 The Vice President, Yemi Oshiba-jo, S.A.N., has said that as a matter of urgency the Nigerian judiciary must address the issue of delays in processing cases through the courts. This is as he referred to the delays in the Nigerian judicial process as the elephant in the room, wondering what would happen to the country's legal profession in another 50 years given the gridlock in processing cases through the courts and the question of the integrity of the legal process. Now joining us to discuss this is legal practitioner Tunji Abdulameed. Thank you very much Mr. Abdulameed for joining us. Thank you. Every single time conversations like this come up, I look closely at the NJC, I look closely at those on the bench and of course the NBA in the role that they play in making sure that the judicial process, the wheels of it in itself is oiled. So that it can move faster but I want to go first to the issue that the Vice President raised talking about judicial reforms. I still know that the federal government is still fighting with states on the issue of judicial autonomy for local governments and even states. Let's start with that. Why is that still a problem in 2021? Yeah because we are in a country where people in authority disregard the law. The people in authority doesn't bother about what the law says. They only bother about what they want to do and what they think they should do. Because the issue of autonomy has been in the Constitution since 2010 or so and I don't know why it's not been implemented today. In fact, to the extent that the President even made an executive order, a superfluous order trying to enforce the profession of the Constitution. Yes, we have not had anything about it. So I think it's a confirmation of the kind of country we are. We are in a country where we don't care about law and as far as those in authority, they ignore the law when it does not suit them and they follow the law when it suits them. That's why we are having the problem in this regard. It is clear in the Constitution. Section 121 says that the judicial system must be autonomous but today we are still begging them to have it because there won't be any consequences and they will continue to do that. I'm going to come back to the consequences part but let's look at the reforms. You are obviously a lawyer. You work in the system. You have frustrations and when we talk about reforms, what are the basic or the front-burnet reforms that we as a country need to make to better the processes in our judicial system? I think the major ones are these. One, we need to look at the mood of appointment of judges. That is one of them. We have just talked about autonomy. It's also part of it because lack of autonomy is entering the capacity of the judiciary to the extent because when the judiciary believes that for them to get the needed finance, they must go and come to the executive. They will do the bidding of the executive and therefore the home be justice. They will only do what the executive wants them to do. So autonomy is one of the major reforms that we need to do. We need to ensure that this issue of reform is complied with and the state gives the judiciary the required autonomy. The appointment, as I said again, is another aspect of it. Today, the appointment of judges are based on not no longer. It's based on the relationship. It's based on the influence. What sort of relationships are you talking about? If you look at the judiciary today, if you see the name of the people being appointed, you will realize that they are later either a sitting judge, an entire judge, a person in the position of authority in the country, and that is not the kind of people you see in the position of authority as judges. Most of them don't merit it because they don't know what the law is. We do respect. But how come they are still sitting there? How come that they're appointed and they're still sitting there? Nobody's contesting it. Because we're in Nigeria. But why do the lawyers complain if they have not contested it? I'm sorry. In one breath, many have accused Mr. President of not bringing Marito Creci into his appointment. But then we see the same thing happening in our judicial system. And the judges or the lawyers, everybody on the bench takes it sitting down. So I'm wondering, what are you saying if you're complaining about it and doing nothing about it then? What's the essence? The appointment is done by the governor. That is in the case of the states. But can't it be contested? Hello? Can it not be contested by the... That's what I'm saying. That's the kind of reform that we need now. We need a situation whereby the appointment of judges will be taken out of the governor, at the hands of the governor and the presidents. The president appoints or approves those who are who will be appointed as the court of appeal and the Supreme Court judges. So subject to the convention by NGC. So if you take away that from the executive and give it directly to maybe a body or whatever, NGC or somebody to solely be responsible for the appointment of judges, then there won't be any need for those individually to be suffocated. Because you know we have three arms of government in this country. Most times we see the judiciary as the baby of the heart. They are all as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe Mr. President should be number one. We have three number one cities in this country. The executive, the head of executive is number one. The head of the state should be number one. The head of the judiciary should be number one. In fact, to the extent that the judiciary today is behind the senior president, is behind the deputy state president, probably I'm not too sure whether he's also not behind the deputy speaker or speaker of the House of Representatives. So a head of the government is now made number five or number four in the country. You can see the injustice in that regard. So what I'm saying is that look, we need to take away a permit of judges from the governors. The governor should not be responsible for appointing the judges. Because he will pay the, he will pay the pipers. So in another one, when you know that you appoint men, you don't have anything to do with the executive. You will be both, you will be, you will be, you will be, you will be both to attack or not, or do the right thing without any, any, any, any fear or faithful from those governments. Because the situation went back where in this country today, where governors who are now donate cars to the, to the, to the executive, to the judiciary, and they will do as if they are, they are, they are dashing them the car or they are, they are just doing them in favor. That is not a favor. It