CJN berates judges who failed to pass a single judgment in three months, lists solutions 

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has criticized judges who failed to deliver a single judgment in one quarter (three months), describing this development as unacceptable.

The CJN disclosed this on Tuesday during her opening statement at the third Annual National Conference on Judges’ Performance Evaluation in Abuja, seen by Nairametrics.

She reminded judges that the National Judicial Council Performance Evaluation Committee is responsible for evaluating their performance by assessing the quarterly returns of cases from judges in Nigeria.

Performance Evaluation and Recommendations 

Kekere-Ekun acknowledged that while there have been some improvements in judges’ performance, the NJC cannot ignore the fact that there is still work to be done.

She warned judges against giving the impression that justice delivery is slow.

“At the last meeting of the Committee, there was a reduction in case disposal, as some judicial officers failed to deliver a single judgment in one quarter. This is simply unacceptable. 

“We cannot wish away the growing backlog of cases or expect a different result when we continue to do things the same way. 

“Unless we can justly, speedily, and effectively execute our roles as judicial officers, the populace will lose their confidence in the judiciary, as it is often believed—rightly or wrongly—that the judicial process is painstakingly slow. Delayed justice is denied justice,” she said.

She congratulated the Nigerian judiciary and the entire legal profession on the coming into effect of the Judicial Officer Holders (Salaries and Allowances, etc.) Act, 2024, signed by President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu on August 9, 2024.

She stated that the improvement in the welfare of judicial officers is a step in the right direction to promote the independence of the judiciary and will significantly impact the professionalism, quality, and pace of justice.

To enhance judges’ performance, the CJN advised judges to take charge of their courtrooms, maximize the use of the Case Management System, and foster an environment where constructive feedback is valued and acted upon.

“We must be deeply concerned by the increase in the number of pending cases and low disposition rates. As of the first quarter of 2024, we had a total of 243,253 cases pending in our Superior Courts of Record, excluding the Supreme Court. This total comprises 199,747 civil cases and 43,506 criminal cases,” she added.

She also encouraged judges to explore information technology options.

“The introduction of digital case management systems, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Software (JPES), virtual courtrooms, e-filing systems, digital databases, web seminars, online meetings, and advanced research engines provides a myriad of tools for efficiency in case disposition,” she said.

In addition, she noted that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, should be explored as they support quicker resolutions and reduce the burden on judges.

More Insights 

Previously, during the Supreme Court legal year event, the CJN encouraged litigants to embrace alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to ease the burden on courts, stressing that the culture of litigating every disagreement and appealing every lost case—no matter how trivial—significantly contributes to the backlog of pending appeals in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

“This trajectory is unsustainable for a nation striving for economic development and human capital growth,” she said.

The CJN noted that the attitudes of some lawyers and stakeholders in the justice sector are sometimes less than favorable and have, to a large extent, contributed to the current image deficit of the country’s legal system.

“Forum shopping by some of our legal practitioners is rampant. Such acts often give rise to conflicting orders by courts of coordinate jurisdiction,” she added.

She warned that there would be consequences for any act of indiscretion that could bring the judiciary into disrepute.