Lawyers have faulted the House of Representatives’ rejection of a Bill seeking to reduce the inflow of cases to the Supreme Court. They called for a review of the appellate jurisdiction of the apex court as provided for under Section 233 of the Constitution in order to lessen the burden of cases congestion. AKEEM NAFIU reports
Some senior lawyers have criticized the decision of the House of Representatives to reject a Bill seeking to reduce the inflow of cases to the Supreme Court.
To the lawyers, the fears being expressed by the lawmakers that passing the Bill into law will constitute a breach of people’s rights to seek redress in court is misplaced.
The lawyers while urging the Green Chambers to reconsider the Bill noted that congestion of cases not only at the Supreme Court but also at the various other courts of the land has made nonsense of the objective of the rule of law and robs litigants of fundamental right to fair hearing within a reasonable time. It would be recalled that lawmakers at the House of Representatives had on April 22, 2021, voted out a Bill seeking to reduce the workload of Justices at the Supreme Court.
At the plenary on that day, the House considered for second reading, “A Bill for An Act to alter the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999; the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (First Alteration) Act, 2010; and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Second Alteration) Act, 2010, to make appeals to the Supreme Court to be by leave in order to reduce workload on the court, expedite hearing and determination of appeals, and encourage efficiency and quality; and for related matters”.
Leading the debate on the Bill, its sponsor, Hon. Onofiok Luke, who also doubled as the Chairman, House Committee on Judiciary, listed the objectives of the Bill to include; expediting hearing and determination of both civil and criminal matters and appeals by the Supreme Court as well as eliminating unnecessary delay in justice delivery and administration by the Supreme Court.
He added that the proposed amendment would among other things save litigants from unnecessary and avoidable costs, delays and pains; encourage foreign investment and also bolster economic development. He said: “It is reported that the Supreme Court docket is full for about two years.
This means that litigants who file cases at the court will not have a date for the hearing of their cases within two years. It is worthy to note that the date for the hearing of cases does not mean the date for the determination of the cases. As a matter of fact, the cases may be adjourned a couple of times before final adjournment for judgement. After adjournment, it takes another couple of months or years before judgement is finally delivered.
“The Supreme Court is overburdened. The Constitution grants unlimited jurisdiction on the court to handle all cases and gives litigants the unfettered right in most cases to approach the court on any issue.
Some litigants and lawyers have exploited this loophole and filed all manner of undeserving and unmerited cases and interlocutory applications be“This has bogged down the operations and efficiency of the court and in turn slowed justice administration and delivery in the country.
Because of this, germane disputes requiring the serious and expeditious attention of the court do not receive the same. There are many economic, social and political effects of slow justice delivery in Nigeria as occasioned by the overburdening of the court.
Business entrepreneurs, investors, organisations and governments have their financial or social fate hanged in the balance because of the long duration it takes the court to render decisions on disputes. “The situation is not supposed to be so; it is not all appeals that should travel to the court.
The Supreme Court supposed to hand down important decisions on certain cases and the lower courts will follow and apply the decisions in similar cases. It is not for the court to continue attending to similar and not too serious cases the court had earlier dealt with and rendered its opinion in the time past.
This is what is obtainable in advanced democracies like the United States and the United Kingdom. “It is in this vein that this constitutional alteration is proposed to limit appeals to the Supreme Court. All appeals are to reach the court through leave, that is, the court is to determine by way of application whether a particular case deserves its attention.
It needs to be stated that litigants still have the right to approach the court but the court will however review their cases and decide whether to hear them. Mechanisms have been set in place within this constitutional proposal to ensure that the process is not abused or genuine cases are not reviewed down”.
Opinions were however sharply divided on the propriety of the Bill with some of the lawmakers warning against its passage to avoid breaching people’s right to seek legal redress in any court of their choice.https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-4000354584205076&output=html&h=205&slotname=9180309038&adk=14452484
For instance, Hon. Nkem Abonta from Abia State suggested that rather than limiting appeals to the Supreme Court, mecahnism should be put in place to decide the terminal point of cases. Speaking in the same vein, Hon. Chudi Momah from Anambra State opined that passing the Bill into law will be contrary to the provisions of Section 36 of the Constitution.
On his part, Deputy Minority Leader, Hon. Toby Okechukwu, urged his colleagues to examine other ‘prudent alternatives’ regarding reduction of workload on Supreme Court Justices. When the Bill was subsequently subjected to voice vote, it failed to fly as majority of the lawmakers rejected it.
