NewzIN this chance interview with Professor Auwalu Yadudu of Bayero University, Kano, he makes it clear that whereas there are erring judicial officers in the country, Nigeria’s judiciary has not done as badly as is being perceived. Unfortunately for the justices, they cannot come out openly to forcefully defend their actions. The challenge, in his view, is that the National Judicial Council, NJC, a supposed Ombudsman, would enjoy more public acceptance if it is reconstituted to reflect the presence of more persons outside the judiciary.
Excerpts By Jide Ajani Sixty years after independence, if you were to score Nigeria’s judiciary, how would you grade that arm of government? You see, what really happens is that the judiciary does not exist in a vacuum. They only adjudicate disputes brought before them.
And some disputes may not have been resolved to the satisfaction of many. But I think, in their defence, in my view, they apply and interpret the law according to the evidence before them. And generally I wouldn’t think they have done terribly badly.
There are very many areas of improvement. Yes, we need to call out the bad eggs and also deal with recalcitrant judicial officers because that is why the judiciary is being crucified. But generally, it is not as bad as some perceive it to be.
How would you describe the level of independence in that space? I think they have so much independence, but the public perception is that their independence is curtailed and detracted from. I think they need to be more forceful in their own defence – you know, they can’t speak, they can’t defend themselves in public.
But, in my view, in cases that are so egregious that they have handled, they need to come out as forcefully as possible in defending their rights. But the confidence in the National Judicial Council, NJC, keeps waning? There are cases where sometimes the outcome of a petition before the NJC leaves much to be desired, I agree.
Summary from source