Why NBA Didn’t Sign Panel Report – Daudu

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has explained why it refused to sign the final report of the judicial reform panel saying its views on how to address the rot in the Judiciary was not reflected in it.

NBA President Joseph Daudu (SAN), who spoke at a news conference in Kaduna, said since tax payers pay judges salaries, there is the need to appoint qualified persons into the position.

Daudu said the process of appointing judges “is fraught with all manner of irregularities,” adding: “siblings and favoured ones have been known to be appointed as judges when more qualified persons are available. In the long run, the Judiciary has become loaded with persons who ordinarily would not become judges, if a level playing field was created by the powers that be

He said “against this backdrop, the Bar suggested a more pragmatic model, which is that every Nigerian lawyer who meets the constitutional requirement should not be subjected to this present model of appointment of judges…, but a transparent and open mechanism of self-assessment of previous judgments, briefs and academic papers of applicants.”

He noted that the NBA was of the view that since the Chief Justice of Nigeria wants a reform of the Judiciary in the country, the reform must be total, pointing out that the body also suggested that serving judicial officers should no longer be members of the National Judicial Council while the Chief Justice of Nigeria should no longer be the Chairman of the council.

Daudu said: “The Bar is firmly of the view that any person who is amenable to disciplinary power of the NJC ought not to be a member. This includes the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

“During the last dispensation, the NJC was faced with the embarrassing scenario where both the CJN and the PCA were facing disciplinary procedures before the same council where they were members. Naturally, the effect of the appointing process of members would play a role in the ultimate resolution of whatever crisis the council is facing.

“In any case, serving members in the judiciary still have their career progression in the judiciary to consider hence some of us argued that it was in the overall interest of fairness and propriety that the Chief Justice of Nigeria should no longer constitutionally be the chairman of the NJC and serving members of the judiciary should no longer be on the NJC.

“It was suggested that retired Chief Justices, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judges etc and experienced lawyers be appointed to the NJC by an appointing committee. This proposal was strongly resisted by other members besides those members of the Bar that proposed it in the first instance.

“At a time when no compromise was in sight, it was suggested that both views (those in favour of maintaining the status and the NBA view) be reflected in the report to the CJN, but the majority refused.

“This refusal has grave implication for the Bar in that should the matter be revisited at another forum, that is, the National Assembly and the Bar presents a position different from that in the above mentioned report, it would be guilty of dishonourable conduct.

“That is why we cannot in good conscience sign a report in which a fundamental view of the Bar is not reflected. This situation could easily have been averted had both positions on this and other matters be properly reflected in the report for the acceptance by the CJN who set up the committee one way or the other.

“It was also suggested that the present mode of appointment (of Judges) is damaged by criticisms that there is no room for competition and only nominees of senior judges/justices ever get appointed as judges. An objective procedure will guarantee a level playing field for all appointments.

“This is why the NBA could not subscribe to the position of the majority of the committee which simply window-dressed and validated the existing system of patronage. If the CJN wants reforms, then he must have real reforms, not reforms from the judiciary oligarchy; these are not reforms at all.

“On discipline, it is clear that the machinery of discipline is afflicted by the same vice of patronage. There is a great reluctance to engage in the discipline of judges. Technicalities are sought to dismiss petitions from Nigerians.

“With this knowledge at the back of our mind, we suggested to the stakeholders another strategy which is to go through the evaluation report of judicial officers’ performance for the past four years and weed out the non-performing judicial officers. This suggestion from the Bar was rejected.

“It ought to be noted that despite the rejection of these obviously valid suggestions, the committee declined to even reflect these views for the consideration of the Chief Justice of Nigeria. On that note, Chief Akeredolu (SAN) and my humble self, acting for the Nigeria Bar Association, refused to sign the final report that was submitted to the CJN on  December 14, 2011.”

Chidi Enyie