Salary review not enough to tackle corruption in judiciary — Erugo, SAN

Law Professor, Sam Erugo, SAN, in this interview, spoke on the low public perception of the judiciary, agitation for the appointment of lawyers as Supreme Court Justices, review of the Nigerian Constitution, recent review of salaries of judicial officers and its implication on the justice system. He also addressed other sundry issues.

Excerpts:

By Innocent Anaba

Public perception of the judiciary has been very low in recent years. Why do you think this is so and how can the judiciary regain its lost glory?

From time immemorial there has always been poor public perception of the judiciary and this is essentially due to misconceptions and misjudgments of the law and the way it works. My inaugural lecture way back in 2017 titled ‘The Lawyer or Liar: The Myths and Realities of a Misjudged Profession’ was in conscious reference to this phenomenon as old as the legal profession itself.

There are certain perplexing myths and realities that complicate the public perception so much so that some people out of misconception or misjudgment will like to describe lawyers and ostensibly, judges as liars, and wish to associate the profession and institution with negative things, and portray members in negative light.

On the other hand, besides the perplexing misconception or misjudgment, the profession and judiciary are reflections of the society, and we must accept there are deviants, and sometimes the operators could err as human beings. Because of the nature of the institution, few deviants could add to the public hostility.

However, I agree that in Nigeria in recent times, low public perception of the judiciary got to disturbing level. The reasons are not far-fetched. Politics will appear to be the major challenge, and the few political cases that occupied the centre stage must be blamed. They over shadowed so many other disputes settled by the judiciary without much ado. The politicization of the judiciary and legal practice takes the pride of place in the low public perception.

There is little argument that politicians have infiltrated the judiciary to some extent, through influence in appointments of their nominees and cronies, and sometimes removal of judicial officers with impunity, and essentially by subjugating or conquering this third arm of government.

These and more issues translate to suspicions of political influence in the outcome of some, but definitely not all outcomes of political cases. As an active participant in the last electoral disputes, I can confidently state here that some cases were decided on the merits. But the unethical report of the cases gives a different impression.

Secondly, media, especially social media, and the consequent abuse of freedom of expression, is a challenge. Most of the social media reports provide evidence of not just misconception or misjudgment of the cases, but of outright ignorance. I must state here, without holding the brief of the bench, that each case is decided based on its peculiar facts and circumstances, and cases with similar facts could end up with different outcomes depending on some factors, including pleading, evidence and procedure, law and legal argument, etc.

This is where technicality comes in, and probably the competence of counsel could be relevant. So, it would be unfair to criticize judgments based on media reports and without looking at the pleadings, evidence presented to the court and the general conduct of the case. So, here we find that most public criticism is based on media reports that are not based on the facts from the courts. Of course, most social media reports are sponsored by politicians.

Thirdly, we must accept that some lawyers are either not adequately trained or fail to accept the ethics of the profession they freely chose to belong to as regulating their conduct. Unfortunately, for so many reasons, including number and politics again, the Bar Association is unable to control all the erring members.

On how the judiciary will regain its lost glory, this can be achieved first by necessary constitutional amendment, and implementation of constitutional provisions on full independence of the judiciary. If this is achieved, to a large extent the judiciary would be self-regulatory. That will translate to serious control in appointment and removal of judicial officers, adequate and commensurate remuneration, discipline, and generally insulation from politics and control of politicians.

Again, regulatory bodies should be empowered to regulate the judicial officers and legal practitioners, as regards the code of conduct for judicial officers and rules of professional ethics. Furthermore, we may have to be more transparent in the judicial process, live transmission and reporting of important trials and easy public access to court processes.

The President last month approved the review of the salary of judicial officers. Even the National Assembly upward reviewed the take hope of Supreme Court justice. How significant do you think these measures can go in tackling corruption and low motivation in the Bench?

I commend the interest shown by the President and National Assembly in the upward review of the salary of judicial officers. The review will definitely encourage them, but those are not enough. Could these new salary be compared to the emoluments of the Presidency and National Assembly members? The judiciary should be treated as equal stakeholders, and third of three equal terms. They deserve independence, to determine their own needs peculiar to the work they do for the nation, and to decide their fate.

Independence is critical. Increased remuneration will definitely improve motivation of judicial officers, but I doubt that it will in any way tackle corruption. Corruption in Nigeria has reached an alarming level, and the government may do well to holistically address the social justice issues that encourage the evil.

Despite the clamour for changes in the appointment of justices of the Supreme Court, the old order of choosing from the Bench remains in practice. Why do you think this is so and how can it be improved upon?

The judiciary is a conservative institution, and change is always difficult. There is no argument that the Bench remains the first and best contender for elevation because they are in the system and will easily qualify in the extant criteria set for such appointment to the Supreme Court. Again, as I discussed elsewhere, the Bar and academics both appear not prepared for the necessary judicial, not political, contest to have their members elevated straight to the Supreme Court. They may have to put a little pressure to have the rules changed to accommodate their practising lawyers and academics. That change could bring some spice to the apex court.

Some Nigerians have been clamouring for a holistic reform of the federal government structure to allow the states to have their Supreme Court as is practiced in other jurisdictions. What is your take on this?

I am one of those opposed to such idea; and I am not sure that is the reform we desire. At the State level, we have Magistrates’ and other smaller courts, and the High Court as highest court. This is fair enough.

The present federal arrangement of Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court at the apex ensures the benefit of our diversity to test the judgments from the States at federal courts presided by supposedly neutral panels. Probably, for the sake of access to justice by having courts close to the people, the suggestion should be for appeals from High courts to end at the Court of Appeal, now spread across the country. This could be with the exception of cases involving the Federal government or any of its agencies, or between states.

Recently, an editor with FirstNews, a news publication was abducted from his home in Lagos by DIA and spent days in detention until the media raised the alarm before he was released. How dangerous is the action of the security agency at this time of our democracy dispensation?

This is condemnable. Like some commentators have said, the editor was lucky to returned alive. There is no doubt that the present use of men of the armed forces for ordinarily police duties everywhere in Nigeria has negative implications for our international rating as a democracy. It still appears we are in a military regime, and everywhere is militarized. In fact, it looks like we are in a state of emergency as the military are involved in common civil matters and nobody is checking their excesses while the rights of citizens are daily denigrated.

Following the recent killing of security officers in Delta State, how proactive should government be in tackling communal disagreements?

The unfortunate but avoidable killing of security officers in Delta State, and the consequent reprisals and destructions, once again, have shown failure of government to enthrone acceptable peace process in our communities. Everything cannot be resolved using force, such as the military is trained for, and this could easily be misinterpreted and abused. It is obvious the citizens are tensed and patently aggressive to themselves and others, and the presence of the military in common citizens’ affair may not be the best.

This much is clear from the media reports of accusations and counter accusations.

There is need for government at all levels should enthrone peace committees to amicably address communal conflicts, and spare the military some unnecessary exposures. Now, there will be no peace in that area for a long time to come, and many innocent citizens, particularly the women, old and sick and children have been terrorized and abused. So many homes have been destroyed. This was avoidable.

Though things are really difficult for the citizens, the current government is better than the last. At least, you see a government ready and taking action, making efforts, and responding to issues and concerns. I believe things will get better.