By Okoi Obono-Obla
When I was a young lawyer, I was fascinated by the Nigerian Bar Association. I served as Public Relations Officer of the NBA, Calabar Branch, about two decades ago with great enthusiasm.
As I have grown older, I have become disillusioned and disenchanted with the way things are done. The NBA is no longer serious about what should be its core mandate: reform of the judicial system and the welfare of lawyers.
Take the case of one of my clients. His employment in a Federal Government-owned agency was terminated in 2004 on the flimsy excuse of “downsizing.” The procedure laid down in his Conditions of Service was not followed. He challenged the unlawful termination at the Federal High Court.
While the case was pending, the National Industrial Court was established. This is where the transitional provision becomes critical.
1. The Transitional Provision That Validated His Federal High Court Judgment:
The law is clear. Section 11(2) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 provides:
“Nothing in Subsection (1) of this Section shall affect the jurisdiction and the powers of the Federal High Court, the High Court of a State or the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to continue to hear and determine cause or matters which are part-heard before the commencement of this Act and any proceedings in any such causes or matter, not determined or concluded at expiration of one year after the commencement of this act shall abate.”
By this saving provision, the Federal High Court rightly retained jurisdiction and delivered judgment in favour of my client in 2013. That judgment is valid.
2. The Scandal at the Court of Appeal:
The Federal Government agency filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division. Both parties have filed their Briefs of Argument. Under the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, Order 18, the procedure is strict:
• Appellant to file Brief within 45 days of receipt of Record • Respondent to file within 30 days of service of Appellant’s Brief • Reply within 14 days
Once that is done, the appeal is ripe for hearing. Order 18 Rule 9(4) even states:
“When an appeal is called and the parties have been duly served with the notice of hearing, but if any party or any legal practitioner appearing for him does not appear to present oral argument even though briefs have been filed by all the parties concerned in the appeal, the appeal will be treated as having been duly argued.”
And Order 19 Rule 1 provides:
“The judgment of the Court shall be pronounced in open court either on the hearing of the appeal or at any subsequent time of which notice shall be given by the Registrar to the parties to the appeal.”
This is reinforced by the Constitution. Section 36(1) guarantees fair hearing within a reasonable time, and Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) mandates that judgment must be delivered within 90 days of conclusion of final addresses.
In my client’s case, Briefs were filed over a decade ago. For almost 13 years, the Court of Appeal has not listed the appeal for hearing, let alone deliver judgment.
My client, whose appointment was terminated in 2004, has been languishing in unemployment for 22 years.
What kind of egregious injustice is this?
This systemic collapse – where a man waits 22 years for justice and 13 years for an appeal to be heard after briefs are filed – is what should preoccupy the NBA. The NBA should be suing, lobbying the National Assembly and the NJC, and demanding timelines, full automation of cause lists, and sanctions for violation of Section 294.
But alas, the NBA is more preoccupied with posturing like an opposition political party than acting as a professional association defending the rule of law and the welfare of its members.
Justice delayed is justice denied. 22 years is not delay; it is burial of justice.