Cases congestion
The issue of cases congestion at the Supreme Court has been a major source of concern for the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Muhammad, and he had at different fora decried the challenges it posed on the Justices of the apex court. Similar concerns were equally raised by the immediate past Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.
The former CJN had sometimes in October 2018, raised an alarm that the Supreme Court’s diary had been filled up till 2021. He consequently warned that the court would not tolerate unnecessary adjournments arising from lack of diligent prosecution, poor preparations or non-appearance by counsel.
As a way of addressing the congestion problem, the former CJN directed that any matter that is assigned a date must be heard and determined one way or the other on that date. He further mandated lawyers to take necessary steps to amend any defective appeal before the due hearing date. However, about 12 months after the alarm raised by the former.
CJN, the apex court has continued to bear the burden of cases congestion. Indications to this effect emerged when the incumbent Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Muhammad, called for a review of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as contained in Section 233 of the Constitution. He expressed concerns over the onerous task before the Justices of the Supreme Court owing to the large volume of cases before them.
The CJN bared his mind when members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters paid him a courtesy visit. He revealed to the lawmakers that the number of appeals pending at the apex court are mind-boggling, saying the Supreme Court of Nigeria is the busiest in the world.
He consequently asked the legislators to immediately commence an amendment to the constitutional provision of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This he said will enhance timely dispensation of justice and reduce the stress the heavy burden of appeals are putting on the Justices of the apex court.
“Many of us don’t sleep for 12 hours as recommended by stress managers. We don’t write judgement merely by stating that so, so so and so cases were filed by this and that, and end it up by saying appeal is hereby dismissed or upheld.
We have to give reasons which is the bedrock of judgement writing. “Nigerian judiciary is one of the best in the world, and if nobody told you, I am telling you today.
“The constitution enjoins the Supreme Court to have 21 Justices, yet, we are having fewer than that number. We will have to appoint more Justices to fill the gap soon. “If you see the amount allocated to the judiciary, it is far less than what is given to some ministries. Salaries of the judicial officers are also stale for over 12 years running, and I hope you would look at all that”, the CJN said.
Responding, the Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele, disclosed that both the Senate Standing Orders 2015 and the 1999 Constitution empower the committee to oversight the federal judiciary.
He assured the CJN that the committee will make necessary interventions to strengthen and guarantee the independence of the judiciary because the third arm of government played a very crucial role in the sustenance and deepening of democracy’s core values.
“We are here today to keep faith with the time-honoured tradition of the committee. This, no doubt, would enable us to make appropriate legislative interventions in times ahead, for the betterment of the judiciary. “The Committee would work in collaboration with the judiciary to review laws and embark on reforms – including the amendment to the constitution – to ensure effective and efficient administration of justice”, Bamidele said.
Lawyers speak
A cross-section of senior lawyers have in the meantime expressed dissatisfaction with the rejection of a Bill seeking to reduce the inflow of cases to the Supreme Court by the House of Representatives.
The lawyers while speaking on the issue at the weekend urged the lawmakers to revisit the Bill saying there’s a need to address the issue of cases congestion at the apex court.
Speaking on the issue, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Ifedayo Adedipe, called for concerted efforts at decongesting the apex court of too many cases. He said: “Our Supreme Court is overworked. Many times, settled issues of law, are still taken to the Supreme Court, due to the fact that the right of appeal, as conferred by the Constitution is usually exploited by litigants.
If we consider the volume of documents that an appeal to the Supreme Court entails, we will realise the enormous work that the Justices do. Anything to reduce the workload is welcome”.
Another member of the Inner Bar, Chief Mike Ozekhome, was critical of the House of Representatives’ rejection of the Bill. “Because the House is disconnected with the Nigerian people, their sufferings, pains, pangs, anguish and groans. Because the judiciary means nothing to them for as long as their members collect unearned fat salaries, allowances and scandalous perquisites of office.
“Because the government is not working at all, Nigeria is not working. Because the whole country has become a huge joke, a scam. Because there is no governance, no accountability, no transparency, no responsibility.
Because the 1748 doctrine of separation of powers propounded by Baron de Mintequieu means nothing to them”, Ozekhome said. Another silk, Deacon Dele Adesina, was also concerned about the structure of the nation’s judiciary which he said was built on delay.
He said: “The present structure of our judiciary is inherently built on delay. It is a triangular kind of structure. At the base of the triangle, we have the High, Federal, State, Industrial and so many other courts. At the appellate level, we have the Court of Appeal with about 16 Divisions nationwide.
