Following the suspension of several judges, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Abiodun Olatunji (SAN), spoke with Onozure Dania on the National Judicial Council’s recent actions and the broader challenges confronting the judiciary, including judicial misconduct, political interference, reform, and restoring public trust
What is your perspective on the recent suspensions and redeployments of judges by the National Judicial Council?
I believe the recent suspensions and redeployments are both timely and necessary to assure the Nigerian populace that the judiciary still remains the last hope of the common man. It is essential for citizens to continue to retain confidence in the administration of justice through impartial arbiters. As the often-quoted aphorism goes, “Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to have been done.” There have been far too many credible complaints about how some judges conduct proceedings and the manner in which decisions are rendered complaints that, when substantiated, raise serious concerns about fidelity to the judicial oath.
Suspension, in this context, must be viewed not as a mere punitive step but as a mechanism to preserve the integrity of the bench. However, if the NJC has found, after due process, that a judicial officer has breached the judicial code or behaved in a manner unbecoming of the high office they hold, then stronger measures such as dismissal or compulsory retirement should be considered. This is because reinstating such a judge after suspension might erode public confidence. The coercive authority of the judiciary is significantly tethered to the public’s perception of its impartiality and credibility.
How effective do you think the NJC’s disciplinary actions have been in curbing judicial misconduct?
The NJC’s disciplinary actions have yielded mixed results. On one hand, we’ve seen substantial improvements, especially in the timeliness of judgment writing. Unlike in the past, judges are now conscious of the constitutional timelines post-final addresses, as delays can attract disciplinary action. This fear has inspired greater commitment to judicial ethics and diligence. Many judges now take their oath more seriously, avoiding acts that could signal compromise.
On the other hand, the sheer volume of petitions still being considered is troubling. The number of disciplinary cases recently decided by the NJC points to a persistent disregard by some judicial officers for the standards expected of them. It is disheartening that after years of reform, some officers still exhibit conduct that tarnishes the judiciary’s reputation. In that sense, while the NJC has made progress, systemic challenges still exist, and more robust, deterrent-oriented reforms are needed.
What measures can be taken to improve accountability and integrity among judicial officers in Nigeria?
First and foremost, improving the welfare and working conditions of judges is critical. No judge should sit in a courtroom with no electricity to power air conditioning or even to illuminate the room properly. It’s demoralising and can affect performance and comportment. Judges must be given all necessary tools, technological, infrastructural, and intellectual, for the discharge of their duties.
Equally important is the assurance of life after the bench. A well-defined post-retirement structure can reduce susceptibility to external inducements. Furthermore, judicial appointments must be based strictly on merit, not nepotism or political patronage. The bench must attract and retain the best legal minds, persons with a demonstrable track record of integrity, courage, and diligence.
Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has criticised corruption within the judiciary. How prevalent do you think corruption is in the Nigerian judicial system today?
While I acknowledge that corruption exists in many facets of Nigerian society, including the judiciary, it is important to avoid overgeneralisations. There are still many men and women of honour on the bench. However, corruption, even if only among a minority, can have outsized consequences. It undermines confidence in the entire system and may render justice elusive.
In my view, the factors enabling judicial corruption include poor remuneration, insecure tenures, executive interference, and lack of transparency in appointment and promotion processes. More importantly, corruption thrives in systems where accountability is weak. The solution is not merely punitive but structural, improving systems of checks, ensuring transparency, and guaranteeing institutional independence.
What steps should be taken to restore public confidence in the judiciary, especially regarding delayed justice and perceived bias?
Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. Multiple factors contribute to judicial delays, overloaded dockets, archaic procedures, and exploitative litigation tactics. Particularly troubling is the abuse of appeals; for instance, tenancy disputes going all the way to the Supreme Court. That’s not just inefficient, it’s absurd.
We need constitutional amendments to limit appellate rights in specific categories of cases. Not every matter must reach the apex court. High Court rules across states already penalise late filings, but enforcement must be uniform and consistent. Most importantly, judges must take active control of their courts to prevent delay tactics. Public confidence will only be restored when the judiciary consistently delivers timely, reasoned, and impartial decisions.