should be, it's not be, it's not be the responsibility of the, of the governor, buying cars for the judiciary. When you buy car to the judiciary, then you are indirectly buying them. Whenever you need them, they will, they will have to budge. And that's what we're having here. So a permit is one of the, the, the, the issue we need to look into. And then majorly again, we need to improve our infrastructure. The courts are not, are not what it is. The system, the, the situation in the court is bad. If you enter some court, court room, you will think you are in the, in the markets. And then it will, it will look like most times when there's no lights, there's no work. But our judges see right in longer, at this, at this age. So we need to improve on technology as well to ensure that look, things move faster in this country. We need to upon people with integrity, people who can, who can stand on their own to, to, to, to, to, to be in the judiciary. And we, most importantly, we need to look for people who knows the law, who are, who need a word, merits should be major consideration for appointing a judge, not your leniency with the, with the, with the, with the people in authority. Because like I said again, I repeat it again. Look at the name of judges you see in the country. The new one being appointed. Not, I'm not talking about the higher courts. I'm talking about the high court, for instance. You'll see mostly they are related to those in authority or those in the judiciary. In other words, either they are the court of appeal, supreme court, high court, or former, former judges or former governors, former present governors. Those are the, those are the people, the kind of people you see in, in, in, in bench. And I, but when they get to the, to the place, the, the, the, the work becomes a effort for them and they won't be able to do anything. I, I want to refer to something that happens in the U.S. I know we don't use the same constitution and the modus operandi for Nigeria and the U.S. is different. But we see that the people who run for district attorneys, they've run for it like it's an office. So they're elected to, into those offices as district attorneys. But because we do not necessarily have district attorneys and, and our, our system of governments is different. I'm thinking, why can these people who are running for judges or who want to be in those seats do the same thing? Can we not adjust the constitution to favour that processing? And again, the reason why I asked that question earlier, if, why the members of the judiciary are a bit silent on this issue is, I remember some time ago when the president, Mr. President, was at the NBA, I think it was a year ago or so, at the NBA conference. And, and he did say something about the fact that the rule of law can take, you know, a seat while national security, it should be the major issue. And the people who were there applauded the president. So again, the judiciary, all of you, including the NBA, the bench, every single person, can I say that you're all complicit. And that's, and, and that's why what is happening is happening. And that's why you're also taking the back bench in the nation's, you know, process. Not, not all of us were clapping. Few people who are trying to please the president, you know, even the president, if we cough, some people clap. And yeah, some people are just, are just like that. They just want to satisfy and just see themselves as a, we are, we like the president. We are following it for, for sentiment purposes and then for purpose of a, I don't want to use that adjective. I won't be, it won't be as if I'm abusing anybody. But like I said, it's not everybody. If we, if we follow that trend that they're after, most lawyer criticize that particular comment. And it was highly, highly widely criticized by the judge or the lawyers, that are respected lawyers, not, not, not cycle fans. Like those who are clapping at that time. Most, most time, apparently, most people don't, they're not even clapping. They not even hear what he said. We're just clapping. Because when the Nigeria were just like that, people just want to, to be, to be in the good book of those in authority. Whether it's doing the right thing or wrong thing. And that's one of the major problems in this country. Other than tell them the truth, they just want to be clapping for them to see as, to say they are, they are doing well, they are doing well. So it is, it's not about see people are not talking. People are talking. You can see the, the dissent. Just like what you did, your last discussion regarding the infection of a, just it's all the latest errors. People are talking about this. People have, people have been talking. The, it is, and that was not the first time. It happened the other time and nothing happened. So it's, it's, the problem we're having in this country is that executive sees them, sees them self as the alpha and omega and they can do and not do. Because they control all the security apparatus. They control the money. They control everything. So the other people are, are subservient to them. And that's why they are able to do whatever they are doing in that regard. It's not as if the people are not talking. We are talking, the people are not eating, the talk is not eating results. We have been complaining. We have been talking about this. We have been even talking about this apartment of judges that look, use merit, add an influence. Then nobody is listening to us. And nothing can be happened. Because it's Nigeria and it can happen. And it goes. Finally, before I let you go, Fermi Faruna of course was at that event where the vice president was and he spoke about the issue of governors appointing judges and that having to be stopped. He also said something, and I'd like to quote him directly. He noted that the customary courts had been completely abandoned. He also added that the customary courts are courts that handle majority of the cases for the poor. Again, there's this saying that we have in Nigeria that the judiciary is the last hope of the common person. If the hope of the common person is being jettisoned, where does that leave the average Nigerian? I don't like you. Today in our country, judiciary is not the last hope of the common man. The judiciary is about those who have influence. It's for those who have influence, those who have money. Because if you have influence, if you have money, you can, it's about, it's, I'm sorry to say, I'm sorry to say, it's not a cash and carry. Some people are just a once, that's why we are seeing so many conflicting judgments. Because it's no longer based on position of law. It's based on personal interests, sentiments, and