Saving the judiciary

“Why Judiciary is to Blame for Delay in High-Profile Cases, by Malami”, “Malami Blames the Judiciary for Delay of Cases”; “Hold the Judiciary Responsible for Delay of Cases”, etc. The news headlines did not come to many as a surprise but it rather triggered another controversy between the judiciary and the executive as to who is responsible for some of the rot that currently plagues the judicial sector of our very fragile economy.

In an interview with Channels television on its programme titled Politics Today, the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN, was reported to have made the following statements.
 

He said the government was applying the innovative provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015), a legislative intervention aimed at curing the teething problems of delayed criminal justice administration in Nigeria. One of such provisions in the law is the day-to-day hearing of criminal cases. But corruption cases involving Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) have lingered for several years despite this provision, which Mr Malami blamed on the judiciary.”

Expectedly, the above was greeted with a very loud response from the Chief Justice of the Federation, who functions statutorily, as the head of the judiciary in Nigeria, being the head of the Supreme Court, the Chairman of the National Judicial Council, Federal Judicial Service Commission, National Judicial Institute, amongst others. 

“The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Tanko Muhammad, on Tuesday, absolved the judiciary of delay in the handling of high-profile corruption cases. The position of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN) that the judiciary is held responsible for delays in the trial and delivery of judgements on corruption cases involving politically exposed individuals appears to be one-sided,” the statement by the CJN’s spokesperson, Ahuraka Isah, read.

The CJN explained that the lapses on the part of the executive arm of government contributed to the delays in cases. According to him, the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary does not involve crime detection and investigation, while referencing the serial disregard of court orders by the executive. This is even as he stated that the judiciary does not have “a garrison command to fight its cause or enforce its orders and decisions. The Judiciary has an internal mechanism for budget control and implementation.”

In a statement issued by his Special Assistant on Media and Public Relations, Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Dr. Umar Jibrilu Gwandu,

Malami said the federal government maintained the sanctity of the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution that delineate the roles and responsibilities of the executives, legislature and judiciary.

Malami’s denial may not be unconnected to a press statement by the third arm of government which on Tuesday, had expressed dismay over the federal government’s recent allegations of non-transparency amongst others. He said it was on this note that the federal government supported the review of Section 121(3) of the Constitution to accommodate the provisions for financial autonomy of the state legislature and judiciary.

Malami explained further that the government also came up with Executive Order 10 to enforce the provision of autonomy of State Legislature and Judiciary, adding that the Buhari-led administration has a record of non-interference with or meddling into the affairs of the legislature and judiciary.”

The statement explained that it was within the context of this quality and feature of non-interference by the Buhari-led federal government and for the avoidance of sub-judice that the minister responded that high-profile cases were presented by the federal government for prosecution and the government came out with initiatives in its efforts to support the speedy determination of justice.

He noted with dismay the way his response to a question in a recent interview was construed to evoke unintended and non-existing inferences which some mischief makers projected him as blaming the judiciary.

“It was an innocent statement aimed at showing a re-enactment of a tripartite division of powers and responsibilities among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary,” the statement read.”

To be continued tomorrow

Adegboruwa is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN)