 First, let me commend the panel that just had this very lively and frank discussion. I think that this is really what we want to see here today, very open, frank, and to the point. I really want to commend my dear brother, for conducting this in the manner that speaks to what we want to achieve here today. I've had the privilege of participating in several summits, workshops and other conversations on reforming the justice sector in Nigeria, but I must say that this particular justice sector summit is one that gives me the greatest sense that we are possibly on the verge of a breakthrough. There are a few reasons why. The first is the collaboration behind the summit, the bar association, the authentic voice of our profession, the national judicial council, the sole body responsible for judicial matters, especially matters of appointment and discipline of judicial officers, and then our civil society partners and donors who have had several years of reform engagements with the administration of the justice system in Nigeria. The second reason is to borrow an aphorism adopted by the organizers of the WOJ Summit 2.0. I quote, the fierce urgency of now. There is a growing sense that our system of justice may not may not long endure the serious issues that have over the years continue to damage its credibility and fitness for purpose. And given the challenging economic times, there is a worry that the system may not be competitive enough to attract foreign or even local investments to quote President Muhammad Ibuhari, the extent to which we can attract business to our country depends in part upon investor perception of the quality of our justice delivery system. If we are seen as inefficient and ineffective, we would lose out to more efficient systems. The third reason is the approach that this summit proposes to take, which is not to waste precious time on an elaborate exegesis or analysis of the problems. We're already experts at analysis, and that's very evident. We've been doing this for many years and many summits. But to focus on the practical and doable solutions to the problems in the short and medium to long terms, also critical is the focus on the four or five clearly outlined areas, namely the establishment of a solely merit-based judicial selection and promotion process, some of which has been discussed in the plenary, a new approach to judicial budgeting and funding, and the all-important question of judicial remuneration and welfare. And I think the very important points have been made already on questions of accountability. What is provided for being spent on? How has that been accounted for? Just so that we're able to have a proper conversation on what exactly is required. I recall that in Lagos state, when we were considering the question of judicial remuneration, I had several sit-downs with senior judges of the High Court of Lagos state at the time. And we looked at in detail questions of how much do we need to provide in order to make a judge comfortable? What are the issues that we need to consider? We brought in human resource experts to look at this. But first, the judiciary, of course, had to open the books. We had to see what the needs were. And I think that we are confronted with the same issues today. We must know exactly what is required. And we must know exactly what is happening with what has been provided already. Of course, devising workable solutions, the problem of delays in the justice delivery system and the implementation of the court monitoring scheme. I will strain myself from preempting the discussions that will take place in the sessions, especially the technical sessions. But permit me a word or two also on some of the issues. On the question of appointments, I think it is fair to say that for practically any job at all, no matter how menial or exalted, it is a norm that the applicant will go through some process of evaluation and interview. The rigor of such processes, of course, usually depends on the enormity of the responsibility that the applicant has to bear. And ultimately, the outcome considered reasonable from such an exercise is that it is the best from amongst the applicants that will emerge successful. Which is why it is quite frankly stunning that the process for evaluation and interview of judges, men and women, structurally empowered to literally determine the lives and livelihoods of others, is one of the least rigorous processes imaginable. And I think the president of the bar has shown us how, without rigor, that process is. And I think we certainly must take a second look at this. In the United Kingdom, from where we derive most of the structures of our judicature, applicants to judicial office in superior courts go through several screening processes. At some point, it was 17 stages, including written examinations, interviews, role play exercises. They are subjected to rigorous background investigation covering professional credentials, abilities, public records, judicial pronouncements if they were in the judiciary before, and personal financial affairs, evaluation of the bar association, the law society in England, and professional competence and judicial temperament. And in the U.S., of course, many of us, even who are not participants in the process, watch how Supreme Court appointments or appointees are rigorously screened by the Senate, which sifts through the entire public and sometimes private lives of the candidates. That is the nature of the rigor that anyone who should hold the power of life and death and the power of other people's livelihoods should go through. That is the rigor that should go through. It shouldn't be a bowing, it shouldn't be a take a bow situation at all. It should not be kids' gloves. It must be rigorous because obviously the moment a person is appointed to high office of that sort, they, as it were, unleashed on the rest of us, and we must ensure that the process is rigorous. The robustness and transparency of the process in these jurisdictions provides some comfort to the candidates of the fairness of the selection process and enables the public to have front-row seats in some of these processes. And while we ask for the best from our judicial officers, we must equally ensure that the conditions under which they operate are not only