By Runsewe Solomon & Damilola Akinmolayan

|

Recently, lawyers and experts have been deliberating on the NJC’s recent directives that judgement must be delivered within 90 days after hearing: Is there any practical effect of the directive on speedy administration of Justice? The Hope Classics spoke with lawyers and experts on the directives. Excerpts:

The NJC’s directive is nothing but the reaffirmation of the constitutional provisions that ‘every court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than 90 days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof’.
This is in line with see section 294 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
The implications of these provisions are far fetching. It makes entrenched certainty of time within the period Judgement will be delivered at the end of trial: after the written addresses of counsel where applicable.
It also affords the parties the opportunity to have an authentic copy of the Judgement in order to study same and take information decisions, that is, appeal where necessary.
The provisions of section 294 of the Constitution is to ensure speedy trial of cases and to ensure that the judicial officers, Magistrates and tribunals are in total recall of the proceedings at the trial. Thus, the provisions in question is a statutory safeguard to ensure justice to all parties.

That adage which says justice delayed is justice denied is in consonant with the 90days under which judgement could be delivered.
Therefore the rule of law which is the underlay for democratic dispensation should be judiciously adhered to by the law courts of our land.
The phrase ‘speedy administration ‘can be ambiguous in its interpretation especially at the judiciary level.
It depends on who sits or presides over the case as the case may be. It takes the disciplined to adhere to all it takes to administer a speedy efforts in making sure the law takes its toll on whose ox is gored.
However, where there is an impediment on the side of the judiciary, government or the societal infringement, one can be sure of a Waterloo effect of lack or non speedy administration of justice.
I rest my case.

On the issue of NJC issuing a directive that judgement must be delivered within 90 days after hearing of a case, I want to say with due respect that this is not a novel directive.
The NJC is only restating the sacred provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.
What we are trying to say here is that the Constitution which is the _grund norm_ and _font est origo_ of all laws in Nigeria make provision to the effect that Courts established by the Constitution shall deliver its judgement not later than 90 days after the trial.
For the purpose of clarity, I hereby reproduce Section 294 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended which relate to this issue _ippsisma verba_:”Section 294(1) Every court established under this constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof …” So it is a mere restatement of the provision of the Constitution that NJC is restating in its directive.
The NJC with due respect dare not give contrary directive as this will amount to inconsistency as Section 1 (3) of the Constitution states that “If any law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

The directive of the NJC on delivery of judgement within 90 days after adoption of final addresses in itself is not a new introduction in the administration of justice in Nigeria.
Such directive is not new to our law but one can say it is an attempt to lay more emphasis for speedy dispensation of justice due to some happenings in recent times where some judges couldn’t deliver judgements within the time stipulated by the Constitution.
Section 294. (1)of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides thus: Every court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof.
However subsection 5 thereof states that a decision cannot be rendered a nullity for non compliance with subsection 1 unless it can be shown that miscarriage of justice was occasioned as a result of the non compliance.
More so, subsection 6 has provided a way for any Judge who for one reason or the other can not deliver His judgement within the 90 days as provided.
The subsection provides thus: As soon as possible after hearing and deciding any case in which it has been determined or observed that there was non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the person presiding at the sitting of the court shall send a report on the case to the Chairman of the National Judicial Council who shall keep the Council informed of such action as the Council may deem fit.
Frankly speaking, the directive has not in any way aided the administration of justice as there is nothing new in the directive.
It is pertinent to even state that the provision of the law as to delivering of judgement within 90 days after final addresses can be circumvented. i.e A judge may decide not to take adoption of addresses until he is certain of delivering the judgement within 90days.
I believe what we need more is creation of more courts, appointment of more judges and a paradigm shift from the anachronistic manner of writing to stenograph.

If our Judiciary arm is not corrupt there is nothing stopping a judgment to be passed within 90days.
I see that visible if our Judiciary arms can stand on their own without the involvement of the executive enforcing them to prolong or give some certain judgement in their favour.
This is not the first time of giving the directive but I think there should be some measures in place for the fast delivery of judgement.
There is need for building of more courts and appointment of more Judges. The courts should be provided competent hands to handle them while Judges should be trained and encouraged to use them.
The party shall not be entitled to more than three adjournments during the course of trial should be strictly enforced.
Lastly, our fairy arm must be empowered financially in the sense that there should regular payment of salaries and entitlements.
The old judges must be retired to allow the younger ones to come up.
So with this act there might be speedy delivery of judgement.

The NJC directive is a good one but not sufficient in speedy administration of justice.
Take for an example, I was at one of the Federal High Courts of fundamental rights enforcement matter.
I was supposed to adopt but the Judge said he cannot allow adoption because he has outstanding judgements.
I know the reason he declined adoption was to excuse himself from the 90days deadline.
So after hearing, a judge who wants to circumvent the 90days rule will just postpone adoption of written addresses till his or her convenient time.
So, you can see that the 90 days rule is not self sufficient.