Lawyers lament poor service conditions that killed 4 Judges in 4 weeks
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
Four federal Judges have died in the past four weeks, highlighting the poor conditions of service that affect the health of all ranks of jurists, from the Magisterate’s Court in towns and cities up to the Supreme Court in Abuja.
Those snapped by the cold hand of death were
- Appeal Court Justice Raphael Agbo – July 3
- Supreme Court Justice Chima Nweze – July 30
- Federal High Court Judge Hoommuk Mallong – July 30
- Bayelsa Chief Judge Kate Abiri – August 3
President Bola Tinubu recently raised the retirement age of Judges from 65 to 70 years but some commentators, particularly lawyers, have pointed out it would hamper the health of Judges who sit in court and manually take notes for long hours and hear several cases a day.
The views of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and other lawyers, as reported by The PUNCH, are published below:
Babatunde Fashanu, SAN
Fashanu urged the government to hasten welfare provision for Judges.
He recounted news that broke near the end of the tenure of former President Mohammadu Buhari that Supreme Court Justices did not have diesel to operate their power generators.
Fashanu questioned how a Judge can perform well when he worries about electricity supply at night to write a judgment and deliver it the next day – which can lead to stress, high blood pressure, and other sicknesses.
“For now we don’t have this in the Constitution such that the judiciary can be solely independent.
“The National Judicial Council [NJC] is trying, but it needs to be more secure. They don’t even need to collect money from the government at all; it has to go straight to the judiciary, both at the federal and the state levels, and not through any executive arm.”
Fashanu cited the United States where federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices serve for life and state High Court Judges can retire on a pension at the maximum salary and allowances they earn from age 65 to 80 years.
In the US, he added, state High Court Judges may retire at 65 but may stay on till they are 80.
“My own view, I prefer the American system whereby the Federal Government appoints Justices of the Appeal Court, the Federal Court, and Justices of the Supreme Court for life. It will be good in Nigeria if that is adopted too.”
In Nigeria, he noted, federal High Court Judges and Justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court compulsorily retire at 70.
“In view of the fact that the Federal Government is bigger than the state government, it can handle the Judges’ and Justices’ salaries and emolument and take care of them very well, giving them very good conditions of service that they too will be happy to serve for life.
“If Judges and Justices are appointed for life, it gives them security of tenure because some of us lawyers, even Senior Advocates of Nigeria, might opt to go and become a Judge or Justice of the Court of Appeal.
“I for one, would like to be a Judge, but I never liked the pegging of the service age, even if it’s 70.”
__________________________________________________________________
Related articles:
Ariwoola tells Judges to deliver justice, restore confidence in judiciary amid election petitions
Jega knocking judges for bribe in a circular argument
Afe Babalola wants only retired Judges, SANs on election tribunals
__________________________________________________________________
Victor Opara (SAN)
Opara advocated for a robust healthcare scheme for Judges as the judiciary is a vital organ of government and Judges’ death from poor healthcare signifies the slow death of democracy and good governance.
In his view, it is only when Judges are alive and healthy that they can check the excesses of the executive and legislature, stressing it makes no sense raising their retirement age to 70 without a raise of a minimum 70 per cent in good healthcare provision.
“I have confidence in the ability and capability of the Tinubu-led government to do the needful.
“I practise law principally in Lagos. Tinubu improved the welfare of Judges when he was Governor. This underscores the fact that he recognises the pivotal role of the Bench in the stabilisation of constitutional democracy.
“His Emilokan philosophy should be extended to the Bench as per healthcare. The time is now. A dying Judge is an angry Judge.”
Wahab Shittu (SAN)
Shittu argued stakeholders in justice administration, particularly the NJC and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), should be allowed to determine what is in their best interest in terms of retirement age of judicial officers.
“I propose a stakeholders’ dialogue session to finalise the issue once and for all. I don’t think it is fair to allow the resolution of the issue by executive fiat.”
David Fadile (lawyer)
Fadile disagreed with raising the retirement age of Judges from 65 to 70 years, saying he has previously canvassed that Nigerian Judges across the board should retire at 60 because it is not an easy task to read volumes of briefs, motions, et cetera.
“At 60, it is only by divine favour that one is not nursing one ailment or another, as such to expect the jurists at this age to pay detailed attention to a barrage of the briefs filed by lawyers is likened to the camel passing through the eyes of the needle.
“I met an Air Force General in the US Army some years ago who told me that the system retires you as an Air Force pilot at age 45 because it is assumed that one’s vision at 45 begins to dim; hence piloting at this age is risky.
“I also know of a female Judge in Lagos State who retired voluntarily at age 54. The solution to this preventable death among jurists is to reduce the age of retirement to 60 years as against 70.
“Aside from the incidence of death, if one should take a holistic look at the quality of judgments coming from the appellate courts these days, one cannot but find some gaps here and there.
“The Nigeria of respected Jurists Kayode Eso, Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, and others is different from the Nigeria of these days. We are far away from nature and our penchant for materialism is out of this world.”
Ogu Ogedi (lawyer)
“There is no way a single Judge who continues to have 30 to 45 cases in his dockets daily would fare better. Such a Judge is simply an overstretched mind. The law of diminishing returns is a constant one and the Bench is not an exception.
“Increase the number of hands in the Bench and retain the 65 years retirement age. The work of a Judge is not an easy one and I do not think it will get easier at 70.
“The Bench and the Bar should rather push to have a life after service and this can only be achieved with more hands. Sitting daily and staying awake to write rulings and judgments can never be made easier at 70.”
Yemi Omodele (lawyer)
“The Supreme Court can have six zones of sitting of the court in the country if the number is constitutionally increased and effect given to it.
“The need to increase the welfare packages of Judges is paramount. Politicians always think there is a magic wand in courts. It is not so, all Judges are humans.
“They need to be adequately cared for medically, socially, research, financially, and a host of others. The era of a Judge attending to over 1,000 cases should be avoided.
“A High Court Judge should not attend to and conclude more than 25 case files in a legal year. It is when one or part of the cases is concluded that another one should be assigned or added to the cases before the Judge.
“Medically, when a person gets to an advanced age the body system cannot be compared with when one is in law school.
“I also suggest that cases to be filed be subjected to a panel of assessors who will go through the pleadings of the claimants and if found to be filed, it goes for filing.
“Where it is an issue that can be resolved amicably, the same should be referred to mediation or Alternative Dispute Resolution [ADR].
“Also, if the facts of the case are statute barred, standing by or laches and acquiescence, the case should be rejected for filing.
“At the appellate level, if it is still found that the issues in the appeal can be resolved amicably, such appeals should be sent to mediation or ADR.
“On the issue of criminal cases, Magistrates’ Courts should study case files before arraignment or remand orders are made. Where it is discovered that the police merely brought a case to court unnecessarily, the same should be struck out.
“The Ministry of Justice should not issue legal advice to prosecute a case where it is clear that the issues are civil or have no evidence or no proper investigation.
“The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission [EFCC] and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC] and other agencies should do proper investigation before rushing to court.
“Where it is found that there is no convincing evidence in a case, they should not file charges in respect of such cases.
“These will do more good than harm to the lives of our Judges.”