How can the judiciary address the misuse of ex parte orders in politically sensitive cases?
Ex parte orders, by their very nature, are susceptible to abuse. They are meant to preserve the status quo pending a hearing on notice, not to determine substantive issues or grant far-reaching relief. In politically sensitive matters, judges should be extremely cautious. Where urgency is alleged, the appropriate step is often to abridge time and order a hearing on notice, rather than grant an ex parte order that could have far-reaching consequences.
Even where legislation permits ex parte intervention, judicial officers must weigh the public interest and the need for impartiality. Thankfully, the NJC and appellate courts have recently reiterated this caution, and this must continue.
The Federal High Court in Lagos is moving towards digital case filing. How do you see technology transforming the Nigerian judiciary?
Technology is a game-changer and a long-overdue revolution in the judiciary. Lagos State has already shown the way e-filing, remote hearings, and electronic delivery of judgments have reduced delay, corruption, and inefficiency. The Federal High Court’s move is commendable and must be replicated across the country.
Digitisation will eliminate much of the manual bottlenecks that plague our justice delivery system, especially at the registry. It will also promote transparency, data preservation, and accessibility. Importantly, it will enable better monitoring and evaluation of court performance metrics.
What challenges do you foresee in implementing digital reforms across courts nationwide?
The challenges are substantial. They include erratic power supply, poor internet penetration in rural areas, and underfunding. Also, the judiciary has a workforce largely trained in an analogue environment. Transitioning judges, court clerks, and registrars to digital platforms will require intensive training and change management.
Beyond infrastructure, there must be political will and sustainable funding. The digital divide between urban and rural courts must be narrowed to avoid two tiers of justice, one modern and the other antiquated.
How important is judicial independence in the context of political interference, such as in the Imo State Chief Judge appointment case?
Judicial independence is sacrosanct. The process of appointing judicial officers must be free from political manipulation. The Imo State episode is a textbook case on why the constitution must be amended to reduce, if not eliminate, the executive’s role in judicial appointments. The executive may play a ceremonial or administrative role, but the real power to screen, assess, and recommend judicial officers must reside with the NJC.
To further insulate the process, confirmation hearings could be vested in the legislature, but with strict timelines and transparent criteria. No judicial officer should feel beholden to a governor or president for their appointment. True independence is the foundation of impartial adjudication.
Critics argue that the NJC struggles to enforce discipline at the highest levels. What reforms would you recommend to strengthen the NJC’s role?
To enhance effectiveness, I recommend decentralising the NJC’s functions. Just like we have federal and state courts, we should have a State Judicial Council (SJC) in each state to handle disciplinary matters and appointments within its jurisdiction. This would reflect true federalism and allow for faster, localised responses to misconduct.
Also, the NJC should be better funded and staffed with independent investigators and legal experts who can promptly and thoroughly investigate complaints. Its procedures must be transparent and timely, so justice is not only done but seen to be done.
How can the judiciary balance the need for internal discipline with the protection of judicial independence?
The key lies in due process and transparency. Disciplinary procedures must be rigorous but fair. Judicial independence doesn’t mean immunity from accountability; rather, it means freedom from undue influence, particularly from the political class. So long as the NJC acts based on evidence, adheres to fair hearing principles, and avoids selective justice, it can discipline erring judges without threatening independence.
Training and institutional safeguards like appellate review and peer oversight can help strike this balance. Judges must feel protected from external interference but also accountable to their oath and the public.
Reflecting on past controversies like the removal of former Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen, what lessons can be learned to improve judicial governance?
The Onnoghen saga exposed the fragility of our judicial governance framework. The lesson is that perception is as important as procedure. Even if a disciplinary process is lawful, if it is orchestrated in a manner that suggests executive manipulation, it undermines confidence in the system.
We must strengthen internal mechanisms for discipline within the judiciary and make them robust enough to address any infraction, regardless of the officeholder’s rank. Also, we need clearer constitutional provisions on the removal process for judicial officers, one that guarantees transparency, separation of powers, and fidelity to the rule of law.
