Administration Of Justice In Nigerian Courts: Problems And Prospects

1.00: INTRODUCTION

 As an introduction it is worthy of note that this project centers upon the “Administration of Justice in Nigerian Courts, Problems and Prospects”. The Nigerian political history dated back to the pre-colonial era. The various  ethnic groups had one form or system of political and judicial set up that were distinct and peculiar to each ethnic group.  

This essay gives us the background of Nigeria judicial system before independent. In the Northern part of Nigeria there was well established monarchical form of government, and its judicial system was based on the shariah which was strongly influenced by Islam. The Yoruba of the south west of Nigeria equally had a monarchical form of government [based on the cultural set up of the society] and the judicial system was based on the royal court of the “Obas”. The South East had a lose form of government based  on community headship of splinter groups without a central power as it was the case in the north and south west of the country, 

While the judicial system was the same “Communal market system of adjudication”.   

 The prominent judicial system in the North was the “Alkali courts” presided over by the Emirs or the Alkalis [judges] who were very versatile in shariah law. The South west had courts similar with those in the North which were based on the traditions, customs and practices of the area, these were called “kotu oba or kotu Asipa” depending on who was the presiding judge.

This project also points out that the judiciary continued to build up its standard from this period up to when the country attained its independence in 1960.

One can conveniently insinuate that the success of the judiciary today had been laid long time ago by founding fathers. Also this essay shed more light on what prevalent in Nigeria is the fact that which ever way a court judgment sway, it is always construed by parties on both sides as either the victory for the rule of  law[in a win case] and perversion of justice[on the losing side] but all these is human frailties. This is no way an indictment of the judges or the process of adjudication. Thus this is an eye opener to the issues of administration of justice in Nigerian courts. 

Also this project examines definitions that are more encompassing but that do not make it to be generally acceptable to all. But few of them are considered below.

The Black’s Law Dictionary1 defines the word “Administration” thus:-

“Management or performance of the executive duties of a government, institution, or business. In public law, the practical management and direction of the executive department and its agencies. A judicial action in which a court undertakes the management and distribution of property....”

 The living Webster encyclopedic dictionary of the English language defines the same word “Administration” as:-

“The act of administering; direction, management; government of public affairs; the executive functions of the government; the persons, collectively, who are entrusted with such functions, and their period of being in office….”

Administration is like a diamond having many facets. The facet would concentrate upon or concern ourselves with in this essay is that one that relates to justice. What then is justice? This is an arduous task, as there is no universally acceptable definition of the term or word “justice”. It varies from person to person, from author to author, from country to country e. t. c.

According to Black’s law dictionary, justice means: “to do justice, to see justice done, to summon one to do justice”.

While the living Webster encyclopedic dictionary defines it as:-

“Equitableness, unprejudiced adjudication of conflicting interests on the on the basis of legal or moral principles lawfulness; what is rightly due; government judiciary department….”

It is submitted that the former seems not to have given a satisfactory definition of what justice is. While the latter seems to have given the attributes of justice in relation to its dispensation by the judicial arm of government which is charged with the responsibility of adjudication over conflicting interests between persons, or between government and any person and resolving same based on legal and moral principles.

Also, Daniel Webster made an interesting incursion at defining justice when he said that it is:

“The ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together”

The above attempt attracts to itself some fundamental questions that need be resolved in the favor of the definition before it could stand the test of time. Is the ligament that of the weak or the strong? Is Nigeria a civilized nation with civilized beings? Can militarism come under a civilized nation or restricted to democratic set-up? Is it the imposition of the foreign laws on her that colonized her? Is her membership of international organization qualifying Nigeria to be a civilized nation? What if there is non-compliance with the charter to be injustice in Nigeria has subscribed to? Does that make anything done in breach of the provision of the charter to be injustice in Nigeria or to that organization? The next question is : can the interest of the society be taken into consideration when we talk of the society be taken into consideration when we talk of justice or that of individual alone? This reminds one of the concept of justice as given by an eminent jurist, Oputa  J. S. C. (As he then was)in GODWIN JOSIAH V. THE STATE  that :-

“Justice is not a one- way traffic. It is not justice for the appellant only. Justice is not even, only a two-way traffic. It is justice for the appellant accused of a heinous crime of murder; it is justice for the victim, the murdered man, i.e. the deceased ‘whose blood is crying to high heavens for vengeance’; and finally it is justice for the society at large- the society whose social norms and values had been desecrated and broken by the criminal act complained of…. That justice which seeks only to protect the appellant will not be even-handed justice…. But justice sacrificed at the shrine of guilt”.

1.1.0: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Nigeria is a very large country with very high percentage of citizens many of whom goes to court to ventilate their grievances at the slightest provocation, excuse or justification. But most of them are faced with ouster clause[s], where the jurisdiction of the court is not ousted, there might be difficulty of meeting the phenomenal cost of litigation, payment of court fees, summons fees, the payment for records of proceedings including cases going on appeal, the payment of lawyers fees and disobedience to court orders, all these pit falls identified call for changes which form the inspiration for writing this project.