befitting, but they are good enough to attract the best minds in our profession. Judicial remuneration and welfare are critical. Why should a judge earn so much less than a federal legislature? Why? I mean, there is no basis for it whatsoever. We should in fact benchmark without necessarily creating fresh legislation because the legislators don't have any legislation about their own salaries. There's no need to create any first legislation. Before we say, if we benchmark what a federal judicial officer, if we benchmark what the court of appeal judge earns to what the house of representative legislator, such as Honorable Luke, earns, if we benchmark it, you will find that it is a startling difference. It is a difference between maybe $600,000 and $8 million. I mean, it's incredible. And benchmark the Supreme Court justices to what the Senate earns. If we start that quick process now, we will not need to go through the rigors of any legislation. If we just say, okay, from now on we are benchmarking even if we are going to call it allowances. But the truth of the matter anyway is that the responsibilities of the judge or justice of the Supreme Court or the court of appeal are such that they must be well remunerated. They are such that if they retire, when they do retire, they must be able to go to homes of their own that they own in decent places where they would live. That's the way it should be. We should not have a situation where judges are anxious that when they retire, they would not have homes to go to. And because they are salaries today, simply cannot build any decent home. So we must ensure that these are the conditions that are met. We must strengthen the process of reviewing performance, incentivizing excellence, and penalizing misconduct. There's also no question at all that the expeditious delivery of justice cannot wait any longer. The repetition of our system for repeatedly resulting in what the UK Court of Appeals described as catastrophic delays must be reversed. There are just too many and the president of the MBA has just given us an example of one, 29 years to determine a case. As a matter of fact, one justice of the Supreme Court in Nigeria actually gave evidence before a court in England saying that it would take between 30 and 40 years to conclude a case in Nigeria. So, I mean, everyone knows that these delays are just incredible. They just take far too long. Whatever accounts for it, and certainly it is not just the judiciary that should be blamed for that. Every one of us who has practiced in our courts knows that delay as a strategy is one of the weapons that our colleagues deploy. I mean, our colleagues have experts at raising questions of jurisdiction on any issue whatsoever, and hoping that, especially when you want to delay, and hoping that the matter will get to the Supreme Court, just the matter of whether there is jurisdiction or not, will get to the Supreme Court. And then you come back to come and start determining the substantive issues of the case. That is a strategy deployed repeatedly, delayed electric tactics are deployed repeatedly. So it is the responsibility of the bar as well as the bench. But I must say, especially with respect to delays, a lot depends on what counsel will do. A lot depends on what counsel will do. In the case in criminal cases, of course, a lot will depend on what we're able to bring, when you're able to conclude investigations, witnesses, especially witnesses on the side of the prosecution and all of that. So these issues are not, I don't think that, to use on the justice, our gays words, I don't think that we can make a scapegoat of any particular arm of the administration of justice system. I think that it is clear that we all have blame, we all have responsibility here. We can do better, and we must do better. Our problems are ours, they are not for spirits to solve. They are for us because they are human problems, and I'm sure that we can solve them. We must be intentional in our approach. We must discover those attributes that made Nigeria's judiciary a supply of high caliber judicial personnel to other countries on the continent. So let me again commend all the partners, especially my Lord, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honorable Justice Ibrahim Tanko Mohamed CFR, who for his strong and unwavering support for reform, and for honoring the promise he made at the 2020 Justice Research Institute webinar of championing pragmatic reforms in the sector. Our President, the President of the Nigerian Bar, Mr. Olumide Aapata, deserves praise for spearheading this partnership and reenergizing the bar in his role as the single most important resource for the bench towards addressing its most pressing challenges. And our partners also the Justice Research Institute, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the Justice Reform Project, and of course the Adrenal Foundation for their long-standing commitments and hard work in support of the justice sector reform over so many years. For us in the executive support for the justice sector reform effort, is it given? And I think that the Honorable Attorney General has said as much the involvement of the executive in reform is one, at least as far as this administration is concerned, that has been ongoing and there have been several iterations of that effort. But I think what is important at this point is that synergy with all of the other arms of the of the administration of justice system. And I think that it is entirely possible for us to make a breakthrough now. We'll continue to work with you in identifying and accelerating the needed incremental and substantial reforms in the sector. Much hope and expectation is hanging on the outcome of this summit. The proposed approach of optimizing the recommendations of the summit by developing a template of key deliverables under each of the identified issues into action points, short-term and long-term, working out modalities and strategies for implementation and progress tracking and assigning timeline for the achievement is commendable and is result-oriented. And we are sure that at next year's summit we will receive the progress report on achievements and sector performance. I thank you all for your kind attention and I wish you a very fruitful delegation.