Chief Wale Taiwo (SAN) and Fellow, Institute of Chartered Arbitrators (FCArb) has been in legal practice for over 36 years. In this interview with ADEBISI ONANUGA, the silk calls for attitudinal change by lawyers to reduce delay in justice dispensation. He says what the Supreme Court needs is not the reduction of the numbers of justices but rather either a reduction of jurisdiction or unbundling of the apex court.
There is so much insecurity in the land. How best do you think this can be tackled?
It is very obvious even to the blind that all is not well with the security of lives and properties in this country. This monster called insecurity reared its ugly head about 2009 in the Northeast when a group, who identified themselves as Boko Haram, bestrode that part of the country with the aim of introducing their brand of religion into the country. Ever since, the security architecture of the country has been mesmerised by the coordinated attacks on government and private structures, incessant robberies, banditry and kidnapping of adults and school children for ransom.
These security challenges have taken a different turn as they have gradually extended to other parts of the country. Banditry, armed robbery, herdmens/farmer clashes on account of open grazing leading to wanton killings, kidnapping for ransom and destruction of properties etc have been the order of the day. This has been a cause for concern to well-meaning individuals and groups who have, at one time or the other, offered suggestions as to how to stem the ugly trends.
There is the need to rejig the security architecture of the country in terms of putting round pegs in round holes. There is the need to restore the confidence and enthusiasm of our military by making sure that adequate provisions are made for their care and well-being.
The country should be prepared to invest in modern equipment that will put our military in a better position to confront the problems within the shortest possible time.
Governments at the various levels should rise to their responsibilities as enshrined in the constitution and perform them without fear or favour. They should strive to build an egalitarian and just society through the observance of due process.
Most importantly, the government should endeavour to pay attention and listen to the agitation of some groups that feel marginalised in the scheme of things in Nigeria. I think that until you listen to them, you might not be able to conclude on the genuineness or otherwise of the cause of their agitation. But in a situation where the government treats some people as being more Nigerian than others, it calls for concern and the government should re-assess itself to know whether there are areas it needs to make amends.
It is also worthy of mention that the failure of the government to engage the youth in meaningful employment and in the creation of job opportunities is also a cause of insecurity. The government should create jobs for the youth and this will automatically remove their minds from these societal vices.
There have been a lot of agitations by ethnic groups. Are they treading the right path? What is the way out?
The agitations from some ethnic groups may be due to some perceived or real inequalities in the distribution/application of the commonwealth of the country. There have been complaints of marginalisation, lopsided appointments in favour of some sections of the country. Most people are also agitating for resource control, restructuring of the country and proper federalism etc.
From my reading of the situation, the various ethnic groups ordinarily do not want the country dismembered. The hardline posture of some of them came out of frustration and the inability or call it refusal of the powers that be to address these frustrations and come out with an acceptable and agreeable solutions to these problems and concerns.
Nigerians should be very careful so that we don’t have the Southern Sudan experience where so many lives were lost before attainment of independence. I think that we should dialogue peacefully about our continued co-existence as a Federation and see how we can iron out the grey areas but in case that fails, we should be able to peacefully path ways without blood shed.
Why do we continue to experience delay in justice delivery in spite of efforts to eliminate it? What would you suggest as the way out?
The question of delay in justice delivery has continued to engage the attention of stakeholders for some time. There are various reasons for this delay, the majority of which are both human and systemic.
On the human part, we have had problems with the way our judges are appointed. Some of the appointees are not the very best. Some do not have the skills and enthusiasm for the job.There is also the issue of poor remunerations for judicial workers and the dearth of infrastructure in our courts to facilitate quick dispensation of justice. It is surprising that at this age and time, judges in some courts in the country still take proceedings in long hand, rather than by recording devices. Some of the rules of court are outdated. In addition is the attitude of some lawyers who, deliberately or through being ill-prepared for their cases, foist on the court a state of helplessness by seeking unnecessary adjournment of their cases.
