Although they have been paid their outstanding salary it was in the news recently that judges of the Federal High Court were owed arrears of salaries. What does this portend for justice administration in the face of war against graft?

The first thing is to look at the facts, if it’s true that they were owned as much as four months’ salary, it does not speak well for the administration of justice.

This is because a man would put in his best where he believes he is fully appreciated in terms of being paid for his work/job.

I know that under any law, whether it comes from God or man, the need for the payment of a labourer’s wage or salary is strongly emphasized.

These laws stipulate that a worker deserves his/her wages. I was terribly shocked when I saw it on the television and I think that the federal government ought to do something urgently to avoid a repeat of the ugly phenomenon.

The government must prioritize regardless of economic recession, or the dwindling resources; it must set its priorities right.

I had thought that the salaries of the judges are on unconsolidated funds through the National Judicial Council (NJC).

So, there is no reason we should run into this kind of problem. Let me take you to a little part of history. The idea of NJC that is now occupying a conspicuous place under the 1999 Constitution arose from a situation like this when the country was under the military administration.

We discovered at the time that many judges were being owned up to six months and more. And it was felt that such an event was not good for the system.

That event gave birth to the centralised NJC. Regarding the idea of fight against corruption, let me add that lack of payment of salary is not an incentive for any lawyer or judge to be corrupt, no matter the way or form it appears.Though opportunity makes a thief.

We should put into cognisance that these judges are human beings who also go to the market and experience the hike in prices of products and commodities like everyone else.

In addition, one of the things I appreciate about the 2017 budget which is now before the National Assembly is that for once, in so many years, the budget of the judiciary is on the increase by N100billion, which wasn’t so in the last four/five years. In fact, in the past five years, the budget of the judiciary had decreased rapidly.

Yet we appoint more judges, build more courts, produce more lawyers and permit people to file more cases. So, this is an aspect of the budget that I personally find highly commendable.

It is important that their salaries should be prioritised so that they can maintain the minimal standard that is common to them and not going to bed without food while expecting them to resume work by 9am.

However, there is no justification for committing illegality. Illegality is illegality and same goes for corruption. But the law is not interested in the motive behind the reason you are corrupt.

No situation can justify the existence of a corrupt judge. No one would say that because he or she is hungry then he’s permitted to steal in order to alleviate the hunger.

There is agitation over seeming marginalization of some section of the country. Would true federalism solve some of these problems if well-articulated?

I mean, are we practicing true federalism in the true sense of it? Without any hesitation I would say no! This is simply because the parameters are there and the requirements for true federalism are not there.

For true federalism to operate effectively, there ought to be an independency or autonomy of the state. In Nigeria, we have three tiers of government; namely the local, state and federal government.

However, Section 4 of the Constitution establishes the legislative arms of government, and Section 4(1) donates the legislative powers to the Federal Republic in the National Assembly.

While Section 4(6) of the same Constitution donates the legislative power of the state of the federation to the House of Assembly of each state- We have that being practiced in Nigeria.

Similarly, Section 5 establishes the executive powers in Nigeria, 5(1) donates powers to the Federal and 5(2) donates the executive powers of the state to the governor and that of the federal to the President and Section 6 establishes the judicial powers to the Federation.

More so, under adjudication provisions in the Constitution, we have the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and the Federal High Court. Now in practice, the Federal High Court and we have High Court of each state and that is all.

There is no state in Nigeria that has its own Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. The necessary question is why? I don’t see any reason a state which has a High Court cannot have a Court of Appeal and its own Supreme Court. And several matters are terminated due to this situation.

I had cause to canvass this at different fora especially when I contested for the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association. I made a case stating that one of the fundamental reasons we have congestion in our courts, delays in the administration of Justice is structural.

I am yet to be aware if there is a Supreme Court of any nation which is as busy as the Supreme Court of Nigeria, sitting every day-a court having several thousand work load of cases. I would even strongly assert that there is none. Only very exceptional cases should get to the Supreme Court.

I would like to ask, what is the business of the Supreme Court with a land matter in Imo State or a matrimonial dispute matter in Lagos? We are simply over bothering the people there. So, there is no federal structure in our judiciary. Let’s look at the Executive.

Section 214 of the Constitution establishes the police force in Nigeria and also decrees that there shall be no other police force except that one.

The police force is under the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, while the governors are described as the chief security officers of their states.

Hence, how many instructions can they give to enforcement agencies? These are part of the arbitrariness. In fact, when we talk of effective policing there is no way we can have a good policing until we decentralise the police force. It’s impossible.

In which way would you suggest the country can achieve decentralisation of its police force vis-à-vis given powers to chief executive of state?

I would say that we have a monolithic police force in Nigeria- the central police force (Nigerian Police Force). Firstly, their population is inadequate, especially in a country’s population alleged to have recorded over 180 million people.

