Journals

At a time when the NJC conducts quarterly judicial performance reviews of judges, one should expect that the NJC would take allegations about injudicious utilization of overhead funds seriously, especially when not too long ago it returned a verdict of underperformance by judges in Lagos State. On the contrary, the Executive Secretary of the NJC came up refuting claims that any Chief Judge had diverted funds, and went even further to assert that there was indeed “nothing for the Council (i.e. NJC) to address as no funds have been diverted”. It comes as a surprise that the NJC Secretary did not disclose how the NJC came to that conclusion. Was there an investigation into the allegations of impropriety at all? Did the Council receive and deliberate on the letter of 23 Lagos State High Court Judges before it concluded there was nothing to investigate, or, to quote the Secretary, “address”? Given the inadequacy of office supplies alleged by almost half the judges of the Lagos High Court, was there really nothing to investigate and ascertain concerning the uses to which the disbursements had been put? These questions confronted the NJC, but it would appear the body rode rough shod over the issues, and paid less than adequate attention to the need for a thorough and objective inquiry.

There are compelling reasons why the NJC should investigate complaints alleging improprieties in the administration of judicial funds with deliberate meticulousness and urgency, transparency and accountability. The judiciary, as the weakest arm of government enjoys constitutional protection of its independence from external interference. However, this special privilege places a great burden on it to demonstrate probity in its own affairs. In a society like Nigeria where corruption has been institutionalized, allegations verging on financial impropriety challenge the judiciary to demonstrate that it has, in the interest of the integrity of the judicial process, risen above the ordinary level of practice, the norm, or standard of ethics, in order to reinforce public confidence in its integrity. Protecting integrity and probity, therefore, should have been NJC's cardinal preoccupation when responding to the judges' allegations.

Secondly, an objective investigation would have demonstrated that the NJC ensures that funds that are appropriated to the judiciary are judiciously utilized for intended purposes; otherwise, judicial authorities may find it increasingly difficult to justify their cry about fiscal marginalization in budgetary allocations. Lastly, failure to demonstrate probity may have serious consequences for the judiciary's future appropriations. The judiciary's quest for more funding may sound very immoderate with the executive, which may use the excuse of poor accounting for allocated funds, lack of accountability or transparency as a basis for denying increased funding to the judiciary.

The acrimony and tension that the N200,000.00 monthly allocations generated appears to have petered away and the air may have been cleared for now, but the NJC has missed a rare opportunity to make a bold statement that the judiciary is a self-accounting institution that holds itself answerable to the public for funds entrusted to her. The point is taken, of course, that an NJC probe may not necessarily return a verdict of impropriety in the management of the monthly disbursements, but a proper investigation would at least, have reinforced the tremendous reputation that the NJC is painstakingly garnering. While it may not be fair to judge the NJC on the basis of one isolated case, it is nonetheless surprising, given the NJC's profile, that it returned a “no case to address” verdict before demonstrating that it had conducted thorough investigations. Perhaps the NJC needed to make a quick effort to assuage rising tempers about the use of the funds and avoid the damage that it could further inflict on the judiciary, but it is hoped that in the future, the NJC will make conclusive statements on controversial issues of this nature only after exhaustive investigations.

“If the Federal Government cannot help judges, it should leave them alone, monetization would leave judges worse off...A minister may have four or five cars, but no judge, I repeat, no judge has two cars...If the benefit of judges are monetized none of the judges would be able to afford a car not to talk of owning a house to live in”. _ Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, President, NBA excerpts of interview with AJ