The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has blamed the frequent occurrence of conflicting court decisions on the lack of conferencing by various panels of the appellate courts.
Justice Kekere-Ekun, who stated this while declaring open the 2024 Justices Annual Conference of the Court of Appeal in Abuja Monday, expressed concern over the menace of conflicting decisions and specifically called on presiding justices of the Court of Appeal to imbibe the practice.
According to the CJN, conferencing is an essential tool that promotes mutual respect, deepens understanding and enhances the quality of the court’s decisions.
“Now, the issue of conflicting decisions is one of great concern in our community at present time, and one of the reasons that we have conflicting decisions is because many panels do not hold conferences to discuss all reserve judgments.
“It is strongly recommended that conferences be held. I cannot overemphasize this point. We are an appellate court for a reason, and the reason is that several heads are better than one.
“So holding conferences, exchanging opinions and ideas on matters that come before us is extremely essential. We have presiding justices here, and if it has not been your practice, I want to appeal to you that you start making it a practice. It is a very, very essential tool in the work that we do,” she said.
Besides, the CJN admonished that these conferences be held in good time so that where there are conflicting opinions, they can bey discussed before judgments are given, adding that the justices thoroughly examine judgments of the trial courts in order to see the reasons for those judgments before they were appealed.
“We have recent decision or a case where a wrong interpretation was given to the decision of this court that informed the decision of the trial court. So some of these things will probably be brought to light in the process of holding conference. So that is my singular message here, that conference is a safe place,” the CJN stressed.
Meanwhile, the CJN has tasked judges and justices of various courts to be introspective in order to turn around the negative perceptions of the judiciary.
She stated that through introspection, justices can examine how their collective processes can be improved, ascertain whether their judgments are addressing the root issues brought before them, as well as whether they are sufficiently attuned to the broader societal implications of their decisions.
Kekere-Ekun further stated that through introspection, the judiciary can surmount some of its challenges such as case backlogs and funding constraints.
In a goodwill, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), noted that the theme of the conference, ‘Judicial Introspection’ is particularly instructive and indicates the intention of the organizers to use the conference as a barometer to gauge the accomplishments of the court and also provide a compass to guide optimal performance in the future.
While remarking that the Nigerian judiciary has a long and proud history of dispensing justice without fear or favour, the AGF maintained that the Court of Appeal, in particular, has to a great extent demonstrated unwavering commitment to upholding the principles of justice, equity and fairness.
“Your judgments have set precedents, shaped legal discourse, shaped the course of several aspect of our national life, and your commitment to upholding the constitution and established principles of law and natural justice has provided a beacon of hope for countless individuals and entities seeking justice,” he said.
Fagbemi, who observed that issues such as political interference, public opinion (especially perpetrated on social media), and even well-intentioned efforts to improve the justice system pose as challenge to judicial independence, urged the justices to remain vigilant and steadfast in the defence of judicial independence.
He however pledged to uphold the principle of judicial independence as the chief law officer of the country.
Earlier in her welcome, the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, observed that the ever-evolving nature of our landscape demands that we engage in regular self-reflection, evaluation and strategic planning.
“This conference offers a unique opportunity for introspection, knowledge-sharing and growth among stakeholders. We are deeply grateful for the participation of our distinguished resource persons, whose expertise and experiential knowledge will undoubtedly enrich our deliberations.
“Justices occupy a position of paramount importance in the administration of justice with their decisions exerting a profound impact on individuals, communities and society at large. Nevertheless, despite their expertise and experience, justices are not immune to the limitations inherent in human decision-making, including errors, biases, and prejudices.
“To address these limitations and ensure the delivery of justices, judicial introspection offers a mechanism for self-reflection, in-depth analysis, and ongoing improvement,” she said.
While acknowledging the benefits of social media, the PCA observed that the technological shift has also generated a range of challenges for the judiciary, including the management of online reputation, cyber-bullying and harassment.
“The preservation of the integrity of digital evidence in the context of legal proceedings is now a thing of concern. To effectively navigate these complexities, it is only appropriate for the judiciary to engage in a process of regular intellectual upliftment.
“A regular examination of existing practices, procedures and policies to ensure their efficacy, efficiency and fairness in the digital age is imperative.
“The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) within the judiciary has the potential to revolutionize the administration of justice, enhancing efficiency, improving decision-making, and expanding access to justice. However, the deployment of AI in judicial contexts also raises profound questions regarding bias, transparency and accountability. To address these issues, the judiciary must carefully examine its own utilization of AI and ensure that adoption is as an adjudicatory tool and not a replacement of the judge,” she said.