If we reconcile that number with the number in the Police Force, I doubt if we have up to 2million officers in the force.

I doubt strongly if we even have up to that number. Some years ago, it was speculated that the police had only about 400,000 people, at the time when the country’s total population recorded over 150million. And another problem we are all strongly facing is the idea of speculation.

Everything is based on speculation; we are not particularly certain about anything. Again, when we look at the idea of census, it is under the exclusive legislative list which only the Federal Government can legislate on or can carry out. I ask strongly, why can’t a state carry out the census of the people in its domain?

Now if every state should carry out the census individually, we will even arrive at a definite and more concrete number of the country’s population. But the exercise is then restricted to the sole involvement of the federal.

When you look at the exclusive legislative list where the federal government has the exclusive powers to legislate, all these are stated there in, about 68 concurrent lists. And where both the federal and the state have power to legislate, we have about 30.

But there’s an existing rider, where a state legislates on an issue and the federal government legislates on the same issue, if there exist inconsistencies between both legislations,then that of the federal government would prevail.

Then I ask what power is vested in the state under this present constitution? I can’t fathom one. We don’t need this over concentration of powers at the centre and this is also what I believe to be the major factor causing the ‘do or die’ or ‘fight to finish’ politics we have in Nigeria. Everybody wants to get to Abuja.

But if there is fulfilment at the state level and a person is driven by a motive to serve, then the person need not crave to visit Abuja before he/she would serve.

But we must look at the Constitution and practice federalism by at least satisfying some of the measures. This is an issue that is bothering several people in the country. Just like the clergy man, Dr Tunde Bakare, who also made suggestions and recommendations about how we can achieve better governance, was canvassing for a return from the 36 states in Nigeria to a six geopolitical zones.

I don’t want to join issues with the idea but I suffice it to say that it is better not to give powers to somebody, than try to take such powers back/away from the person.

And I doubt if there is any state willing to accept such proposal and become paired up with another. The number of states we have in the federation is not the problem but rather, the issue lies within the framework contained in the Constitution and the manner in which it’s being run or governed. And unless we look at this Constitution in a more holistic manner, then there won’t be a way out.

Would you support plans by the National Assembly to strip the federal government of powers to control resources by amending the Constitution?

Naturally, people are looking at it out of context. Those who canvass a reduction of resources at the centre, just for the sake of it- since according to them the federal government is powerful, are not hitting the nail on the head.

Those resources are accruable to them, pursuant to the functions they are carrying out under the Constitution.

So, the real issue is devolution of powers; when you take some of the powers from the federal government and invest it in the state, concurrently, the resources accruable to the federal government will reduce in favour of the state.

This is because at this level, the federal government would then have less work to do while the state carries out a much bigger task. And resources would follow in that dimension. We need that to happen because it would address so many of our problems.

Another controversial opinion I presume most people would refute is that I don’t see any reason, but for abundance of resources, why we cannot have a par-time legislation either at the state or at the federal level.

When you look at the Constitution itself, it says that they must sit for not less than 180days per year. So, if a legislator sits for that number of days, they have satisfied the provisions of the Constitution. But does 180 days make one year?

The answer is ‘No’ because 365days equals 1year. And this is minus the public holidays and others; we are still left with no less 250 working days.

So, my own interpretation to this is that the Constitution itself envisages part-time legislature. A graphic representation of this idea depicts that if you are receiving two hundred thousand naira in a year, for example, then following the spirit of the 180days Constitution would imply that the N200, 000 should be slashed to N100, 000.

You have raised the question of slashing lawmakers’ salaries by 100 per cent, how would then look at the case of ex-governors, who are now either senators or ministers, receiving dual payment both as salaries and pension from their different states?

When people are working, especially in terms of employer and employee relation, the law obligates each person to prepare for tomorrow.

Certain percentage of the employee’s salary is deducted for savings with the corresponding percentage as contribution from the employer.

This process is strictly conducted in order to save for the rainy days- a period when the employee is unable to perform.

Therefore, if a governor of a certain state serves and steps aside at the end of eight years as written in the Constitution, he is paid his retirement benefits.

Hence, if he is receiving pension from the State, that means he will be receiving such benefits for life. Also, assuming he contests and wins an election as a legislator, he will now become entitled to both allowances and salaries from that present office.

And I think that would be so unfair receiving pension as an ex-governor and salary as a legislator. Speaking as a lawyer, if the law makes provision for payment of pensions to ex-governors and does not make an exception, then the law ought to be followed.

It will therefore take an initiative of somebody to propose an amendment in order to create an exception in the law.

Such an amendment would stipulate that if a past governor eventually becomes either a senator or the president, he shall not be permitted to receive such dual benefits or entitlements. But until such an amendment takes place, the law must be adhered to.

By: JOHN CHIKEZIE
The Newtelegraph News