
auses and commercial cases to lie at the apex court, they can
terminate at the Court of Appeal. But appeals on constitutional,
human rights, criminal matters involving death sentence or life
imprisonment can lie at the apex court.
OLISA ABAKOGBA (SAN)
Former Nigerian Bar Association President,
It’s a good call, and lies at the policy behind devolution of
powers from center to the federating units so I will modify the
policy behind unbundling to say what is needed is devolution of
powers so the federating units will all have their appellate courts
however styled
The Appeal courts are all federal courts so unbundling is not the
way to go but devolution of powers.
CHIEF MIKE AHAMBA (SAN)
Former lawyer to General Muhammadu Buhari
Regional Supreme Court cannot be created without the amendment of
the constitution, because a body unlawfully established can be
challenged over a decision taken against him by the body. And at
that time the truth shall be unveiled.
However, the people complaining are not happy with the court system
in Nigeria. Unfortunately, what the 2014 National Constitutional
Conference recommended was not practicable.
VALENTINE OFFIA, ESQ
Abuja based Legal Practitioner
The Supreme Court is overburdened because of our Constitution. Any
legal system that cannot determine a dispute speedily is
dysfunctional. No legal dispute is determined until the final
court, which is the Supreme Court, pronounces on it. It is a
serious problem, therefore, when the diary of the Supreme Court
cannot accommodate cases for years. The problem is our Constitution
has allowed access to the Supreme Court to every litigant even when
the case of the litigant has no national significance. For example,
why should the Supreme Court determine appeals on disputes over who
is the monarch of a village in Nigeria? Such an issue is usually
regulated by State law and has no trans – State significance. Yet,
such disputes are allowed to be litigated upon all the way to the
Supreme Court. We need to amend the Constitution to establish
Supreme Courts for each State where such disputes will abate. This
will quicken the delivery of justice and avoid the clog which is
the consequence of having twenty judges of the Supreme Court of
Nigeria determine every dispute in Nigeria – a very flawed
paradigm.
MUKTAR ABANIKA ESQ
An Abuja based Legal Practitioner
Regional Supreme Court shall compound our current legal conundrum.
You would find out later that the litigation journey would be
lengthier and complicated. It will rather breed anarchy and
confusion in the court system in Nigeria. Judiciary is still
grappling with frequent conflicting judgements delivered at
different jurisdictions of the Court of Appeal, hence it would
amount to ‘judicial suicide’ to create regional Supreme Court. Of
course, Supreme Court is overburdened because of our Constitution
and the current system that allows automatic right of appeal in all
matters to Supreme Court has to be reviewed.
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided for
under Section 233 of the Constitution should rather be altered for
some appeals to terminate at the Court of Appeal.
Appeals should not be automatic but by leave of court to reduce
inflow of appeals. Only cases that raise constitutional issues or
point of law should be appealed to the apex court as practiced in
USA, where they don’t sit on appeals more than 100 a year.
If restrictions are so applied then, what now comes to the apex
court can change law. Too many appeals lead to confusion in the law
and frequent revision of the law.
Culled from leadership.ng