By Abdulwahab Abdulah

Lawyers and judges in the country, yesterday, agreed that henceforth any judge found guilty of corrupt practices must be referred to anti-graft agencies for prosecution to win the war against graft in the system.

According to participants at the just concluded three-day conference on judicial reforms in Abuja, with the theme Putting our best foot forward: The Judiciary and the Challenges of Satisfying Justice needs of the 21st Century, the age-long practice of merely retiring or dismissing judges found to have subverted the course of justice after receiving huge bribes must stop.

In a statement at the end of the event, they agreed that “any valid complaint bordering on corruption must not only be treated as mere misconduct, but be referred for prosecution.”

Participants agreed that judges and lawyers were vital in securing the integrity of the judiciary, hence “lawyers should support the judiciary by desisting from playing any part in the corruption and subversion of the judicial process.”

The conference was organised by the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Judiciary Committee, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC, and Access to Justice with the support of Open Society Initiative for West Africa, the NJC’s Performance Evaluation Committee and funding from the European Union.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, had at the event said corruption in the judiciary “has become a cankerworm that has refused to depart.”

Subsequent speakers also insisted that for graft to be successfully tackled, the judiciary must set an example by not covering up its corrupt members.

To reduce case backlogs in states with limited judicial manpower, the option of appointing and using ad-hoc judges was suggested to avoid delays in justice delivery.

“Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, competent senior lawyers and retired judges could also be appointed on an ad-hoc basis to fill these positions as is the practice in other jurisdictions,” it added.

The statement suggested that performance evaluation of judicial officers should also be extended to the lower courts where majority of disputes are resolved, to strengthen justice delivery.