The crisis at the Supreme Court

THE judiciary, arguably the most venerated, stable and highly sensitive arm of government in any democracy, is fast losing its hallowed reputation in Nigeria. This time around, it is neither because the executive arm of government is making disparaging comments about it, dubbing it the biggest headache in the fight against corruption; nor is it about the invasion of the homes of Supreme Court justices in the wee hours by security agents in search of alleged proceeds of corruption. In the instant case, the erosion of integrity or sullying of the reputation of the judiciary is actually being unwittingly orchestrated from within. And sadly, it is happening in a manner that tends to validate the executive’s usual claim that the third arm of government is rotten. That is the only way to construe the letter the Supreme Court justices recently wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Tanko Abdullahi, detailing sundry atrocities.

While the 14 justices made veiled reference to alleged sleaze and misfeasance being perpetrated by the leadership in the stinger, they pointedly accused the CJN of administrative ineptitude. They wondered why some of them lacked internet services in their homes and offices and why they were being forced to close for work at 4p.m. on account of the unavailability of fuel. They also pointed to many other inadequacies that they attributed to administrative lapses on the part of the CJN. However, the CJN responded, saying that the entire misunderstanding bordered on paucity of funds which, in his view, was not peculiar to the judiciary but was reflective of the parlous state of the country’s economy.

This is a national embarrassment. How can justices of the Supreme Court be asked to close work at 4p.m. because there is no fuel? How can justices of the Supreme Court lack official accommodation, vehicles and qualified legal assistants? The integrity of the Supreme Court and the judiciary is at stake. The judiciary is regarded as the last hope of the common man and woman; it can therefore not afford to be seen in negative light. The back-and-forth between the justices and the CJN is alien, detestable and dangerous, and should not have happened at all. By those exchanges, it is not out of place to be apprehensive that the final arbiter in all civil and criminal cases may be losing the moral ground to continue to perform its adjudicatory functions. Also, the fact that all the justices wrote the letter tends to call to question the integrity of the CJN.

Against the backdrop of the maxim that judges are to be seen and not heard, the situation must have become really grave for the jurists to have found it imperative to document their grievances. However, if the action of the revered justices of the Supreme Court is seen as rather unusual, the reaction of the Chief Justice is clearly outrageous. Rather than personally address the issues raised by his colleagues, he caused his media aide to respond to the complaints of the justices by way of a press statement! That was inappropriate and smacked of utter disregard for his brother justices. The CJN’s mode of response would also appear to be a confirmation of one of the complaints of the justices, namely that he lacks administrative acumen.

Overall, the main issue is that the apex court failed or neglected to handle its internal communication system optimally. Otherwise, the CJN and his brother justices would not have been dancing naked in the market to the consternation of their discerning compatriots. Certainly, one of the major causes of the ignoble incident at the Supreme Court is poor funding and neither of the two parties could be held responsible for this, but it behooves the leadership to make full disclosure. There is no doubt that the country’s economy is tottering and no branch of government is insulated from the pangs of inadequate funding, but this reality should have been properly communicated to all of those concerned without prompting. It reflects badly on the leadership that it is not expressive when there is a mismatch between the agreed team targets and achievements under the untenable assumption that the cause of the variance is common knowledge to every team member.

It is, nonetheless, heartening to know that the Body of Benchers has responded to concerned citizens’ calls on major stakeholders in the judiciary to intervene and facilitate the resolution of the impasse. The body has set up a high-powered committee to look into the welfare of the justices and compare it with what obtains in other jurisdictions. It is, however, important for the committee to note that the real grouse of the justices is not just about the robustness/quality of the welfare package but the lack of implementation of the extant scheme and the poor leadership communication around it. These are crucial issues the committee must also address in order for any proposed panacea to be effective and to endure. The recent show of shame at the Supreme Court should never be allowed to recur. It is the country, and not just the judiciary alone, that will be in disrepute if the apex court in the land is completely demystified.