Since the move by the House of Representatives to decentralise the Supreme Court of Nigeria became a public knowledge, Nigerians, particularly those in the legal profession, have been pouring accolades on the lawmakers for thinking along that line.
On December 9, the House of Representatives introduced a bill seeking to create five divisions of the Supreme Court across the country, in addition to the headquarters, in Abuja. According to the bill, Abuja is also expected to cater for the North Central geo-political zone.
The bill, titled, "A bill for Act to amend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to provide for the establishment of five divisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria; to enhance access to the highest justice, to minimise the logistical cost of accessing justice and to ensure timely dispensation of matters brought before the apex court," was sponsored by Manu Soro, representing Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency of Bauchi State.
The proposed legislation, according to reports, is seeking the alteration of Section 230(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) for division of the Supreme Court to be located in Umuahia for the South East, Bauchi for the North East, and Uyo for the South-South.
The bill, which has equally scaled the first reading, proposes that Lagos and Kano should host the divisions of the apex court in the South West and North West respectively.
In its explanatory memorandum, the proposed legislation noted that the objective was to bring access to highest justice closer to the people, minimise the logistical cost incurred by litigants in accessing justice and ensure timely dispensation of matters brought before the Supreme Court.
However, Nigerians, particularly lawyers have commended the move, saying it would hasten justice delivery at the apex court and lift the heavy burden off the justices of the apex court.
One of those who hold the above view is the National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mrs Bridget Edokwe.
She commended the lawmakers for such a bold step, noting that it would help to reduce the volume of cases lingering at the apex court.
She said: "The move to decentralise the Supreme Court is a very welcome development. Establishing Supreme Court panels across the geopolitical zones will not only fast-track the resolution of cases at the apex court, but will also significantly reduce the cost burden on litigants.
"The current system, where all Supreme Court appeals are heard centrally in Abuja, is not cost-effective for litigants from regions outside the North Central geopolitical zone."
In the same vein, an Enugu-based lawyer and public affairs commentator, C.I Nnamani, equally agreed with Mrs. Edokwe, stressing that cases at the Supreme Court would be expeditiously dealt with if such a reform is successfully carried out.
"Well, it will be a good thing if the Supreme Court of Nigeria is decentralised so that, maybe, with that appeals will be heard expeditiously, unlike what obtains at present, where appeal matters last for several years before determination. In my view, it will be a very good development," he said.
He also lauded the move to put the North Central under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Abuja.
He said: "And making Abuja to take care of North Central is also a good move. It will help to avoid duplication of offices in one geopolitical zone."
In his contribution, a human rights lawyer and former president of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, CDHR, Malachy Ugwummadu noted that if the purpose of the move is for administrative convenience, it would just be going back to what obtained in 1960/63, which according to him is a welcome development.
He said: "If the purpose of the decentralisation is to achieve administrative convenience, then it will go to the issue of court management and management of the docket generally, and it is not very new.
"If look at Section 111 (4) of the 1963 constitution as well as Section 104 (4) of 1960, it is usually couched in a way that the Supreme Court shall sit in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, which was Lagos then, and in such other places in Nigeria as the Chief Justice of Nigeria may appoint. That's the language of those sections - 104 and 111 of the respective constitutions.
"What that presupposes is that the Supreme Courts as at that time were supposed to be in the FCT but were also supposed to be cited and located in other regions or states of the country as the case may be.
"The whole idea was to enhance administrative convenience. If that is the motive behind those campaigning for the decentralisation of the Supreme Court, then it goes to the question of mere administrative convenience and it ends there."
He, however, noted that where one is referencing the powers of the respective federating states to have their own Supreme Court as it is witnessed in some other federations like the United States of America, USA, in particular, one will see that, rather than just for administrative convenience as he earlier stated, it is to enhance and deepen the principle of federalism, where state powers, including the power to have the final adjudication of cases, are allocated to the federating states.
"And I think the idea is that individual states are supposed to be autonomous in relation to issues that affect them as states. Where the issue is on the common goals and objectives of the country such as defence, currency and the constitution, the interpretation of the country's constitution, goes to the federal Supreme Court.
"In South Africa for instance, they call it a constitutional court because they deal separately with the issues arising from the constitution that binds the whole country. It, therefore, depends on the motivation for the agitation for this decentralization, but as at today, what we have is a single Supreme Court of Nigeria," he said.
He also stated that if one leaves out the motive and deals with the state of the country's judiciary, one will find that the overloaded dockets of the court in Nigeria, particularly the appellate court, is such that they have motivated the agitation for decentralisation, in the sense that there is no proper mainstreaming and limitation to cases that go to the appellate court.
"You would be shocked that family matters, land matters; matters that are very local to the municipal environment find their way up to the Supreme Court, thereby congesting what the Supreme Court can conveniently handle in terms of speedy dispensation of justice.
"And that has affected the speedy dispensation of justice in Nigeria such that in the last 10 to 15 years, you have cases that you cannot get an adjourned date within that year. For instance, in 2025, you may not have a date in the Supreme Court in 2026. It is as bad as that.
"So, you see that people, who get there, are not just confused, but get disinterested and lose all the drive to pursue justice. Many of them even pass on before the cases are decided. The witnesses who testified at the trial court may not even be around, so that when the Supreme Court finds the need to refer the matter back to the trial court, it is useless because you can't find any witness again. So, it is a very terrible situation.
"The point is for a country that has now been overloaded with a huge degree of work, decentralization is advisable. It could be regional Supreme Courts that deal with everyday matters.
"Removing the federal supreme courts and isolating it in a way that it has only national matters like elections, constitutional interpretation, defence and currency, among others, to deal with, and not that chieftaincy matters will travel all the way to the Supreme Court," he submitted.
Comments