Before Justice Dattijo Muhammad, there was Justice Odemwengie Uwaifo

Honourable Justice Dattijo Muhammad’s valedictory speech created a storm in the polity after the 

now retired Supreme Court Justice observed that the public perceptions of the judiciary, over the years, have become witheringly scornful and monstrously critical owing to corruption. 

The jurist also raised the issue of enormous concentration of power in the hands of the CJN to appoint people into various judicial bodies and panels of the Supreme Court, alleging that the CJN abused the power to ensure that the South-East was not represented in the panel that heard Alhaji Atiku/Peter Obi’s election appeals against President Tinubu. 

But before Muhammad’s valedictory speech, there was Honourable Justice Odemwengie Uwaifo who also used the same platform, on his retirement from the Supreme Court on January 24, 2004, to raise critical issues in the judiciary and made profound suggestions. 

But nearly 10 years after Uwaifo spoke, the issues remain a clog in the wheel of how justice is delivered in the country. For the record, we are publishing excerpts from the 2004 valedictory speech of retired Justice Uwaifo…

Dispensation of justice on merit

 There is the unfortunate tendency for some people (even those in authority) to misunderstand the important role of the judiciary in the maintenance of law and order, redressing grievances, protecting individual rights, and promoting and ensuring democratic culture. 

There is often an underlying doubt about the dispensation of justice on the merits. Those who really do not want their official action questioned even in a democratic dispensation regard Judges as undeclared enemies. 

This puts justice and injustice at a crossroads in relation to the concept of democracy. As Reinhold Niebuhr put it, man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.

Democracy is most obviously seen to be necessary when the tendency of an autocrat puts justice at risk. But one sure way to make democracy stay on course is to enthrone justice. Similarly, individual right when systematically trampled upon leads to a loss of faith in the polity. 

Therefore, in the performance of its office, a superior court (in particular) owes itself, for the sake of dignity of the Judiciary, and owes the society, for the sake of maintaining the public’s confidence, and not least owes the parties before it, for the sake of justice, the duty to administer the law in a manner which ensures that there remains reasonable validity in the claim that the Judiciary is the last line of defence and hope of those who approach it. A corrupt judge is more harmful to the society than a man who runs amok with a dagger in a crowded street. He can be restrained physically. But a corrupt judge deliberately destroys the moral foundation of society and causes incalculable distress to individuals through abusing his office, while still being referred to as “honorable.” It is difficult to bring him to account under our system.

No judge worth the name should feel inclined to hide any positive element of his head in the closet through fear or favour, or from corrupt motives or simply on ground of intellectual compromise when reaching a decision. He must to the best of his ability act as God’s nominated agent. That has been my personal moral philosophy of the duty call of a judge since I was appointed a High Court Judge. So, a Judge should not just write his judgment. He must let it appear he made it with a clear commitment to convince.

That must be demonstrated by the quality of its analysis and transparency. An unconvincing judgment is like a song rendered in awkward decibel: it can neither entertain nor can it be danced to.

Personal experience

 You can hardly experience the real need to have a Judiciary that can be relied upon until you are put through the anxiety of having the court to decide your fate or your civil rights and obligations or those of your loved ones. I experienced one recently in a civil matter of trespass to my land. Although I felt rather confident of my title to and possession of the land, defence counsel who had already conceded that his clients had no defence and in fact filed none, suddenly raised irrelevant issues and engaged in diversionary and delaying tactics when I proceeded to establish my title by evidence. 

I was amazed at how possible it could be for what looks quite straight-forward to take some twists and turns in the hands of incompetent or unreliable Bench or Bar or both. I was lucky in that I saw both my counsel and the learned trial Judge at their best. I was able to interpret the effect of each step of the proceedings and this kept me well adjusted in and out of the courtroom. You can imagine what lay litigants risk by staking their confidence in our justice system. This calls for the competence and integrity of both Bar and Bench for goodness sake.

The Supreme Court is both the final court and the constitutional court of the land.

I need hardly advert to the importance of this court in its role in the Judiciary as the third arm of government. But I must not fail to emphasize that everything should be done to ensure the continued constitutional relevance and credibility of the Supreme Court. The Court needs very capable judicial officers at all times to be able to achieve this. Let the day never come when it may be said that the Supreme Court could not stand forthright enough but buckled under pressure having regard to the manipulative dimension prevalent in our socio-politico environment, but manifesting as an undergrowth, and tending to over shadow with unpredictable consequences our sense of honour and direction as a nation. The Supreme Court must always demonstrate, even more than ever in such atmosphere, that it can neither bend nor break.

The question is what is the guarantee for the sustenance of that needed quality? It is a pertinent question in my view. Times are changing in very sense and we cannot deny this. The Judiciary is no longer serving the Nigerian society of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or even 1990s. It is the 21st century society. The constitutional challenges, which the Supreme Court had had to meet in the last six years, are more profound, in my views, than those it coped with in the last two decades put together.

Lowering of standards

 There are indications either from comments made by the public or from personal experience that there is need to be concerned about the lowering of standards in the judiciary of this country. 

It was once thought to be only in the magistracy because of the disturbing was some of the personnel tended to abuse their office. It gradually crawled to the High Courts and would appear to have had a foothold among a noticeable number of judicial officers there. It is not unusual for even senior members of the Bar to complain about the general disposition of those High Court judges. 

There is the aspect of their attitude and orientation to duty: late sitting, laziness, incompetence, doubtful integrity, impertinence towards counsel.

Now there is real apprehension that the appellate court may soon be infested if not already contaminated with some of these vices. Some recent events seem to sound an alarm bell. 

The glimmer of hope so far in the face of the creeping malaise is that the National Judicial Council, under the leadership of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Hon. Justice M.I. Uwais GCON, has tackled head-on some of the reported cases of abuse of office.

What omen does this trend of falling standards portend for the country? First, a culture of compromises will take root in the dispensation of justice. Second, public confidence will be badly and broadly eroded. Third, democracy will suffer or can even collapse. Can we afford any of these consequences because we fail to think ahead for possible solutions to contain the situation?