EVALUATING HOW THE JUDICIARY FACILITIES ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CITIZENS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION.

By: Ayomikun Omokehinde Kuewumi

EVALUATING HOW THE JUDICIARY FACILITIES ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CITIZENS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION. 

INTRODUCTION. 

...Access to courts is a necessary adjunct of the rule of law and the effectuation of his rights by the citizen…But access to the court implies the payment of summons fees, the payment of lawyers fees and the payment for record of proceedings in the case of an appeal… One of the best tests of the efficacy of the fundamental rights provisions of our constitution should therefore be whether the rights enshrined are accorded to the poor, the unemployed, the weak, the oppressed and the defenseless…

Access to justice is the right of the ordinary citizen to obtain legal remedy in court when any or some of their rights (whether real or illusory) are infringed upon, and as chief sentinels in the temple of justice, the courts are vested with the duty to protect this right of citizens in the country.

Access to justice in Nigeria has been hampered by quite some factors. Which includes, but not limited to, high cost of filing lawsuits, lack of independent judiciary, judicial bias, delayed trial, unnecessary adjournments and the twin problems of illiteracy and poverty. 

Democratic participation is the active involvement and activity of citizens of a state in the matters of their state and the issues that affect their lives. It includes participating in civic and national initiatives, voting processes, engaging in public debates. The goal is to make sure citizens have a say in their matters and improve accountability and responsibility on the part of the government.

This essay will appraise the facilitation of access to justice by the judiciary and its impact on democratic participation in Nigeria. Employing a double exposition of the impediments to access to justice and the various ways by which the judiciary can remedy these problems to improve democratic participation. 

THE ROLE OF JUDGES IN FACILITATING ACCESS TO JUSTICE TOWARDS AN ENHANCED DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION.

Judicial Activism.

This is a situation where the court has preferred justice to regularities and technicalities. Where, if the substance of the case is still unbroken, the court sets aside mere technicalities in favour of justice. In Kashim v. State, the court struck out a case due to technicality and the apex court dismissed the appeal based on the decision that such technicality goes to the root of the case.

Judicial activism is a very vital tool in installing justice which helps to build public trust and instill confidence in the judiciary in the minds of the citizens and encourage them to pursue their rights and participate more in democracy. 

Legal Aid.

Legal aid is the provision of free legal services to persons who by reason of low income or circumstances cannot afford legal services. Ideally, legal aid is usually a country-wide system which is administered locally from place to place, whereby legal services are rendered to persons who by reason of little or no income cannot afford a legal practitioner on their own. It is statutorily backed by the Nigerian Constitution.

Additionally, statutes have made provisions for legal aid in Nigeria. Thus, the Supreme Court Act, Section 28 provides thus:

“The Supreme Court may at any time assign counsel to an appellant in any appeal or proceedings preliminary or incidental to an appeal in which, in the opinion of the court it appears desirable in the interests of justice that the appellant should have legal aid, and that he has not sufficient means to enable him to obtain that aid.”

Therefore, the cognizance of the necessity of a legal representative in court and the provision of one is a way by which the court has enhanced access to justice. For what is the value of fair hearing to a poor man who cannot pay summons fees let alone employ the services of a lawyer?

Review of Court Decisions.

Generally, the Supreme Court is bound by the principle of stare decisis to follow its own decision to ensure uniformity in legal reasoning and knowledge, while the lower courts in Nigeria are bound strictly by the decisions of the Supreme Court. But, as far as its own decisions are concerned the Supreme Court is loosely bound to follow them. 

However the Supreme Court has been inclined to overrule its own decisions where they are capable of leading to injustice. It is for this reason that the court in Bucknor-Maclean v. Inlaks Ltd., departed from its earlier decisions in Shell BP v. Jammal Engineering (Nig.) Ltd. and Owunmi v. P. Z. Ltd.  

This approach has encouraged litigants to come to Court, rest assured that the erroneous decision of the court will be overruled. 

Also, the Supreme Court overrules its decisions when they are erroneous, where it is reached per incuriam and where it is necessary to promote constitutional rights. This is underscored in the obiter of the court in Odi v. Osafile Per Obaseki JSC :

“Laws are made for man and not man for laws… man is fallible, so are the thoughts of man. This fallible nature of man demands that whenever the errors of thoughts and thought processes surface and are exposed and brought to the attention of its authors, there should be power of jurisdiction to depart from the errors and tread the correct path.”

Speedy Trial. 

One of the major problems with the administration of justice in Nigerian courts is delay. This problem is as old as Magna Carta if not even older. The Nigerian courts are always filled to the brim with cases that take a long time to adjudicate upon which have caused a huge burden of work even on the judges. Justice Ibrahim Tanko, the former CJN stated in the open court once that:

 “There is no Supreme Court in the world that works as the Nigerian SC works.”

The major reasons for the delay in Nigerian courts includes the fact that the judges record cases in long hand, unnecessary adjournments, transfer of judges, etc. 

