The courts have a big role to play in speedily resolving corruption related cases. The delay in disputes resolution by the courts is a major incentive for corruption in the country.

Many people do not bother about the consequences of corruption because by the time a corruption charge or related case is concluded from the high Court to the Supreme Court, it would have lost its sting and efficacy and many things happen during this long wait. The judiciary must also rid itself of corruption and ensure that members of the judiciary who are found wanting are not spared or given soft landing like we have seen in many cases in the past.

There are many things the courts can do in this regard to give boost to the fight against. corruption. The first one is that judges should be firm and take charge of their proceedings. In cases involving corruption, the litigants typically have the funds to hire the best senior lawyers who have sufficient motivation to prevent quick dispensation of justice by having recourse to applications and objections. A judge has the right to insist on taking applications/objections along side with the substantive matter for speedy dispensation of justice. What we see in courts is that judges bend too much to some of these senior lawyers.

Secondly, the judiciary should formulate special rules and practice directions that would facilitate quick dispensation of corruption related cases. For example, the rules should prescribe that all applications would be taken at the end of trial along with the substantive cases.

There is also the need for the judiciary to invest in the training of judicial officers. We see a lot of time wasting on irrelevant issues during the course of proceedings in our courts. Court sitting should be businesslike and conducted with a focus on resolving disputes and not chasing shadows or abusing lawyers and litigants.

Closely related to the above is the urgent need for a proper case management strategy by the judiciary. Corruption related cases can be fixed on special days or time with emphasis on strict timelines and schedules.

One thing the judiciary must urgently review is the ease with which leave to appeal is granted in Nigeria.

This is not the practice in other jurisdictions. Sometimes some judges makes it look like a lawyer opposing application for leave to appeal is wasting time.

It is sad that the judiciary has not done much with creating an effective registry system.

The ineffectiveness of court registries is one of the major factors militating against quick dispensation of justice. Delays and corruption in service of processes, issuance of dates and hearing notices is a big challenge. There is also the problem of lack of automation of the registries. The truth of the matter is that we can not attain quick dispensation of justice with the kind of registries we currently have.

It must however be stated that there are other issues that affect quick dispensation of justice which the judiciary may not be able to control. For example, our interlocutory appeal process must be reviewed by legislation and political will. There is need for urgent overhaul of the interlocutory appeal process including related matters like applications for stay of proceedings. Judges with the requisite competence should be appointed to the bench and commensurate remuneration and incentives should be paid. Most importantly, we need judicial autonomy to enable the judiciary solve most of the challenges including having effective court registries.