JUST IN: Decentralising Supreme Court won’t solve delay, congestion of cases – Senior lawyers

The Supreme Court has been burdened with workloads over the years and to help the court ease its load, a retired justice of the Appeal Court suggested a decentralised supreme court. But some senior lawyers say the recommendation won’t solve the problem, writes ONOZURE DANIA

On July 12, a retired Justice of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, Justice Peter Ige, suggested decentralisation of the Supreme Court for more effective administration of justice.

He said that there was nothing wrong if the apex court had divisions in the nation’s six geopolitical zones like the appeal court. He added that decentralising the Supreme Court would help to bring justice to the grass-roots

Justice Ige spoke at a valedictory court session for his retirement and 70th birthday at the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal.

The retired jurist explained that the decentralisation of the Supreme Court would reduce its burden and enable it to deliver justice without delays.

He noted that in such a circumstance, the appeal courts would serve as divisions of the Supreme Court in the various zones instead of being restricted only to Abuja.

On his view on the issue, a senior lawyer, Prof. Sam Erugo, SAN, said there cannot be more than one Supreme Court because it’s the highest court of every country.

He stated that they were just avoiding the real issues if the Supreme Court was decentralised, saying that at the regional levels, the country would be losing the benefit of its diversity.

Erugo noted that if an appeal moved from the Edo State Court of Appeal in Benin City to the Supreme Court, there would be others from other parts of the country to passionately look at the appeal and arrive at the right decision which would be the benefit of diversity unlike when everything ended in Benin City.

According to him, the question should rather be about appointing more justices of the Supreme Court rather than decentralising it.

He stated, “I think they should rather have more justices. There is no reason why we shouldn’t have up to 100 Supreme Court justices to reduce the workload. The only challenge they have is the workload. Even though they are with the diversity, they are still heavily influenced by politicians so what more? I think they are dodging the issue.

“The issue is to appoint more justices. As of now, out of 21, that is the full court, they have only 13 sitting. (Ex-President Muhammadu) Buhari refused to appoint more justices of the Supreme Court. So why don’t they have the full 21 to reduce the pressure or probably appoint more to reduce the pressure on them?’’

Erugo further said that there were three courtrooms at the Supreme Court, stating that most times only one was used.

“They are not looking at the real challenges, they are looking at politics. As we are now, we have courts of appeal in most of the geopolitical zones which will do the same work. Unless they are saying that those at the appeal court should end there, which gives litigants only one right of appeal which is not fair enough,” he said.

Another lawyer, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, said that he didn’t think decentralising the Supreme Court would solve congestion of cases.

He said that there were appeal courts in most of the states now, yet the problem had not been solved, noting that there were still congestions in the appeal courts.

According to him, if there are supreme courts in the geopolitical zones that may not solve congestion.

Osipitan stated that the decentralisation of the Supreme Court at best might bring justice nearer to the people but not necessarily tackle congestion.

He added that it would also not solve conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court because what the court was doing in one geopolitical zone might not be open to what was happening in another.

He noted, “There would still be delays and also confusion or conflicting court decisions. I think what we need to decide and part of the restructuring process is the number of cases that get to the Supreme Court. There are too many of them that go to the Supreme Court on appeal.

“We have to look for a way to reduce the number of cases going to the Supreme Court. Then, if we must really follow true federalism, what we now have to do is to have most of the cases terminated in the state Supreme Court. In other words, each state will have its own court of appeal and it will also have its own Supreme Court as we have in most federal systems so that only a few cases of constitutional importance will go to the Supreme Court at the centre.

“I think it is more of having a proper federal structure where issues affecting states or issues on laws of states being interpreted and being applied ends up at the state’s Supreme Court level such that only few cases that have to do with the interpretation of the constitution and also policy cases will find their way to the Supreme Court in Abuja.’’

The lawyer further stated that having divisions of the Supreme Court in each geopolitical zones would have to ensure that cases local in nature such as land matters, chieftaincy matters and commercial transactions affecting individuals within the state ends up at the highest court in a state and few cases of national importance or trans-border commerce get to the apex court to reduce workload of the Supreme Court.

He also expressed concern having appeal court in geographical zones in Nigeria; there were still congestions in some divisions of the court of appeal.

He added, “Abuja, Port Harcourt, Ibadan and Lagos are congested. They are still part of federal court of appeal.

“So it’s not about having divisions of supreme courts in those geographical zones. It’s about whether the supreme courts in those geographical zones are set up for the zone and under the judiciary or a hierarchy of courts in those zones. If they are just arms or parts of the division of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, there would still be congestion.’’

Osipitan also stated that a decentralised Supreme Court could only reduce the number of people going to Abuja for their cases for it would still be the same Supreme Court and the same number of people but now divided among the geopolitical zone.

The don said, “We may have more justices of the Supreme Court but I’m not too sure that it will reduce congestion. What can reduce congestion is to look internally at the kind of cases that find their way to the Supreme Court. That is the starting point not every case should get there. It should be difficult to go to the Supreme Court.

“People must learn to accept decisions of the appeal court and let it stop there. But virtually every case that gets to the Court of Appeal gets to the Supreme Court and that is the problem. It’s not so much about the number of Supreme Court that should be established. It should be on the number of cases that are allowed into the Supreme Court.’’