Part of the way out of this is for the stakeholders in the country, particularly the government, to wake up to the realisation that the Judiciary is a critical sector in the socio-economic and political development in the country. A virile judiciary is critical for the attraction of Foreign Direct Investment, which will in turn, have positive impact on the overall economic development of the country.
There is the need to ensure full implementation of the provisions of S.81(3) of the 1999 Constitution relating to fiscal independence of the judiciary. The machinery for the appointment of judges needs to be reviewed so that tested and enthusiastic individuals are appointed as Judges. Also, there is the need to revisit our rules of court to update them in consonance with modern realities to ensure quick and effective dispensation of justice.
Again, there is the need for attitudinal change in the way some lawyers deliberately frustrate court proceedings. The Judges have a role to play in stemming this tide by ensuring that tardiness on the part of lawyers and/or their clients is discouraged by the award of substantial costs as deterrent.
What is your position on review of the constitution?
I will hasten to say that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is long overdue for a review. We all know the circumstances that gave birth to the 1999 Constitution that is still in operation. The influence and interest of the military in that Constitution was and still is a great source of concern and I must say that Nigeria deserves something better. We deserve a Constitution that is actually a product of the decisions of the people of Nigeria and not what was foisted upon Nigerians by the military, like the 1999 Constitution.
Do you agree with the suggestion that Nigeria should adopt the 1963 Constitution and why?
In all honesty, I do not subscribe to the total re-introduction or adoption of the 1963 Constitution. While we cannot boast of having it well with the 1999 Constitution, I do not think that the solution lies in the full importation of the 1963 Constitution. The reason is simple. There are provisions in the 1999 Constitution (as Amended) that stand tall and accord with present day realities that were not in the 1963 Constitution. So a total abrogation of the 1999 Constitution with the hope of adopting the 1963 Constitution should be a no-go area.
For instance under the 1963 Constitution, the President was elected by the National Assembly who constituted the minority instead of by the majority of the electorates. Again, under the 1963 Constitution, only the Legislative and Executive arms of government were effectively used. Under that Constitution the Parliament were superior to the Constitution and the Prime Minister was not accountable to the people but to the parliament.
While acknowledging that there were laudable provisions in the 1963 Constitution worthy of adaptation, especially the provisions that gave minimal powers or call it responsibilities to the government at the centre, that is not a licence for a full and complete re-introduction of that Constitution.
There have been suggestions that Justices of the Supreme Court (JJSC) sit on the bench for life. Is the nations’ judiciary ripe enough to accommodate?
Much as that suggestion is alluring, I don’t buy into it. Recall that the Supreme Court became the highest appellate court following the fall out of the Adegbenro V. Akintola case (reported in (1963) AC 614 PC), and the 1963 Republican Constitution which stopped appeals from going to the Privy Council in England. Successive Constitutions have made the Supreme Court the highest appellate court with its jurisdiction – original and appellate, clearly fixed and defined, and the composition of its members as well. As the highest court, the Supreme Court should be a policy court providing guidance and interpretation for our democratic environment under the Constitution. I would have agreed to life tenure for our Supreme Court Justices but the truth is that United States where that obtains is grappling with numerous challenges, including political permutations between the two main parties – Republican and Democrat, leading to fights on confirmation of appointments to that court. There are very obvious ethnic and religious considerations in our various appointments. It would thus not be a good suggestion for life appointment for our Supreme Court Justices. Our judiciary is not ripe for such. Rather, let appointments be on merit and allow Justices to retire at 70 years as many of them hitherto would have had between 20 and 30 years’ career on the bench by that age and thus deserving of time to rest and spend with their families, and t pursue vocations of interest.
Would you agree that retired Judges be empanelled to serve on tribunals and other panels to eliminate delay in justice delivery? Will that solve the problem?
I don’t have any problem with retired judges making themselves available for quasi – judicial tribunals or panel of inquiries. For instance the recently retired Justice Doris Okuwobi of the High Court of Lagos State is still chairing the Lagos State Judicial Panel into the various Police/SARS human rights abuses. Similarly, Justice Isa Ayo Salami, former President of the Court of Appeal recently chaired a Special Panel at the instance of the Presidency to look into allegations against the former Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). These retired justices are better suited for such assignments because of their vast experience.
