THE Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Muhammad, has responded to criticisms of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami, that the Nigerian judiciary is guilty of delaying high-profile corruption cases and running an opaque budget.
The AGF a couple of weeks ago at a Justice Sector Summit organised by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) criticised the lack of transparency in the judiciary’s budget and challenged the judiciary to make its budgetary allocations and expenditures open.
Mr Malami had also during an interview on Channels Television on Monday pointed out that despite the legal framework put in place to speed up criminal proceedings, judges were still delaying timely hearing and determination of such cases, particularly concerning Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs).
Mr Malami had also during an interview on Channels Television on Monday pointed out that despite the legal framework put in place to speed up criminal proceedings, judges were still delaying timely hearing and determination of such cases, particularly concerning Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs).
But reacting to the AGF on Tuesday, the CJN in a statement by his spokesperson, Ahuraka Isah, instead identified the lapses on the part of the executive arm of government contributing to the delays in cases. According to the CJN, the statutory role of the judiciary does not include crime detection and investigation and as a result does not have “a garrison command to fight its cause or enforce its orders and decisions.”
The CJN accused the executive arm of filing frivolous charges than it can prove. “The Federal Government’s prosecution sector files more charges than it can prove or provide witnesses to prove, ostensibly at times for the prosecution to even fail,” the CJN said.
He noted that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015) designed to address the slow pace of Nigeria’s criminal justice system “is infected with sores in some parts, making speedy adjudications improbable,” adding that the “high volume of cases, limited number of judges, poor infrastructure or archaic equipment,” combined to compound the woes of the judiciary capacity to speedily decide criminal cases.
On the allegation of running an opaque budgetary system, the CJN argued that the judiciary has an internal mechanism of budget accountability, and he listed a number of internal audit procedures put in place to guarantee accountability.
“The Judiciary has an internal mechanism for budget control and implementation… The judiciary defends its budget before the senate and the House of Representatives Committees on Judiciary at the National Assembly, besides the initial vetting by the executive.
“The judiciary has an internal mechanism for budget control and implementation. Each Court and judicial body has a budget unit, the account department, internal audit, Due Process Unit, as well as Departmental Tenders Board,” the CJN explained noting that the National Judicial Council (NJC) has a Due Process Committee and a Judicial Tenders Board that award contracts on expenditure above the approval limit of the accounting officers of the courts and judicial bodies.
“These layers of control were established by the Judiciary to ensure transparency, accountability and effective budget implementation. The type of transparency that the Federal Government has stressed,” the statement said adding that in addition to this internal mechanism, the National Assembly also carries out oversight on the judiciary.
“One only hopes that these allegations against the judiciary by the Federal Government is not just a way of giving a dog a bad name so as to then hang it,” the statement.
