67% of prosecutors, 52% of judges collect bribes – Report

Bribery prevalence among prosecutors in Nigeria has risen to 67 per cent and 52 per cent among judges, with both figures more than doubling between 2019 and 2023, a new report by the Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa has revealed.

The report also indicated that 11 of the 124 judges interviewed in a 2020 survey by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission reported receiving bribes totaling N3.7bn over two years.

Titled Judicial Corruption in Nigeria: Causes and Consequences, the report, released on Tuesday, examined how bribery, political interference, external pressure and manipulation of judicial procedures undermine the administration of justice.

The findings, drawn from a survey by the National Bureau of Statistics and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, identified prosecutors as having the highest bribery prevalence among the public officials surveyed.

It further cited findings by Nigeria’s Auditor-General that N4.8bn was misappropriated or unaccounted for by federal courts between 2012 and 2015.

The report warned that judicial corruption was weakening efforts to prosecute politically exposed persons, recover unexplained wealth and strengthen accountability, while creating a justice system in which wealthy litigants could secure favourable treatment at the expense of ordinary Nigerians.

Speaking during the virtual launch of the report, governance and anti-corruption researcher Matthew Page urged investigative journalists to investigate the unexplained wealth of judges, particularly senior judicial officers, to expose possible corruption.

Responding to a question on how judicial corruption could be uncovered without whistleblowers, Page said journalists should investigate judges whose properties, foreign assets and lifestyles appeared inconsistent with their legitimate earnings.

He said, “We can wait for whistleblowers to sort of give us those smoking guns. But what is, I think, an easier and, in a sense, quicker method to finding out where there are problems is looking at this issue of unexplained wealth.

“Looking at judges, especially senior judges who are living beyond their means, who have property or foreign assets or lifestyles that clearly exceed their explained income and earnings, and really document that.”

Page said journalists could establish public officials’ legitimate earnings by examining their career histories and income records, adding that unexplained wealth should prompt further investigation into property ownership and financial records.

“They are public figures; they are very senior public officials endowed with the public trust, and so therefore, it is right that they come under scrutiny for their wealth or unexplained wealth,” he noted.

The report identified procedural irregularities, prolonged delays and preferential treatment in high-profile cases as practices undermining anti-corruption prosecutions.

It cited the cases of former governors Orji Uzor Kalu, Chimaroke Nnamani and Willie Obiano, as well as former pension reform official Abdulrasheed Maina, as examples of how judicial dysfunction and suspected corrupt interference could weaken accountability.

In Kalu’s case, the report recalled that the Supreme Court nullified his conviction in 2020 on a technical ground after a 12-year trial, despite a 2015 law expressly allowing the trial judge to conclude the proceedings.

It noted that six years after the conviction was nullified, Kalu had not yet been retried.

Page also identified weak enforcement of existing laws as a major factor contributing to delays in Nigeria’s judicial system, particularly in cases involving survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.

Responding to a question about the repeated court appearances and prolonged proceedings young survivors face in pursuit of justice, he said the problem was not entirely attributable to corruption.

He cited the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which was introduced to accelerate criminal proceedings and prevent unnecessary delays, arguing that its provisions were not being adequately enforced.

• Nigeria meets OPEC quota for sixth month, output rises
• Nigeria, Jamaica review bilateral aviation agreement
• ADC faults APC over cash inducements, recycled 2023 promises

“What I feel like, and this is something we saw in many of the corruption cases, is that actually some of the Act’s provisions are not being properly enforced or adhered to by the judiciary.

“Before we start about new solutions, let’s fully implement the solutions that we already have and demand that Act be obeyed and held to more than it currently is,” he added.

On the role of anti-corruption agencies in facilitating judicial corruption, Page acknowledged that agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission could sometimes be ineffective or compromised, despite demonstrating innovation in pursuing politically exposed persons in other instances.

He cited the case involving former Rivers State Governor Peter Odili, arguing that the EFCC’s failure to challenge a perpetual injunction within the stipulated period allowed the order to remain in force.

Page described the agency’s failure to pursue the legal process as an abuse of discretion or what he called an “embrace of inertia”.

He explained that such inaction could serve the interests of powerful individuals benefiting from judicial decisions, adding that failures by anti-corruption agencies could result from misconduct by their leadership or decisions to avoid difficult investigations.

On proposals to introduce digital or random case assignments to reduce human interference in the judiciary, Page supported the idea, noting that it could limit opportunities for litigants to influence which judges handle their cases.

However, he cautioned that the effectiveness of such a system could be undermined by the heavy workload facing Nigerian courts, as litigants might still manipulate filing dates to influence which judges receive their cases.

Page also called for explicit legislation to prohibit government officials from giving judges mansions, sports utility vehicles and other benefits, arguing that such gifts had become customary under the guise of judicial welfare.

He said existing public officers’ codes of conduct might already prohibit or restrict some of the practices, but government officials often justified the gifts as welfare or security measures.

Meanwhile, PPLAAF Executive Director, Jimmy Kande, said corruption and undue external pressure had continued to undermine the Nigerian judiciary, with serious implications for democracy and the rule of law.

“The Nigerian judiciary has been undermined from all sides through corruption, bribery, and undue external pressure. This has long-lasting impacts on democracy, the rule of law, and the daily lives of ordinary Nigerians,” Kande said.

He added that suspected judicial corruption could prevent high-ranking public officials from being convicted of financial crimes, allowing properties allegedly acquired abroad with unexplained wealth to remain beyond the reach of authorities.

Programme Manager of the African Centre for Media and Information Literacy, Godwin Onyeacholem, also described judicial corruption as a major threat to human rights and democratic development.

“No doubt, the worst offender in Nigeria’s growing human rights violations and stunted democracy is the ruthless corrupt practices that have overwhelmed the country’s judiciary,” he said.

PPLAAF called for comprehensive judicial reforms, including genuine financial independence for the judiciary, stronger independent accountability mechanisms and transparency in judicial appointments, budgets, expenditures and contracting.

It also recommended publishing and independently verifying asset declarations by judges and other judicial personnel, imposing sanctions for procedural abuses, and independently vetting sitting judges and prosecutors under international oversight.

Established in 2017, PPLAAF is a non-governmental organisation that protects whistleblowers, advocates for their rights and engages in strategic litigation when their disclosures affect the general interests of African citizens.