Beyond that however, election tribunals are a different proposition. I think that serving judges and justices should still be the one to adjudicate on disputes stemming out of elections because their capacity to deal with such volatile issues is protected under judicial immunity; though the effect on their time and leaving their regular court assignments cannot be under-estimated. Bringing retired justices to sit on election tribunal panels will not solve the problem of delay in our justice delivery. I will suggest that we explore the possibility of our judges and justices taking “senior status” when they clock 65. At that age, a judge can continue to work in their regular court but on a reduced workload or docket. A senior status is a form of semi-retirement.
This is the system at work in the United States Federal District Courts and the 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal, the equivalent of our Federal High Court and Court of Appeal.
Should Judges compulsorily retire at 65 when they could serve up till 70 as suggested in some quarters?
Upon reaching 65, a judge of the High Court need not be made to vacate entirely. Rather, the system should be designed for such Judges to take “senior status” which comes with a reduced workload. They might be then assigned to dealing with routine and non-contentious pre-trial or post-trial matters, thereby relieving the Judges still in active service, or who are yet to reach senior status, to focus on complex and contentious cases. I am of the view that this could help in easing the volume of work for our judges or decongesting the courts and positively impact the administration of Justice.
The CJN is proposing a reduction of justices of the Supreme Court from 21 to 16 and Appeal Court justices to be increased 100. What effect will this have on justice delivery?
As a lawyer in practice for more than three decades, I will not be saying the truth if I tell you that I am in agreement with the CJN in his proposition for a reduction of members of the Justices of the Supreme Court to 16 from the 21 that is constitutionally provided for.
I think my position here will be different if the proposition of the CJN is for a reduction of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that certain appeals, especially interlocutory appeals, have their final bus-stop at the Court of Appeal but with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, I will say without being equivocal and contrary to the proposition of the CJN that the apex court needs more Justices than provided for under the Constitution.
As we speak, there are appeals of 2009-2010 still pending at the Supreme Court waiting for hearing dates. If I am to be very pragmatic on this issue, my take would be that the Supreme Court be unbundled with each of the Six geo-political zones in Nigeria having its own Supreme Court. That, among others, will help in the quick dispensation of justice at that level of court.
The truth is that as at present, what the Supreme Court needs is not reduction of numbers of justices but either a reduction of jurisdiction or to unbundle the apex court.
Do you agreed to a review of legal education to improve the quality of lawyers?
Yes. Perhaps the study of law should be made a second degree like in the Unites States or at least we insist on Direct Entry admission to study law after a rigorous ‘A’ level programme. Why I am making this suggestion is because of my recent experience with some of our new wigs. Many of them lacked the mental discipline to becoming a lawyer. And even after their call to bar, they lack the patience to undergo pupilage or work with experienced seniors where they could garner valuable experience and to imbibe ethical standards for a successful legal practice. Making law a second degree would make lawyers more refined in my opinion. It would equally spur experience and specialisation.
What has it been like practising law and ministering in a church? Don’t they conflict?
I have been practising law for the past 36 years. Being a church Minister was a recent experience, say about five years ago. It has been a very worthy experience. There is no conflict at all. What it has done for me is that it has made me more spiritual in my approach to issues of life, including legal issues.
Law practice is a jealous spouse that is always craving for your time. I have been able to manage my time and have, to a large extent delegate assignments that would not necessarily require my personal attention to my subordinates in office or in church and they have been very helpful.
What are lessons of the JUSUN strike for all legal practitioners?
The solidarity shown by legal practitioners to JUSUN during the strike regardless of the adverse impact the strike had on legal practitioners goes a long way in re-emphasising the fact that legal practitioners are social crusaders who by virtue of their calling and ethics will normally insist and fight for the observance of due process and entrenchment of the rule of law.
(The Nation)
