By

Kenneth Izuogu

INTRODUCTION

Nigeria’s judiciary, the cornerstone of justice, is increasingly viewed as an institution under siege. Instead of being the last refuge for citizens seeking justice, it is often perceived as compromised by political influence, riddled with corruption, and inconsistent in its rulings. One key issue fuelling this dysfunction is the current system of judicial appointments, which places excessive power in the hands of the executive. This system not only undermines the judiciary’s independence but also weakens public trust in its ability to deliver impartial justice.

This article proposes a radical yet necessary solution: electing judges. By shifting the process of judicial selection to a more democratic, accountable system, Nigeria can restore its judiciary as an impartial institution that truly serves the people. This reform would align the judiciary with the independent and elected nature of the other branches of government and bring greater transparency and accountability to the system.

The Current Challenges in Nigeria’s Judiciary

1. Executive Overreach in Judicial Appointments The executive branch’s control over judicial appointments, as outlined in the 1999 Constitution (*Sections 231, 238, 250, 256)* , has allowed political influence to permeate the judiciary. While the appointment system theoretically aims to ensure judicial independence, in practice, the executive’s control over appointments has led to a judiciary that is seen as loyal to political elites rather than committed to impartiality. The 2019 suspension of Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen by President Muhammadu Buhari is a stark example of executive overreach. Despite judicial orders to halt the suspension proceedings, the President acted unilaterally, undermining the very foundation of judicial independence.

2. Inconsistencies in Judicial Decisions In the face of such executive overreach, the judiciary has struggled with contradictions in its rulings, especially in high-profile election cases. The 2023 election cycle, in particular, saw several court decisions that contradicted one another, particularly on issues such as local government autonomy and electoral disputes. The 2024 National Bureau of Statistics’ Corruption Survey highlighted that large sums were paid as bribes, including to judicial officials, further complicating the perception of justice as a system vulnerable to political manipulation.

3. Erosion of Public Trust Nigeria’s judiciary is at a crisis point where public confidence is at an all-time low. According to a 2020 UNODC report, judges and magistrates were identified as among the highest recipients of bribes in Nigeria’s public sector. This widespread corruption, coupled with delays and perceived bias, has fostered a widespread belief that the judiciary no longer serves the people but rather the political class. In such a climate, citizens have increasingly turned to self-help, and the idea of turning to the courts for justice has become a bitter joke.

Global Perspectives on Judicial Selection

Global judicial systems provide valuable insights into how Nigeria can reform its own judiciary. While some countries have adopted systems that emphasize the independence of judges through appointments or exams, it’s clear that for Nigeria to ensure a judiciary that truly serves its citizens, a new approach is needed.

1. Appointment Systems In many countries, like the UK and Canada, judges are appointed through processes designed to insulate them from political pressures. However, Nigeria’s experience has shown that when oversight mechanisms are weak, the executive branch can maintain significant influence over the judicial selection process, undermining the judiciary’s autonomy and impartiality.

2. Competitive Examinations France and Germany’s reliance on exams ensures that only the most qualified judges are selected. However, while this reduces political influence, it does not solve Nigeria’s need for a more democratic, transparent process in which the people can hold judges accountable.

3. Elections Countries like the U.S. have opted for judicial elections as a way to balance public accountability with judicial independence. However, this method also presents challenges, such as the risk of politicizing the judiciary, as seen in Mexico and Bolivia. These cautionary examples underscore the need for a careful, customized approach to judicial elections.

The Case for NBA-Overseen Judicial Elections

In Nigeria, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) is uniquely positioned to play a critical role in judicial elections. By having the NBA oversee the election process, the country can ensure that the judiciary remains independent, transparent, and accountable to the people. The NBA represents a broad cross-section of legal professionals, including lawyers, judges, and other legal experts, all of whom are vested in upholding the integrity of the legal system. This is a far more democratic and equitable approach compared to the current executive-driven system, which leaves the selection of judges in the hands of a few political elites.

The Need for Judicial Elections in the Absence of a Jury System In many democratic nations, the jury system serves as a powerful tool for ensuring that justice is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people. Ordinary citizens are called upon to participate directly in the justice system, ensuring that trials and verdicts are not solely the domain of an elite group of judges, but are subject to broader societal input. Unfortunately, Nigeria does not have the jury system, meaning that the public cannot directly participate in the adjudication of cases. Given this, it becomes even more critical that the judiciary be accountable to the people in another way—through elections. Electing judges ensures that they are responsive to the needs of the public and operate with an understanding of the societal issues that impact ordinary Nigerians.

The Need for Judicial Elections in the Context of Nigerian Governance

A critical argument for judicial elections in Nigeria lies in the structure of the Nigerian government itself. Both the executive and legislature are elected by the people, ensuring that these branches of government are financially independent and politically accountable to the electorate. These branches derive their powers from the people through elections, making them inherently democratic and transparent.

The judiciary, however, is not elected by the people and remains financially dependent on the executive, which diminishes its autonomy. If the executive and legislature are allowed to remain financially secure and free from undue interference, it stands to reason that the judiciary should also be afforded the same level of autonomy. In the same way that the executive and legislative branches are empowered by elections, the judiciary must be empowered by the electorate as well.

An elected judiciary would be a logical and natural extension of Nigeria’s democratic system, ensuring that the judiciary operates independently, is not beholden to political elites, and remains responsive to the needs of the people. Just as the President and Governors are elected by the people to make decisions on their behalf, judges, who hold significant power over citizens’ lives, should also be directly

accountable to the public. Proposed Framework for Judicial Elections in Nigeria In order to avoid the pitfalls experienced by other countries, Nigeria must implement a robust framework for judicial elections:

1. Electoral Body Composition – NBA Oversight: The Nigerian Bar Association, along with an independent judicial commission, should oversee the election process, ensuring that only qualified candidates are put forward and that the election is fair and transparent.

2. Eligibility Criteria – Experience: Candidates should have at least 15–20 years of legal experience. – Non-Partisanship: Candidates must have been free of political affiliation for at least 10 years before standing for election. – Competency Assessment: A rigorous, transparent examination should be administered to ensure only the most qualified individuals are selected.

3. Campaign Regulations

– Advertising: Campaigns should focus on qualifications, legal philosophy, and competence, with no room for political endorsements. – Endorsements: Political party endorsements should be banned to maintain impartiality.

4. Term and Accountability – Fixed Terms: Judges should serve renewable terms of 6–10 years, allowing for both accountability and stability. – Performance Reviews: Judges should undergo annual performance reviews, conducted by a peer-led oversight body, to ensure transparency.

5. Safeguarding Judicial* Independence – Code of Conduct: A strict ethical code should be enforced, with swift sanctions for any violations. – Security Measures: Judges should receive state-funded protection, particularly in light of the risks posed by political and criminal interference.

CONCLUSION

The idea of electing judges in Nigeria is not merely a theoretical proposal but a necessary reform to restore judicial independence, accountability, and public trust. By Empowering the people, through the NBA, to elect their judges, will ensure Nigerians that the judiciary is no longer

a tool of political elites but a true guardian of the rule of law. Just as the executive and legislative branches derive their power from the people, so too should the judiciary. This reform is not just

a call for change; it is

a call for a more democratic, accountable, and independent judicial system that works for all Nigerians.

In this article