On his part, another senior lawyer, Norrison Quakers, SAN, said that there was a need to understand what placed a burden on the courts.

He stated that before now there were matters that didn’t go beyond appeal court, saying that the Supreme Court ordinarily should be a policy and constitutional court saddled only with constitutional matters as it’s in other civilised climes.

Quakers stressed that though Nigeria was unique, adding that as much as he identified with Justice Ige from his perspective as one who had been on the appellate bench and rose through the ranks to the appellate bench, to a large extent, he was in a position to appreciate the problem that the judiciary had been saddled with.

“We are saddled with many cases that have no business in the Supreme court. Some matters should terminate at the Court of Appeal. Before now, the Supreme Court could only be saddled with appeals from the presidential court of appeal. The Supreme Court is also saddled with appeals from the election petitions tribunal, court of appeal, including the governorship, National Assembly and state houses of assembly, because before now the governorship appeals usually terminated at the Court of Appeal so you have given the Supreme court added jurisdictional burden. So for me it is not about decentralising.

“Growing up, I remembered we were informed that the supreme court use to have certain sitting moving around just like the Court of Appeal too. But now, the burden has so increased that it’s not advisable to continue to burden the Supreme Court with additional jurisdiction,’’ he stated.

He further said that the unusual jurisdiction of the Supreme Court when one looked at the constitution; it had to do with complaints between the state and the Federal Government.

“So it was more of a constitutional court or sometimes cases of constitutional or statutory significance. So, it is not enough to say decentralise because even if you decentralise, the burden will still be there. But there are some cases that should not even go to the court in the first place. We must have what I call a filtration system when you look at cases that the court should hear and matters that the court shouldn’t bother to hear.

“So for me, it is not about decentralising, it is about what should not burden the court with the jurisdiction that is not necessary any longer. I don’t think the solution is in that, because when you look at the constitution, the constitution conferred jurisdiction on the court on what it might be the subject matter.

“If the constitution has defined the jurisdiction of the court while put additional burden? A perfect example, if you have a case of contract and the principle is well settled, why must you appeal after the decision from the high court to the court of appeal? If a decision exists, let us say a decision of the Supreme Court on the issue, why must I appeal to the Supreme Court again over an issue that has been decided upon when the parameters have been set by the court. So, it must terminate at the court of appeal. For instance, some cases will terminate at the High Court if the issue has been well laid to rest.

“I don’t think the solution to the problem is decentralising the Supreme Court. We must have a Supreme Court, yes, but the only thing there is what you then consider as decentralisation will actually be the appeal court.

“ Let the Supreme Court that is supreme, which is the headquarters of the court and the head of the judiciary, be limited to the central point where they can only hear cases that border on constitutional statutory significance. Cases that are not so well defined, something that is new and noble.

“Not one that is trite, that all the principles have been established and well laid to rest. So for me, it is not about the decentralisation but about the burden that the Supreme Court carries that it has no business to carry,”

Quaker’s also said that Section 232 of the Constitution refers to original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which he also referred to that where the issue involved interpretation of the law regarding disputes between the federal and the state or between states in relation to their legal rights and liabilities.

“The Supreme Court enjoys what we refer to as original jurisdiction that is exclusive to it. We also have what we refer to as appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This can be found in Section 233. Appeals that arise from decisions from the appeal courts to the Supreme Court but one clear thing there is the appeals must be from issues bordering on either civil or criminal claims.

“It must be noble and also in relation to what we call rights that flow from chapter two, which is the fundamental right provisions of the constitution now. All of these two the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction so it is well defined so you must not bother the Supreme Court with additional jurisdiction because its jurisdiction is well defined.

“The aspect of decentralising is as a result of the extra burden that has been placed on the Supreme Court. If an issue has been determined by the Supreme Court once, you want to embark on an appeal, the infiltration system will be such that will hinder you from going on an appeal because the decision has been determined.” he said.

In his contribution, another lawyer, Yomi Aliyu, SAN, stated that the Supreme Court cannot be decentralised because it’s not a native court.

According to him, there are different judgments on the same decision so there should be no decentralisation of the Supreme Court.

Aliyu said, “There should be a court that all matters will go to and will give a single decision so solving the congestion problem is not by decentralising the Supreme Court. Every country must have a final court that is supreme to others. The Supreme Court as it is, is not strictly a court for legal matters. It’s also a policy-making court. If you look at legislation, you will see the Supreme Court at times departing from it.

“Sometimes, they make laws that are part of their duty. There is a section of the electoral law that says somebody who did not take part in an election should never be declared winner, that is Section 316 of the Electoral Act. The Supreme Court did something to that section because politicians were abusing it.’’

The learned silk also noted that the Supreme Court was not strictly following the constitution.

“If they follow the constitution strictly, maybe their workload will be reduced. For example, if they ensure that only points of law were taken to the Supreme Court, issues that involve facts, their workload will be reduced. That’s how I see it. You don’t decentralise the Supreme Court. We did it with the court of appeal and we know what we are seeing,” he said.