Pages

Wednesday, 15 April 2015

There are no enough judges for election tribunals — Justice Adejumo

By  Abdulwahab  Abdulah
Justice Babatunde Adejumo is the President of the  National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN). He became President of NICN on April 2003 and has worked relentlessly to improve the lots of the court. He has created several divisions of the court across the six geo-political zones of the country as well as enhanced the laws establishing the court.  In this interview, he spoke on the election petition tribunal as well as how to de-congest  the Apex court of the country among other issues. Excerpts:
THE general election has come and gone, soon politicians will start approaching the election tribunal to contest the outcome of the polls. Do you think the 180 days for hearing of petitions is enough?
Definitely, it is enough. Why it was not enough to some people was that parties come with interlocutory applications. When you say no, they go to Court of Appeal, they want to stall the Tribunal’s proceedings.
Now if you have anything against the ruling they say no continue with the hearing, you can appeal all together. If you look at the psychology and philosophy behind that, you see that is justifiable.
Right person
A person will be elected whether rightly or fraudulently and if it fraudulently, the court says election was not proper and he has stayed in the office for two years, he has been collecting public funds for two years, taking decision that will affect the states for two years.
If court now says he is not the president, certain things he has done cannot be reverse. May be he has signed one or two appropriation bill, or one law or the other, that law has been interpreted, he has appointed some people, those people have taken some actions, you cannot reverse. The best you can do is that the right person should take over. The state fund is being wasted, it is double jeopardy and problem created. For that, 180 days is enough to pursue election tribunal cases.
NEW APPEAL COURT JUDGES: Cross section of the newly appointed Justices of the Court of Appeal, during their swearing-in ceremony by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, at the Supreme Court in Abuja, yesterday. Photo: Gbemiga Olamikan.
FILE PHOTO: NEW APPEAL COURT JUDGES: Cross section of the newly appointed Justices of the Court of Appeal, during their swearing-in ceremony by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, at the Supreme Court in Abuja,  Photo: Gbemiga Olamikan.
I think the question to ask is whether we have enough judges to handle election tribunal cases? I don’t think we have. Because the moment you take these judges from the high court, industrial court, their work is hanging in their normal duty post.
That is just by the side and they will not be visible at their regular cases until they conclude the proceedings at the tribunals. Cases will die temporarily, only to be awaken when they arrive back. That is why I said there should be a Constitutional Court.
The duty of constitutional court is to handle election matters. That will reduce the conventional court. In South African, Togo that is the practice. The duty of constitutional court is to make sure that regular court are not saddled with election matters. It is in this regards you be able to train judges on the constitutional court.
But now, when you take justices of Sharia Court, or from different places, bring them together, that will not solve problem. How do you think the elongation of hearing of cases before the Supreme Court can be addressed?
So many things are to be done. For example, they are taking 2006, 2007 cases now. It means that any matter you file now will have to stay for long before it gets there and it is not their fault because they have back log of cases. That is why National Industrial Court cases are not allow to get to Supreme Court to reduce the work load.
That is why the law says, it must end here except one that borders on fundamental rights. An interlocutory applications should not be allow to go to Supreme Court. It should end at the Court of Appeal, that would reduce the work load. Cases that qualify to go to Supreme Court must be with the leave of the Supreme Court. Not every matter should go to Supreme Court.
If you want to appeal decision of Court of Appeal, you apply for leave, in their own wisdom if they think they are triable at the appellate level they will allow you to come, if they believe you are just coming to waste time, they refuse you and that is the end.
Allocutory matter
If they can introduce leave, and make sure there is no allocutory matter taken to Supreme Court, these will reduce workload.
For the Supreme Court to be effective in discharge of the appeal, the number of cases going there must be reduce. The judges are not more than 16 or 17 and considering the ages of judges, they are elderly people. In America, they have State Supreme Court and Supreme Court  of United State.
In American you don’t appeal on everything, here you see a file so big.  If you go there, the first thing to determine is if to hear or not to hear. They vote whether the case have merit or not, if six say no, that is the end. If five say to hear, then they will look at the aspect to hear.  That is why the file will not be bulky. It is that area alone they will look at and see whether there is an issue. Here in Nigeria is not like that.
Another thing is that, the National conference recommendation of  State Court of Appeal and Regional Court of Appeal so that all matters within the state will end there. That will look like Supreme Court of America. But weighty constitutional issue will come to Supreme Court and with the leave of the Supreme Court.
If that is allowed, the Supreme Court will have less work and the Court of Appeal would now be Federal Court of Appeal because very few cases will be allowed to get to Supreme Court.
As the President of the Industrial Court, what are  your plans to expand the scope of the court?
Well, I believe we  are developing, expanding and growing. We have other heights to attain. We are already in about 24 states of the federation. We hope to have our divisions in more states of the Federation. We want to have more judges appointed within the next one and half years. Our headquarters project is in Abuja which is 70 percent completion.
We hope to complete it and develop the jurisprudence of the court the more. Very soon, we will be opening our Alternative Dispute Resolution centre.
We have the instruments and the rules already on ground, we are about to present them, so that the centre would be operational so that when cases are filed in court, those cases would be referred to the centre for amicable settlement that will safe time, reduce the degree of bitterness or the rancour that surrounding litigation.