all those things. So as far as I'm concerned, the hope of common man, as far as the judiciary is concerned, I think it's rather losing its value. And I'm not sure today the common man has seen anything. They don't even have any hope in judiciary as far as I'm concerned. Because they see it as, there's a lot of issues. There is a delay. There's no proper justice delivery. There is, you know, they say delay, delay, what's it called? Justice delay. It's not justice, it's not. When you try justice, then you are like, you are like nine people justice. So as far as I'm concerned, it's sad that people are losing, the masses are losing hope on the judiciary. And it's high time. Is there hope for the customary court to be revived again? Because this is a very important court system. For those that are customary courts. It's only about customary court. It's about everywhere, everything. You know, Nigeria, it's only, these issues we are talking about. It's not about usually alone. It's a general issue in Thailand, in the country. The system is generally, it's not, it's not, it's not working. And that's why we are, that's why usually it's not accepted from that, from that situation. If the system is working generally, usually we will also, we will also be forced to work because it's not working. Everything goes wrong. We have customary court that are working in some area. It will, like what we call share share court in the sub-parts of the country. It's, it's, it's customary court. And today, most people are, people have abandoned it. They see it as a, you know, it's not a court of records. Most of them are not court of records. And they know, and most of the cases they hand do, they have to expand their jurisdiction. If they want them, if they want people to also participate, participate in a customary court as part of the good system, they must improve in their jurisdiction and give them more power to be able to do more job that have been done by the high court and the other courts. Well, Tungi Abdulameed is a legal practitioner. Thank you so much for joining us and being part of the conversation. Thank you for having me. All right. My pleasure. Well, I want to thank you all for being part of the conversation tonight, but I will leave you with a round-up of all of the conversations we've had from Monday to today. I am Marianne Akon. See you on Monday. What is the core responsibility of the army? The army is meant to word of external aggression. All I want to have in Nigeria today is to have all around Nigeria, where you have such as coming out from the barracks and taking on the responsibility of internal security. For me, it is totally unacceptable. This policy is in the real sense when it comes to removal of subsidy, which I don't even think the issue is about subsidy. It's about an attempt by the presidency because we have more of the presidency than the president. There's an attempt by the presidency and NNPC alongside the international collaborators to ensure that the people in the Nigerian economy are okay with this policy. Honestly, if we hear from like in every setting enough for the people we've got, there will always be disaffection, there will always be complaints. There will always be people who will seek attention. There will always be people that are just probably satisfied. There will be people who just want to rub on the back, rub on the back, rub on the head. So I think that Congress that it is illegal is as strong as they are. So you have the police, policing the population, but nobody is policing the police. And that's the problem. So until the police have this commission, for instance, takes that job seriously of policing the police and holding them accountable for their actions, they will not want to see much changes. How? Can we have peace without justice? Is that ever possible? Now you are the answer to that question. Can you have peace without justice? After all the report we do, they're not hallucinating. We want to know what happened. Who are the people responsible? Why did it have to happen? They're busy. They are saying that the report is rubbish. Anybody who wants to follow them go mad. No problem. But me, I know that all of this is just simply booking, playing to the gal again. It's master's voice. And I don't want to be a part of all that shenanigans. The force is the issue of referencing and cross-referencing, whether those things we are done properly. Because the issue of cross-referencing is very, very germane to the bill. The moment you do improper cross-referencing, it has very serious implications. Especially when we have election petitions. The second issue we are looking at is the issue of topographical errors. Whether there are topographical errors that can just be the third issue is whether any of the provisions of the bill violates the core internment of the constitution. Because as you are aware, the constitution is the fundamental law of the land. Now the fourth issue we are looking at is whether there are issues of proper sequencing, especially in relation to the days and you know, in relation to the work of the commission, dates are very, very important. Then we are also looking at whether there are also provisions in the bill that are difficult to implement. We need to date the president if there are provisions that are difficult to implement. Then we have to put the beside by side with the existing legal framework, with the existing electoral act and see whether there are provisions that have been deleted and needs to be restored or whether there are provisions that need to be reworked on. So those are the things that the president asks us to look at and the commission has looked at it and will respond to the president within the timeframe the president gives to the commission to respond. I think it really boils down to two things. One, trust and accountability. So these reports are really important because they start to build trust back between the government and between the people through these recommendations, through these reforms. I think that it's really, really important to... You have to build that trust back through actions of the state, actions of the federal government. But at the same time, you have to hold people accountable for those that committed crimes, for those that broke the law, for those that did things that were counter to the democratic principles, they have to be held accountable. And that also builds trust. When you hold people accountable for their actions when they break the law, that will also build trust between the government and between the people. And indeed, our ambassador said this just today. As our secretary said, when he was here in November as well.