Nigerians, especially those in the legal profession, have been praising the MPs for their thinking ever since the House of Representatives’ decision to decentralize the Supreme Court of Nigeria became widely known.
A bill to establish five Supreme Court divisions nationwide, in addition to the Abuja headquarters, was introduced by the House of Representatives on December 9. The bill states that Abuja is anticipated to serve the North Central geopolitical zone as well.
The bill’s title is “A bill for Act to amend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to provide for the establishment of five divisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria; to enhance access to the highest justice, to minimise the logistical cost of accessing justice and to ensure timely dispensation of matters brought before the apex court,” was sponsored by Manu Soro, representing Bauchi State’s Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency.
Reports state that the proposed law would change Section 230(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as modified) to allow the Supreme Court to be divided into three locations: Umuahia for the South East, Bauchi for the North East, and Uyo for the South-South.
The bill, which passed the first reading with equal support, suggests that the apex court’s divisions in the South West and North West should be located in Lagos and Kano, respectively.
The proposed legislation’s explanatory statement stated that its goals were to enable prompt resolution of cases before the Supreme Court, minimize the logistical costs litigants face in obtaining justice, and bring access to the highest level of justice closer to the people.
Nonetheless, Nigerians, especially attorneys, have applauded the action, claiming it will speed up the apex court’s delivery of justice and relieve the justices of a significant burden.
Mrs. Bridget Edokwe, the National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), is among those who share the aforementioned viewpoint.
She commended the lawmakers for such a bold step, noting that it would help to reduce the volume of cases lingering at the apex court.
She said: “The move to decentralise the Supreme Court is a very welcome development. Establishing Supreme Court panels across the geopolitical zones will not only fast-track the resolution of cases at the apex court, but will also significantly reduce the cost burden on litigants.
“The current system, where all Supreme Court appeals are heard centrally in Abuja, is not cost-effective for litigants from regions outside the North Central geopolitical zone.”
Similarly, C.I. Nnamani, a lawyer and public affairs analyst from Enugu, concurred with Mrs. Edokwe, emphasizing that if such a reform is implemented successfully, matters at the Supreme Court will be handled quickly.
“Well, it will be a good thing if the Supreme Court of Nigeria is decentralised so that, maybe, with that appeals will be heard expeditiously, unlike what obtains at present, where appeal matters last for several years before determination. In my view, it will be a very good development,” he said.
He also applauded the decision to place the North Central under the Abuja Supreme Court’s purview.
He said: “And making Abuja to take care of North Central is also a good move. It will help to avoid duplication of offices in one geopolitical zone.”
Malachy Ugwummadu, a human rights attorney and former president of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, or CDHR, stated in his contribution that if the move is being made for administrative convenience, it would simply return to the status quo from 1960–1963, which he said is a positive development.
He said: “If the purpose of the decentralisation is to achieve administrative convenience, then it will go to the issue of court management and management of the docket generally, and it is not very new.
“If look at Section 111 (4) of the 1963 constitution as well as Section 104 (4) of 1960, it is usually couched in a way that the Supreme Court shall sit in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, which was Lagos then, and in such other places in Nigeria as the Chief Justice of Nigeria may appoint. That’s the language of those sections – 104 and 111 of the respective constitutions.
“What that presupposes is that the Supreme Courts as at that time were supposed to be in the FCT but were also supposed to be cited and located in other regions or states of the country as the case may be.
“The whole idea was to enhance administrative convenience. If that is the motive behind those campaigning for the decentralisation of the Supreme Court, then it goes to the question of mere administrative convenience and it ends there.”
However, he pointed out that when referring to the federating states’ authority to have their own Supreme Court, as is the case in some other federations, such as the United States of America, USA, in particular, one will observe that this is done to strengthen and deepen the federalist principle, where state powers, including the authority to decide cases in the end, are delegated to the federating states.
“And I think the idea is that individual states are supposed to be autonomous in relation to issues that affect them as states. Where the issue is on the common goals and objectives of the country such as defence, currency and the constitution, the interpretation of the country’s constitution, goes to the federal Supreme Court.
“In South Africa for instance, they call it a constitutional court because they deal separately with the issues arising from the constitution that binds the whole country. It, therefore, depends on the motivation for the agitation for this decentralization, but as at today, what we have is a single Supreme Court of Nigeria,” he said.
He added that if one ignores the motivation and discusses the state of the Nigerian judiciary, they will discover that the overburdened dockets of Nigerian courts, especially the appellate court, have sparked the push for decentralization because there is inadequate mainstreaming and a restriction on the cases that are heard by the appellate court.
“You would be shocked that family matters, land matters; matters that are very local to the municipal environment find their way up to the Supreme Court, thereby congesting what the Supreme Court can conveniently handle in terms of speedy dispensation of justice.
“And that has affected the speedy dispensation of justice in Nigeria such that in the last 10 to 15 years, you have cases that you cannot get an adjourned date within that year. For instance, in 2025, you may not have a date in the Supreme Court in 2026. It is as bad as that.
“So, you see that people, who get there, are not just confused, but get disinterested and lose all the drive to pursue justice. Many of them even pass on before the cases are decided. The witnesses who testified at the trial court may not even be around, so that when the Supreme Court finds the need to refer the matter back to the trial court, it is useless because you can’t find any witness again. So, it is a very terrible situation.
“The point is for a country that has now been overloaded with a huge degree of work, decentralization is advisable. It could be regional Supreme Courts that deal with everyday matters.
“Removing the federal supreme courts and isolating it in a way that it has only national matters like elections, constitutional interpretation, defence and currency, among others, to deal with, and not that chieftaincy matters will travel all the way to the Supreme Court,” he submitted.
