Last week, the House of Representatives proposed a bill to increase the salaries of judicial officers. Wahab Shittu (SAN) speaks with ONOZURE DANIA on the proposal and other judicial issues
What’s your reaction to the new salary scale proposed for judicial officers in the country? And do you think that is enough?
It’s a development that will further strengthen the mechanism of the administration of justice. It is a welcome development because we all know that the judiciary is the most important institution for strengthening the mechanism of the rule of law, and by extension for democratic institutions. Our judiciary is currently overwhelmed. They do more than they are paid. They offer more services than the kind of remuneration available to them. So, I think that is what the increment is trying to do. At least, it’s a step in the right direction. It will to enhance service delivery and also act as a stimulus for increased judicial performance.
If we look at what the judiciary is getting paid in comparison to other arms of government, it is peanuts. We saw the humongous amounts budgeted for our legislatures at various levels, and the kind of assets, the budgetary allocations available to the executive. If we really want to stabilise our democracy, and take our democracy to the next level, we must begin to embrace the culture of taking care of the judicial sector, so that the common man can have access to justice.
The problems with our judiciary are so numerous. One, they are underpaid. The infrastructure and work environment for judicial officers are very discouraging.
Some people are saying that the amount is a far cry from the expectation while others are of the view that salary increment won’t stop the corrupt practices of some judges. What is your view on this?
Well, I think this general idea that judges are corrupt is unfair. A few of them may be corrupt, but generally, we have men and women of impeccable integrity in the judiciary, who are committed to writing and giving their names in letters of gold.
I won’t say because of a few barriers that it is right to impose a general label on the rest of them. I think we must discourage that. What we should do is to invest and strengthen our judiciary in order to minimise waste, and reduce corruption level and impunity.
Everywhere in the world, there is no perfect system but our judiciary dispenses the best judgments in Africa and the Commonwealth. Our judiciary continues to make giant strides because we have some of the best players in our judiciary, and I think we shouldn’t be hard on ourselves by joining the bandwagon of a few people who want to give it a bad name, in order to hang it.
Sir, is this salary comparable to what judges earn in other countries?
Our judges are the least paid. In other areas, judges are not treated the way our judges are being treated. So what they are being paid now is abysmally low compared to what judges are paid elsewhere. We should continue to agitate for such emoluments and welfare packages for our judges that will be consistent with best practices.
The last time salaries and allowances for judicial officers were increased was in 2008. How can we prevent this from happening again?
First of all, there must be increased allocation to the justice delivery sector. And the judiciary must again be encouraged to draw from the first line charge. There’s no substitute for that. And we should continuously take note of the need to raise the living standard of judicial officers. It should be a yearly ritual because of the inflation rate in the country. I think the increase in salaries of judicial officers ought to be a yearly ritual to take care of inflation and other variables that could affect their income flows.
Some people have suggested that merit, and not seniority, should characterise the processes of appointment of judges. Do you agree with this?
Well, there’s no substitute for the element of merit in judicial appointments. Generally, merit is emphasised in judicial appointments in Nigeria. I know a few cases of favouritism. You can’t rule that out. But in the majority of cases, merit is enthroned. But I think there’s merit in the argument that making judicial appointments should not be limited to the circle of the judges alone.
The legal profession is highly diversified. You have elements operating in various departments of the justice delivery system. There are some in the academia. And you can also draw from the pool of legal practitioners and Senior Advocates of Nigeria. There are people who are celebrated authors. And there are people who are also lending critical services in other areas that could be considered for judicial appointments.
I think what we should emphasise is a merit-driven process that will ensure that we put forward always our best elements as judicial officers. That can be done by also throwing the process open so that people can make comments about the integrity of who’s to be appointed.
Some legal practitioners have called for the appointment of lawyers directly to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Do you think this will strengthen the quality of justice?
I agree with that kind of call. I’m in support of that call, particularly for the rank and file of the members of the inner bar, the Senior Advocates of Nigeria. In the United Kingdom, for instance, judges are increasingly being appointed from the rank of the advocacy bench before the inquest bench. These are people who have distinguished themselves in terms and attained some degree of distinction in practice.
They are conferred with such honours after consistently posting stellar results in terms of integrity, professionalism, skilled delivery services, and all that. So there’s nothing wrong with drawing from that pool. There are also senior lawyers needed for integrity, who could also serve very effectively as judges.
We can draw from professors in our universities who have written stellar books and who continue to impart knowledge for many years. We can also draw from those who have served in the corporate sector and distinguished themselves. I think the emphasis should be on character, competence, integrity, and capacity.
Do you think that the appointment of new judges will speed up the dispensation of justice?
I think, let me say for free, that we need to appoint more judges. We need to build more courtrooms and improve the state of our present courtroom infrastructure because there are a lot of experienced lawyers out there who can function effectively as judges.
In order to take care of this congestion, we need to bring in more people on board, increase the budget share allocation to the justice delivery sector, and enhance the salary packages of judicial officers.
We need to make the job more attractive for people inclined to volunteer their services in that sector. We also need to reduce the incidence of corruption and impunity in the judiciary and ensure zero tolerance for delay in the administration of justice.
There’s no reason any case should take more than one year or two to resolve. The way the judiciary functions also affects the health of the economy. It affects the income flow. It affects investment prices. When you get the law enforcement and the judiciary right, then the country will grow and stabilise, and there will be general improvement in the justice delivery system.
Many times people arrested are kept in custody without being taken to court. Sadly, these people might have spent up to 10 years in detention before they are eventually brought to court. How can this be prevented?
First of all, we need to change that narrative because it is not healthy. Our justice delivery system must be swift, effective and proactive so that we don’t have high number of persons awaiting trial. And this can be done. The bulk of that will lie with those in charge of our decision of justice. At all times, we will ensure that whoever is appointed as the Attorney General, whether at the national level or at the state level, is effective and efficient, so as to have an effective justice delivery sector policy in place.