Thus, judges have handled cases which take more than 16 years of consistent and unnecessary adjournments through which the evidence are wiped off, witnesses are dead and even the court officials could not keep track of the case anymore.

There is the need for a speedy trial in Nigerian courts as this can welcome litigants who know their cases don't sit in court till Thy Kingdom Come. Courts should encourage Alternative Dispute Resolution so that only major cases come to the Court. Through this ADR, even retired judges can effect a resolution between parties to relieve the courts of cases like Landlord and Tenancy, minor contract cases, etc. Even though justice rushed is justice crushed atimes, it is necessary that the courts treat cases with utmost importance and speed. 

Uprightness. 

The judges should, as a matter of necessity, be wide awake and purge the judiciary of any decision that will cause injustice. This can come in form of bias, compromise, intimidation, favoritism, etc. On the necessity of the courts to dispense justice, Kayode Eso JSC emphasizes:

‘’There is no justification for the existence of the judiciary except in its existence for the defense of the citizen, for the citizen to put his views across with all potency, for him to vent his feelings and his success in the public, for him to feel and breathe the air of freedom around him.”

Thus, as the last hope for the common man, the judiciary is saddled with the great responsibility of dispensing justice equally and without bias. It is logical to conclude that when court processes are run smoothly and the judge delivers judgment according to the principles of natural justice inherent in every man, then the citizens are encouraged to come to court and seek succor in the court when their rights are infringed upon. This will heighten the confidence of the people in the government they created and the democracy they believe is theirs. 

CONCLUSION. 

Access to justice is an relative concept with justice that is inextricable intertwined. Justice becomes real and obtainable when access to it can be gotten without hinderance or onerous conditions. Though there is no empirical data as a back up, it's is trite that most of the setbacks courts face in Nigeria are due to delay, lack of independent judiciary, cost, poverty, ignorance and related factors. The courts should then be very proactive and always strive to uphold justice even in the face of storm. 

Summarily, in accordance to the latin maxim “Fiat justitia ruat caelum”, let there be justice even though the heavens fall, judges should dispence justice no matter the situation to further instill hope and faith in the minds of the common citizens who approach the courts for justice. Also, justice is not a one way or two way traffic. Rather it is a three way traffic. Justice must be seen to be served to both parties and to the society at large. This only, can foster a democracy which everyone yearns for.

References:

1. C. A. Oputa, JSC. “Human Rights in the Political and Legal Culture of Nigeria" in Idigbe Memorial Lectures, Nigerian Law Publications, 1989, p. 67-68.  

2. Wilson v. AG Bendel State (1987) 1 NWLR pt. 53, 678.  

3. Kashim v. State (2022) 18 NWLR pt. 1861 SC.  

4. See also Buhari v. Adebayo; Fatunde v. Fan Milk, where signing of Court processes as a matter of technicalities decided the fate of the appellants.  

5. Malemi, E., The Nigerian Constitutional Law (3rd Ed. Princeton Publishing, Lagos, 2017).  

6. Section 46(4)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  

7. Supreme Court Act, Cap S15, LFN 2004.  

8. See also Criminal Procedure Act, Criminal Procedure Code, Court of Appeal Act, High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules which have made similar provisions concerning the matter.  

9. C. A. Oputa, JSC. op. cit. p. 68.  

10. See Cardoso v. Daniel (1986) 2 NWLR 1.  

11. Bucknor-Maclean v. Inlaks Ltd.(1980) 8-11 SC 1.  

12. Shell BP v. Jammal Engineering (Nig.) Ltd. (1974) 1 All N. L. R. 542.  

13. Owunmi v. P. Z. Ltd. (1974) 1 All N. L. R. (Pt 2) 107.  

14. Odi v. Osafile (1985) 1 NWLR. 17.  

15. See also the obiter of Oputa JSC in Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR 250 at 274-275.  

16. Tobi, N. 'Delay in Administration of Justice' in Nweze, C. C. (Ed): Justice in the Judicial Process: Essays in Honour of Honourable Justice Eugene C. Ubaezonu JCA, Enugu, Fourth Dimension Publisher, 2002, p. 138.  

17. Adelanwa Bamgboye, “Supreme Court of Nigeria ‘’Busiest in the world”" Daily Trust Magazine (26 May, 2016).  

    <https://dailytrust.com/supreme-court-of-nigeria-busiest-in-the-world/> Accessed 8 October, 2024.  

18. “The principle that a judge must be impartial is accepted in the jurisprudence of any civilized country." Per Brett AG, CJN in Obadara & Ors v. President, Ibadan W. D. C Grade “B" Customary Court.  

19. Cited by Prof. I. O. Agbede, “The Rule of Law and the Preservation of Individual Rights", Individual Rights Under the 1989 Constitution, NIALS, 1993, p. 30 at 40.  

20. See also Wilson v. AG Bendel State. op. cit.  

21. Godwin Josiah v. State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 11) 125 at 141.