There is a popular saying among members of the legal profession that the wheel of justice moves slowly. This describes the tendency for cases or litigations to take an ample lot of time before their resolution because of the slow nature of the judicial process. This results in a whole back log of cases in many of our courts leading to congestion and inability of litigants to see the end of their court actions.
Yet another cause of delay in determining cases and ensuring that litigants get justice, is the demand by counsel to litigants for frequent adjournments, withdrawal of case files and introduction of new issues, which are tactics used by counsel to delay final determination of cases in court. Others include application for injunctions and restraint.
The above attitudes congest the courts, creating delay and distractions. In the area of political disputes, notably, electoral petitions, delay in adjudicating petitions createstension, affects governance and arouses suspicion about the role of the judiciary.
Therefore, Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Mariam Aloma-Mukhtar, recent advocacy that petitions arising from governorship elections should terminate at the Court of Appeal rather than the Supreme Court, is a welcome development. The CJNmade the recommendation while receiving members of the national conference committee on judiciary who paid her a courtesy visit with a view to getting her input on a number of issues.
Mukhtar said her position is informed by the need to avoid distraction at the apex court, with specific reference to Section 233 of the 1999 Constitution which deals with cases that should terminate at the Supreme Court.
We share the view of the CJN that there is need to spare the apex court the burden of having election matters like those of governors coming before the Supreme Court. If such cases terminate at the Court of Appeal, they would be speedily to allow winners to be sworn in with minimal delay thus enabling the machinery of government to be set in motion. Delay of such election matters, which often result to recourse to the apex court, forces the latter to often abandon more important cases like those of a criminal nature to deal first with the election issue.
The above situation causes distraction for the apex court because of the widespread interest and sensationalism associated with election cases and unduly puts justices of the court on the spot. This was the case in the controversy, insinuations and name-calling that bedevilled the judiciary over the 2011 Sokoto State governorship case which led to the ouster of the President of the Court of
Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, and the alleged shady deals involving justices of the Supreme Court in the matter.
By talking of distraction, the CJN was merely being diplomatic. Election petitions and the worries associated with them have tended to implicate judges inallegations of corruption and miscarriage of justice for monetary gain. There have been reports where judges were alleged to have scrambled to have election cases assigned to them, and money actually changed hands between the latter and those seeking favourable judgement. These issues have tended to portray the judiciary in bad light with grave consequences for the later and the society.
Thus, the position of the CJN on this issue is part of her desire to reduce the burden of the apex court and insulate the judges from temptation, which compromises their integrity. The measure will also help in the anti-corruption war, thereby restoring the high esteem of Supreme Court justices. It is hoped that if this proposal works, the Court of Appeal would to live up to expectation.
