Nigeria, International IDEA, Others Call For Reforms In Judicial Appointments

At the recently concluded two-day National Summit on Justice 2024, the Federal Ministry of Justice, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), and other stakeholders in the nation’s judiciary made far-reaching recommendations addressing issues of the judicial appointment process, funding, and eradicating delays in the administration of justice in Nigeria.
The Federal Government organised the event in collaboration with the European Union-funded RoLAC II Programme of the International IDEA.
According to a communique issued at the summit’s conclusion over the weekend, the National Policy on Justice 2024-2028 will now serve as a road map, paving the way for a more efficient, equitable, and responsive justice system for all Nigerians.
Dr Babatunde Ajibade, SAN, Chairman of the Justice Summit is Joint Planning Committee, read the communique, stating that the summit included three technical sessions.
According to Ajibade, the summit’s consensus was that the National Judicial Council’s role in carrying out its responsibility for judicial appointments to the Superior Court of Record needed to be thoroughly reviewed.
The stakeholders expressed concern about the fact that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who chairs the NJC, also chairs the Federal Judicial Service Commission, which initially reviews proposals or lists of candidates for judicial appointments.
The summit highlighted the apparent inconsistency between the CJN’s dual roles, as it appears that he is recommending candidates to himself as chairman of both bodies, as well as appointing a significant number of members of both bodies other than those who are statutory members.
The summit agreed that the NJC and FJSC should be reconstituted.
Concerning the role of the State Judicial Service Commission in judicial appointments, the summit concluded that there is a significant need to ensure that the SJSC’s composition is more diverse and that it reflects the interests of justice users.
Stakeholders noted that the current NJC guidelines may have undermined the constitutional provision empowering the SJSC to make judicial appointments, because the NJC guidelines, rather than authorising the SJSC to prepare a shortlist of potential candidates for judicial appointments, appear to delegate that responsibility solely to the Chairman.
The summit recommended amending the NJC guidelines to clarify that the Commissions as a whole, not just the Chief Judges, are responsible for developing and preparing shortlists for judicial appointments.
The summit recommended reforming the judicial appointment process to prioritise transparency, meritocracy, and meaningful performance evaluations for candidates.
It was also suggested that Nigeria consider the model currently in use in Kenya.
There was agreement on the need to codify the judicial appointment process so that the discretion that exists now is reduced to a bare minimum.
On funding, budgeting, and administration for the judiciary, the summit decided
that the current process for funding the courts was completely deficient because it was clear that the provisions of the Constitution as amended by the Fifth Amendment, which authorised that funding for state courts be a joint effort carried out by the executive and the judiciary, were not being implemented in any shape or form in the majority of the states.
Clear recommendations were made that this was something that needed to be pursued and dealt with decisively, as the summit stated that federal funding for the judiciary is far superior to what is available in the Federation’s states.
Furthermore, the summit recognised the need to professionalise court administration, appoint people with clear administrative experience who are selected through a transparent process to administer the courts, and separate court administration from justice administration.
To eliminate delays in the administration of justice agenda for leveraging the rules of procedure and effective case management in Nigeria, the panel considered the importance of limiting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and ensuring that matters that go to the Supreme Court are only of significant national importance.
The summit determined that a matter would only be heard by the Supreme Court with the Supreme Court’s permission and that the automatic right of appeal to the will be severely limited to matters relating to the office and election into the office of the President of the Federation, Vice President, and Governors of the States.