What have been your challenges since you took over as President of the court?
We have lot of challenges. A court that had been in existence for 25 years before I was appointed and there was no much to show for it, for you to get to lime light is not a small fit.
It is quite pains taken,I have been to all the states of the federation either by road or air to search for how we can develop the court before we come to this stage. I met them with 129 staffs, five graduates, but today we have 1,500 staffs and over 300 graduates.
I met them with two lawyers, today we have about 50 lawyers. I met three members who are not judges, today. So, when we are at Oju Olobun, I was able to built this place and we have courts across the country that can compete with any court all over the world. In terms of jurispudence, when I came, there was no enabling Act.
Proceedings in court
It was established under the Trade Dispute Act which I think was not good enough, we were able to come out with National Industrial Court Act, 2006. I was able to make the Rules of Court to govern the proceedings in court in 2007 and 2010. We are able to come out with the amendment of the constitution, we had a third alteration.
We are now coming out with instrument and rules. I think the court has developed but it has not been easy to achieve that. In the process,  there lots of challenges but we thank God we are here.
Several stakeholders have been arguing  that Industrial Court should not be final in the decisions on industrial issues, except on the one bordering on fair hearing or fundamental rights. Some are saying there should be  a particular avenue for appeal. What is your take on this?
You see, the law does not say National Industrial Court shall be a final arbiter. Section 243 of the Constitution was amended,that is appellate jurisdiction of Court of Appeal, was amended by adding subsections 2, 3 and 4. In subsection 3 , it says appeal from National Industrial Court shall be prescribed by the Act of the National Assembly.
One say that on fundamental rights, subsection 2,4,5 and 6 on criminal matters says  you are free to go on appeal. But on any other matter, it cannot be appealed unless prescribe by  the Act of the National Assembly.
Duty of the agitators
If that is  what the law says, it means that it is the duty of the agitators to move the National Assembly to come out with an Act that will prescribe an Act that appeal shall arise on decision of National Industrial Court and under Section 243 which was amended, states that “where appeal lies from the decision of the court of appeal, it shall be with the leave of the court of appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal shall be final.”
So,it does not say there should be no appeal on the decision of Industrial Court. Now you don’t need to go and amend the constitution, it has given that power to National Assembly to come out with Act.
Prior to when the law were made, National Industrial Court Act, the third alteration, there were two cases. Amadi v. NNPC. It went from the High Court to Supreme Court for 18 years before it was sent back to industrial court for trial on grounds of jurisdictional level.
There is another case of Ozuegbu v.CBN, it went from the high court to Supreme Court for 24 years before the supreme court send it back to National Industrial court to start afresh. Now you can imagine the injustices that somebody must have suffered for 13 years before his case is to be retried.
Only God knows how many years it will take again before it would be concluded. In other to stop that, in their own wisdom, the law givers believe there should be no absolute appeal at the court of appeal. That is why they gave the court of appeal limited appellate jurisdiction unlike the high court. The high court didn’t have that limitation.
On land matters, it can be there one generation will go another generation will come and it can be in continuity. And like chieftaincy, it can be a continuous struggle. In an employment service, is an economy matters.
Assuming the Federal government or the State government is fighting with the union, they go on appeal, they refuse to go back to work, these are the reasons why they believe that they should not just allow the blanket appeal to be there. But the room is there for agitators to approach the National Assembly and move them to come out with a one paragraph law that we want it to be like the decision of the National Industrial Court to the Court of Appeal.
We don’t have any  problem with that in our own court. But we must consider consequential effect of any law and the interpretation on the larger society. Nigeria economy is what labour deals with either as individual or corporate body.
One of the challenges facing the bench and bar is the issue of corruption, how is this issue being managed at the Industrial Court?
Well, in my court here, there is no cases of corruption. No judge has been taking to National Judicial Council on the ground of allegation of corruption. But if you say generally, as a member of NJC and as a member of Federal Judicial Service Commission, I am privilege to be one of those who have been considering the allegations of corruption against erring judges.
But I will tell you that 80 percent of allegations are unfounded, it was just allegation. Since the council have started, we are able to discipline four judges not on the grounds of corruption but other areas, may be found guilty of handling the case it ought to be handle.
Cost of justice
But when you talk of corruption, that is, taking bribe of asking for bribe. It is not been very common. Judges have been removed on  other grounds. As if you have a case pending for more than five years, why you are been lazy.
You are not been able to meet up with your returns less than the number of cases you are expected to have handle or appear in the cost of justice. But in most instances, some aggrieve parties instead of  some aggrieved parties to appeal their cases, they urged the council to discipline judge for refusing to grant them time or adjournment.
These are the cases of appeal not issues on which a judge can be disciplined. So the council has been able to identify some of these cases. Whenever we found that a judge is found wanting, the council will handle the matter but the council will give the judge and petitioner fair hearing and the council will investigate.
                                                                                                                             SOURCE: Vanguard

No comments:

Post a Comment