Nigeria’s justice system is characterised by unpredictable court rulings arising from the use of judges’ discretion, with threats to fair and impartial justice, leading to public distrust and a potential proliferation of biased judgments. To check the trend, stakeholders are seeking stringent oversight and clear guidelines to ensure consistency, integrity, and uniformity in the sentencing of convicts with similar facts, AMEH OCHOJILA reports.
In the courtrooms, the impending strike of the gavel by a judge instills fear, anxiety, and trepidation in the minds of litigants, as the decision of the court could swing either way.
However, the unchecked use of judicial discretion casts a shadow over the pursuit of justice, a development that leaves parties apprehensive about the outcomes of litigations.
With widening disparities and conflicting rulings, public distrust in the legal system grows, while its integrity wanes at great speed. Stakeholders within the justice sector are deeply concerned with the administration of justice amid rising fears of abuse of judicial discretion by judges, which many see as a potential gateway to the proliferation of black market judgments, and pronouncements.
They allege that in some instances, presiding judges’ disposition influences the exercise of discretion in sentencing, rather than the law or existence of guidelines.
The term “abuse of judicial discretion” highlights a pervasive problem in the legal domain, where court processes are manipulated or misused to serve hidden agendas, often at the expense of opposing parties.
In response to these challenges, the Nigerian legal framework emphasises the importance of judges exercising their inherent authority with care, and wisdom to combat such abuses. By doing so, the judges play a crucial role in upholding the credibility, and integrity of the justice system.
At the National Summit on Justice, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, raised a red flag on the widespread misuse of ex parte orders and the gradual erosion of ethical judicial discretion within the country’s legal framework.
With unwavering resolve, the Senate president outlined a comprehensive strategy to combat this troubling trend and restore integrity to the administration of justice.
Akpabio’s speech further shed light on the detrimental impact of the abuse of discretion by judiciary officers, particularly in cases where judicial discretion is wielded irresponsibly.
Drawing upon life examples, he underscored the need for stringent oversight and accountability to safeguard the manipulation of legal processes for personal or political gains.
Central to his proposal was a call for the National Judicial Council (NJC) to exercise vigilant oversight over the issuance of ex parte orders, ensuring that they adhere to established ethical standards.
Akpabio emphasised the importance of clear guidelines and robust sanctions for judges who abuse their authority, to foster a culture of accountability within the judiciary. He highlighted the imperative of ongoing judicial education and training to equip judges with the ethical principles necessary to exercise discretion responsibly.
By empowering judges with the knowledge and tools to navigate complex legal scenarios ethically, Akpabio sought to prevent abuses and uphold the integrity of the judicial process. He reaffirmed his commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice remains blind to political influence.
Akpabio’s disposition towards the abuse of discretion and unethical judicial conduct served as a rallying cry for reform, inspiring stakeholders to join their voices in asking that the foundational principles of democracy and fairness within Nigeria’s legal system be safeguarded.
That notwithstanding, some expressed concerns about the extensive powers vested in justices, judges, magistrates, and presidents of customary courts, which effectively ensures that their decisions become laws.
They argued that the broad discretion granted to these officers ought to boost the integrity of the system in Nigeria and not do otherwise. According to a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Douglas Terkura Pape, Nigeria’s principles of sentencing were inherited from her colonial masters, and have remained unchanged till date.
He explained that political, social, and economic changes since independence have introduced new variants of criminality and new perceptions of crime among the populace, therefore, the retention of colonial approaches in criminal jurisprudence on sentencing has contributed to inconsistencies in the sentencing regime.
For Pape, there is a need for more specific provisions on sentencing in the penal laws, and the need to codify the principles of sentencing in legislation.
“The federal system of government empowers the federal and state governments to legislate on criminality. Each state has its set of laws, therefore cases and circumstances may not be applicable in all instances.
“Therefore, there is a need to harmonise the sentencing provisions between the Federal and state offences, as well as, between the different states of the federation to create uniformity in sentencing.”
A human rights lawyer, Douglas Ogbankwa, emphasised the need for significant reforms within the country’s justice delivery system. He pointed out that the extensive powers bestowed upon judges have the potential for abuse and miscarriage of justice owing to the wide latitude of discretion.
Ogbankwa called for the establishment of uniform sentencing guidelines to prevent arbitrary punishments and address prison congestion. He called for clear guidelines, which will outline offences and conditions for bail to minimise bias and ensure adherence to legal principles.
Ogbankwa also raised concerns regarding the inconsistency in the adjudication of election petition cases, proposing the exclusive use of retired justices and judges to enhance expertise and impartiality.
The lawyer canvassed severe penalties for judicial officers deviating from established precedents, to safeguard the integrity of the judicial system while maintaining that adhering to legal standards in the tendering of documents during trial proceedings is very important.
He equally emphasised the need for uniform guidelines to ensure fairness and transparency, noting that: “such would promote certainty, fairness, and transparency within Nigeria’s judicial landscape, drawing parallels with international standards. So, there is a need for urgent reforms to uphold the rule of law.
“There should also be penalties for members of tribunals and Appeal Panels who fail, neglect, and/or refuse to follow judicial precedents set by higher courts of records and their court, when the facts and circumstances of the matters decided are on all fours with the referenced judicial precedents.
“Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal should no longer be members of the National Judicial Council (NJC). We can get a retired Chief Justice of Nigeria, or retired President of the Court of Appeal, to be the Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively of the NJC, and retired justices of good standing as members by way of constitutional amendment,” he suggested. He stated that there appears to be a conflict of interest in the structure of the NJC, which requires an urgent review.
According to him, if one complains against the CJN, a justice of the Supreme Court, or the President, the Court of Appeal would investigate the matter at the NJC. “So, how do we guarantee the transparency of the process, knowing that the judicial officers are members of the NJC, even when they say they will recuse themselves,” he queried.
According to him, the citation: ‘We are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final,’ by Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, highlights the unique authority and responsibility of the Supreme Court.
“It acknowledges that while the court is not perfect, its decisions are final, making them functionally infallible within the legal system. It underscores the importance of the court’s role in ensuring justice and resolving legal disputes in society,” he argued.
Another lawyer, Akintayo Balogun, said that the power of judicial discretion is responsible for the disparity in sentencing within the Nigerian judicial system.
While admitting that judicial discretion could be abused, he stressed that this is particularly applicable when it comes to sentencing persons, who have been found guilty of an offence.
“Judicial discretion allows a judge in one courtroom to give a sentence without an option of fine, and a judge in the next courtroom to give a sentence with an option of fine over the same offence. In several other instances, there have been judgments where a lesser number of years in prison are given as against the actual number of years provided for in the applicable laws.
“It appears in some cases that the mood of the judicial and presiding officers also determines the use of discretion in sentencing. An accused person who showed no remorse during the proceedings is likely to get a full sentence for the offence committed if found guilty. Judicial discretion is the bane of disparity in sentencing,” he said.
For him, the measures that can be implemented to achieve greater consistency in sentencing is that there should be uniform sentencing guidelines issued to all judicial officers in Nigeria, which reduces their discretion in sentencing convicts.
This, according to him, will obviate the abuse of sentencing powers of judicial and presiding officers to preclude them from being too excessive or too mild in exercising their sentencing powers.
Thinking differently, another lawyer, Monday Ikpe, noted that different judicial pronouncements owing to varying laws between the federal and subnational levels, as well as, differences in circumstances in crimes being committed, and witnesses, could indeed lead to variations in sentencing.
