JUDGES' TARGET FOR 2014

Reports that the National Judicial Commission (NJC) has set a minimum target of between 16 and 24 judgments a year for judges across the country from 2014 is difficult to situate. While we are in agreement with the NJC that indolent and ineffective judges should be retired; there is the need to properly weigh the parameter used by the commission to arrive at that figure.

We consider that it may be unrealistic to make such a demand, when the judges do not determine the number of cases that come before them in a year. Again, has the commission considered the cost on quality of judgments in arriving at the decision, knowing that some cases are more intricate than others?

Again, the work output of a judge in a busy court like in Lagos, Port Harcourt, Kano, Onitsha and other commercial centres will no doubt be different from their colleagues operating in remote areas, where the number of cases in a year may not be up to 24. We are also worried that if emphasis is on quantity, some judges may find it convenient to treat the matters before them shabbily, to meet the requirement. Has the commission considered the impact of dumping badly heard cases on the appellate courts, thus depriving litigants without resources the right to go on appeal?

Moreover, in determining the effectiveness of judges, what measure has the commission put in place to sieve judges who give ill-considered judgments from the system; as their impact is also as ruinous as indolent judges that delay cases before them unduly. While no doubt the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, has shown grit in tackling corruption more than her predecessors, we believe that corruption-induced judgments constitute by far, more danger than the quantity of cases determined by a judge in a year. So, the NJC has a more serious challenge tracking corruption in the judiciary.

Also, as we have always argued, the NJC, nay the country, must seek a more efficient way of appointing only competent persons to the bench. That is the surest way to have competent and efficient persons as judges in our courts. Part of the challenge, as we have also argued, is that the centralised system of appointment, remuneration and discipline of judges is unrealistic. Apart from the fact that it negates our federal system of government, it also hoists equal measure for unequal work across the country’s judiciary, which may have informed the new policy of between 16 to 24 judgments in a year. As we have noted on the issue of federalising wages, it is unrealistic for a worker, whether a judge or some other workers, who work in diverse areas and economic environments, to receive the same salary.

It may indeed be noted that many Nigerians will not wager for the integrity of our judiciary, and one reason is the undue delay in the courts. This also may have informed the instruction to deliver a reasonable number of judgments in a year by the judges; but the NJC may not be able to achieve that by fiat. Part of the strategy should be to provide efficient infrastructure for the judiciary. In some courts, the judges still write in long hand; some do not have good libraries, qualified research assistants, efficient power supply system and other basic infrastructure.

So, the NJC needs a mixed bag of demands and incentives to achieve an efficient judiciary. While pushing for increase in the number of cases a judge must decide in a year, it must also work to ensure quality judgments that will endure.