The National Judicial Council (NJC) recently concluded its 108th meeting, signalling a renewed commitment to judicial discipline after years of declining public confidence due to misconduct. Key actions included suspending three judges for a year, placing some under watch, and barring them from future elevation.
The NJC also instructed the Imo State governor to reverse the appointment of the acting Chief Judge and required the judge to justify why disciplinary action should not follow. Additionally, nine committees were established to investigate 27 judges on misconduct allegations, while 29 petitions were dismissed and a caution issued to a Federal High Court Judge.
These measures are viewed as positive steps toward restoring integrity in the judiciary, combating corruption, and holding judges accountable for their actions and statements. However, beneath these headline actions lies a system grappling with deep-rooted structural flaws – ranging from questionable independence and political entanglements to poor remuneration and inadequate training. These issues collectively undermine the NJC’s effectiveness and the integrity of Nigeria’s judicial system.
On paper, the NJC was established to insulate the judiciary from executive interference and to guarantee judicial independence, as mandated by the 1999 Constitution. The Council is empowered to recommend appointments and discipline judges, theoretically free from external control. Yet, the reality is far more complex.
The NJC’s internal structure is inherently problematic. Of its 23 members, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) directly or indirectly appoints 19, centralising power in a single office. This arrangement fosters a “deficit of democracy” within the Council, as members may feel more loyal to the CJN than to constitutional principles or the broader public good.
This centralisation also raises serious questions about impartiality, especially when the CJN is subject to disciplinary review; how can a body dominated by the CJN’s appointees objectively assess their own principal?
Despite constitutional guarantees, the judiciary’s independence is routinely compromised by the executive arm of government. The appointment and removal of judges, though formally the NJC’s prerogative, are subject to presidential and gubernatorial approvals. This creates a system where political loyalty can outweigh merit, and where judges may feel beholden to those who control their career progression.
The controversial removal of Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen in 2019, widely seen as politically motivated, exposed the vulnerability of the judiciary to executive overreach. The speed and manner of his suspension – initiated by a petition from a presidential ally and executed without due process – sent a chilling message to the entire bench: judicial independence is conditional, not guaranteed.
Political interference is not limited to appointments. Powerful politicians and influential lawyers routinely intervene in judicial processes, shielding corrupt judges and manipulating outcomes to serve vested interests. This collusion has turned courts into marketplaces where justice is traded, eroding public trust and undermining the rule of law.
The NJC and the judiciary at large remain financially dependent on the executive for funding, salaries, and even basic amenities like housing and vehicles. This dependence is not merely symbolic; it has real consequences for judicial independence. Judges who rely on state governors or the presidency for their welfare may be reluctant to rule against the interests of their benefactors.
Until very recently, Nigerian judges endured some of the lowest salaries among their peers globally. This chronic underpayment, unchanged since 2007 until a recent 300 percent salary increase, fostered an environment where judicial corruption could thrive as a means of survival. As one appellate judge lamented, “A good judgment flows from a mind that is not bogged by the thought of ‘where do I get my next meal?’ Or ‘where do I get the money to pay my son’s school fees?’
The judiciary’s proximity to political actors is not accidental but systemic. Judges are often socialised into elite networks that include politicians and senior lawyers, blurring professional boundaries and creating opportunities for undue influence. Judicial appointments are frequently influenced by political considerations, with candidates vetted not only for competence but also for their perceived loyalty with prevailing political interests.
The result is a judiciary where some judges act as proxies for politicians, delivering rulings that serve political ends rather than justice. This phenomenon has reached the point where courts, rather than the electorate, often determine the outcome of political contests, further undermining democratic legitimacy.
Efforts to modernise the judiciary through ICT adoption and regular training are ongoing but face significant challenges, including funding shortfalls and resistance to change. The lack of continuous professional development leaves many judges ill-equipped to handle complex or evolving legal issues, further diminishing the quality of justice delivered.
The recent flurry of disciplinary actions by the NJC is a welcome step, but it cannot mask the systemic deficiencies that continue to plague Nigeria’s judiciary. The Council’s unworkable structure, lack of true independence from the executive, socialisation with political actors, chronic underfunding, and inadequate training all conspire to undermine its mission.
To restore public confidence and uphold the rule of law, Nigeria must undertake comprehensive judicial reforms. These should include democratising the NJC’s membership, guaranteeing financial and administrative autonomy, depoliticising judicial appointments, ensuring competitive remuneration, and investing in continuous training and modern facilities. Without such bold action, the judiciary risks remaining a pawn in the hands of the powerful – unable to deliver the justice Nigerians desperately need and deserve.
