Afam Osigwe, SAN Advocates For Urgent Reforms To Address Supreme Court Caseload
Afam Osigwe, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, has emphasized the need for urgent reforms to address the heavy caseload burdening the Supreme Court.
Speaking on national television, Osigwe decried the large number of cases across all types of legal disputes that reach the apex court. He noted that this overworks the few justices available to adjudicate the matters.
The senior lawyer suggested amending the constitution to restrict certain cases from proceeding beyond the appeal courts of each state. He proposed that only cases involving substantial points of law or conflicts of appeal court decisions should reach the Supreme Court.
Osigwe also advocated appointing more justices to bring the Supreme Court to its full complement of 21 members. This would allow the court to sit in various panels and quicken dispensation of pending cases.
The time it currently takes for certain types of cases to reach the Supreme Court averages around 12 years, a situation that affects litigants and legal practitioners. Osigwe cited instances where cases are repeatedly adjourned, causing significant delays. These delays are not due to any fault of the parties involved but result from the sheer number of cases and a decline in the number of available justices.
Osigwe also suggested broadening the pool of candidates considered for appointment to the Supreme Court bench. He argued for diversifying the sources of appointments, extending the selection process to include academics, individuals from private practice, and judicial officers with over seven years of experience.
This expansion of the selection criteria would ensure that the pool of potential Supreme Court justices grows, ultimately addressing the recurrent issue of a declining number of justices at the Supreme Court.
The Senior Advocate stressed that reforms are urgently required to reduce the average 12-year timeline for cases at the apex court. He stated that justice delayed is justice denied and backlogs due to limited judges disadvantage litigants.