“In most of the Divisions, we have only one courtroom except Lagos, Abuja and probably Port Harcourt with more than one courtroom. Now, at the final level, you have the Supreme Court. We only have one Apex Court, even though, we have three courtrooms. Going by the nature of Nigerians, not less than 80 and 85 percent of our cases terminates at the Supreme Court.
So, if you have about 3,000 judgements at the lower court, out of this number, not less than 2,700 will go to the Court of Appeal. Out of the 2,700, about 2,600 will end up at the Supreme Court. It goes on like that.
“In addressing the problem, a federal system of administration should be put in place. If each state of the federation has high courts in their domain, they should also have appellate courts. There should also be Supreme Court in each state.
This means only matters of constitutional importance that has to do with the entire country will go to the Federal Supreme Court. This will address many problems”. Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) also emphasized the need to reduce the number of cases going to the Supreme Court. “I think we need to reduce the number of cases that go to the apex court.
However, it is not enough to reduce the number of cases coming to the Supreme Court, it is also important that we should firm up professional ethics that lawyers must be discouraged from filing frivolous cases.
“Lawyers must see the need to terminate cases that don’t have any chance of success at the lower court and should also embrace alternative ways of dispute resolution. No one seems to be exploring the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options offered by the High and Appeal courts”, Owonikoko said.
A law teacher, Mr. Wahab Shittu, called for the decentralization of Supreme Court operations. He said: “There is no doubt our supreme court is overburdened with unprecedented volume of cases in consequence of which our apex court Justices are overworked.
There is therefore a necessity to decentralize the operations of the supreme court in the same way we have several divisions of the court of appeal for effectiveness and efficiency. This can be achieved by a constitutional amendment. This in my view is long overdue”.
A rights activist, Mr. Kabir Akingbolu, also expressed deep concern about the high volume of cases at the Supreme Court. “There is no doubt that our Supreme Court in Nigeria is overwhelmed by too many cases.
This is because Nigerians by their nature are very litigious. Therefore, the load of cases can rarely be reduced because while Supreme Court is only one in Nigeria, Appeal comes from the 36 states of the Federation to that single Court. For this reason, there is need to reduce the number of cases that goes to the Supreme Court.
“To this end, there is compelling need for a Constitutional amendment to do so. One is even surprised that the National Assembly declined to pass the law for the purpose of reducing the number of cases that go to the Supreme Court. However, there are some other things that could be done to reduce the work load on the Supreme Court without necessarily doing any amendment to the Constitution.
“One of these things is the removal of the requirement to first seek leave in respect of certain grounds of appeal like leave to appeal on mixed law and facts and the compelling need to delist governorship election petition cases from the cases that will go to the Supreme Court. This is because practically speaking, there is no need to allow an appeal on governorship election petition to reach the Supreme Court. It is highly unnecessary and amounts to reckless waste of precious judicial time.
“This is because if the National Assembly and the State Assembly Election petitions start from Tribunal as the Court of first instance and ends at the Appeal Court as the final Court, and the Presidential Election starts from the Court of Appeal as the Court of first instance and ends at the Supreme Court as the terminal Court, then there is no justification to allow Governorship Election Petition which is not as important as the Presidential Election Petition to reach the Supreme Court.
The reason for this is because while others have two stages of trial, only Governorship Election Petition has three stages of trial, so this calls for immediate amendment to reduce the burden on the Supreme Court. The National Assembly need to take a second look at that Bill for the possibility of enacting it as law”, Akingbolu said.
To Mr. Chris Ekemezie, there is an urgent need to reduce the inflow of cases to the Supreme Court owing to the limited number of Justices at the apex court. He said: “The Nigerian Judiciary is overburdened with cases from the High to the Supreme Court. Its imperative that based on the limited number of Justices at the Supreme Court, it’s either the laws are amended to restrict certain matters from going to the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court is expanded to be sited in all six geopolitical zones. “I think the former suits us better.
Let the Supreme Court be saddled only with few matters such as criminal appeal involving death sentence, dispute between state government and another state government or disputes between Federal and State(s) government.
Appeal involving interpretation of Constitutional matters and/or statutes and other such matters. Interlocutory appeals should terminate at the Court of Appeal.
“The major danger is that the quality of judges these days leaves much to be desired. We deserve an institute to train judges. We need qualitative judges. There are much rot in the institution.”
