Nigerian justice system is at crossroad

The Nigerian judicial system, long regarded as the bedrock of justice and equity has in recent times continued to be a subject of scrutiny and debate, especially in cases that raise more questions than answers. One such case is the trial of Mercy Michael, a 30-year-old woman accused of feeding her 8 month-old daughter rat poison, leading to the infant's death. As would naturally be expected, the actions of the presiding judge, Mr. Samson Kwasu, have since then brought into sharp focus the perceived inconsistencies and contradictions that have infiltrated the justice system, sparking renewed national conversations.

According to reports from the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Judge Samson Kwasu declined to take the defendant’s plea on grounds of "lack of jurisdiction." Yet, despite this acknowledgment, the judge went on to issue directives—remanding the accused at a correctional facility and adjourning the case to December 17 for further mention. The paradoxical handling of this particular case has left many Nigerians in a dilemma, questioning the coherence and fairness of the judicial process.

The first point of contention is Judge Kwasu’s refusal to take the plea of the accused. By stating that his court lacked jurisdiction, the judge effectively acknowledged that the matter fell outside his legal authority. However, rather than transfer the case to a competent court, he chose to remand the defendant and adjourn the proceedings. These actions raise important questions.

In terms of jurisdictional authority, if the court lacked jurisdiction over the case, what legal basis allowed the judge to remand the accused? Jurisdiction is a cornerstone of judicial authority, and without it, any decision or directive risks being deemed null and void. In the context of legal precedence, in cases where a court lacks jurisdiction, standard legal procedure typically would involve transferring the case to the appropriate court. Why this step was not taken in this instance remains unclear.

Seen from human rights concerns, remanding accused persons without proper jurisdiction could be seen as a violation of their rights. By remanding Mercy Michael, the judge essentially made a decision on her liberty without the requisite legal authority.

There is no doubt that Judge Kwasu’s actions, while specific to this case, reflect the broader legal issues that have continued to bug Nigeria’s justice system. These include inconsistencies in judicial processes, delays in the administration of justice, and questions about the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

These criticisms were raised by Dele Farotimi in his book, Nigeria and Its Criminal Justice System, and they provide a relevant framework for understanding the challenges that stare the justice system starkly in the face.

Dele Farotimi’s critique of the Nigerian judicial system highlighted concerns about the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Cases like this one in Kaduna State provide fodder for such criticisms. What I think is that the apparent contradictions in Judge Kwasu’s handling of the case may raise suspicions about external influences or a lack of adherence to legal principles.

The public’s perception of the judiciary is critical to its legitimacy. Cases that appear to be mishandled, whether due to incompetence, lack of resources, or external pressures, contribute to a growing sense of public disillusionment in the judiciary as the final hope of the common man. The overwhelming support for Dele Farotimi’s critiques, despite the backlash from certain quarters, underscored the depth of public dissatisfaction with the current status quo.

One of the central issues highlighted by this Mercy Michael's case is the lack of consistency in judicial processes. The Nigerian Constitution and various legal statutes outline clear procedures for handling cases, and that includes those that involve jurisdictional issues. Unfortunately, these procedures are not often followed, and that could lead to confusion and mistrust among the public.

For instance, the decision to remand Mercy Michael despite the court's lack of jurisdiction clearly contradicts established legal principles. Such inconsistencies erode public confidence in the judiciary and create the impression of arbitrariness. The adjournment of the case to December 17 further underscores the issue of delays in the Nigerian justice system. Adjournments are a common feature of Nigerian courts, often resulting in prolonged detention for accused persons, even before their guilt or innocence is determined. This practice not only infringes on the rights of the accused but also undermines the principle of swift and fair justice.

The case of Mercy Michael and Judge Kwasu’s handling of it should serve as another wake-up call for the Nigerian judiciary. Addressing the systemic issues highlighted by this case requires a multi-faceted approach, judicial training, and accountability. Judges must receive regular training on procedural and substantive law to ensure consistency in their rulings and actions. Additionally, mechanisms for holding judges accountable for their decisions must be strengthened to deter lapses in judgment or integrity. Efforts must be made to streamline judicial processes, particularly in cases involving jurisdictional issues. Clear guidelines should be established to ensure that cases are promptly transferred to the appropriate courts without unnecessary delays. The judiciary must prioritize the timely resolution of cases. This requires addressing the root causes of delays, which include inadequate funding, insufficient personnel, and procedural inefficiencies.

Safeguarding the independence of the judiciary is essential to its credibility. This would include insulating judges from political or financial pressures and ensuring that appointments and promotions are based purely on merit. The judiciary must engage with the public to build trust and confidence. This would involve increasing transparency in judicial processes and decisions, as well as addressing public concerns promptly and effectively.

Today, the Nigerian judicial system is at a crossroads. Cases like that of Mercy Michael highlight the urgent need for reform to address inconsistencies, delays, and questions about judicial independence. The critique by Dele Farotimi, supported by a significant segment of the Nigerian public, reflected a widespread desire for a justice system that is fair, efficient, and independent. The question, therefore, is not just about where the Nigerian judicial system is headed, but more about the collective will to address its shortcomings and restore public confidence.

While Judge Kwasu’s actions in this particular case may have been well-intentioned, they underscored the broader challenges facing the judiciary. The handling of the case against Mercy Michael could serve as a microcosm of the larger issues at play within the Nigerian justice system. It is a reminder that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done —consistently, transparently, and in accordance with the rule of law. Anything less risks undermining the very foundation of justice and equity on which the country, Nigeria, was founded.

* Asinugo is a London-based British-Nigerian veteran journalist, author and publisher of ROLU Business Magazine (Website: https://rolultd.com)