How Fuel Subsidy Removal Impedes Justice Administration

Just as the removal of fuel subsidy is impacting on every segment of the society, the judicial arm of government and the entire justice administration system have not been left out of its biting consequences, Silver Nwokoro reports.

As the effect of the removal of fuel subsidy is hitting hard on the masses, the judiciary, which is the third arm of government, is also bearing the brunt. It is an indication that judiciary is not insulated from the sudden economic difficulties like its counterparts in the executive and legislature whose realities appear different.

The Guardian checks revealed that the impact of the subsidy removal has reduced the hours of court sittings, thereby compounding the delays in delivering judgments.

Before the subsidy removal, out of 365 days in a year, judges do not sit during weekends -104 days; public holidays -10 days; yearly court vacation- 60 days; Christmas vacation-14 days; Easter vacation -14 days; conference week- seven days as well as Fridays, which are usually reserved for judgments, amounting to 52 days.

When the figures are summed up, they add up to 261 days, implying therefore that judges sit only for 104 days, when 261 days are deducted from the 365 days in a year.

Now that the subsidy is removed, it has been predicted that there will be enough delay in justice system.

A lawyer, Ezebube Chinwike said the subsidy removal affects the Judiciary as it impacts all other institutions but affects it in a peculiar manner owing to the fact that Justice dispensing, and time management are like Siamese twins.

He said: “There was a recent event of Anambra State Election Petition Tribunal session, which was adjourned because there was no power supply and no diesel to power the electricity generating set.

“Judicial time and resources were wasted due to that singular deficiency and principally because the usual cost of petroleum products has risen above 300 per cent margin, making purchases extremely challenging.

“This is a daily occurrence in our courts where court sittings are adjourned, and Registry official functions are stalled owing to failure of power supply and inability to adequately finance the supply of diesel for judiciary activities because of the exorbitant amount it costs.”

Chinwike, however, noted that the impact cannot be completely negative when properly managed, as thoughtful and seamless transition by provision of alternative sources of support to both judiciary as an institution and the staff as individuals would immensely contribute to a less harsh effect.

He lamented that the way the removal was made, made more detrimental impact on the policy than its actual implementation.

“A situation where judiciary staff are pressed by economic hardships associated with fuel subsidy removal, official functions are variously hobbled owing to insufficiency of funds to purchase petroleum products to power the generators.

“The results are reductions of the manpower input and institutional deficiency of the judiciary with the ripple effect of slowing down the dispensation of justice within a reasonable time anticipated under the justice delivery system,” he said.

According to him, the frustrations presented by litigation in a demanding economy like that of Nigeria becomes more hostile upon the removal of subsidy without a substantive alternative or support, which invariably affects the mental health of lawyers, thereby slowing down their capacity to effectively manage briefs.

“Ultimately, a legal practitioner is at the receiving end of this cycle since clients measure efficiency and effectiveness of a practitioner not only by winning a case but also doing that within reasonable time.

“The time of dispensing justice having been interrupted by the immediate effect of subsidy removal, the rating of a legal practitioner whose judicial time is completely tied to the functions of the judiciary, is obviously reduced,” Chinwike said, adding that lawyers now spend more than 300 per cent on transportation to attend court proceedings.

Amaechi Ekwe, a lawyer, said the removal of subsidy was done not considering the danger it poses on the people.

Since the removal, he remarked, not even lawyers are spared, considering that lawyers usually live far from the location of the courts.

“They have to fuel their cars or pay through their noses to get to court every day. Some Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) members are subject to this satanic minimum wage in Nigeria. Lawyers don’t live in the moon. They are subject to this arbitrary food items’ price hike and orchestrated hardship.

“Removal of fuel subsidy is the easiest thing to do, but the difficult aspect is how to contain the untold consequences,” Ekwe declared.

He lamented that lawyers run generators at least 15 hours a day.

“Our support staffs are subjected to this painful and biting economy. Clients are also affected. When lawyers are facing harsh economy, justice will be miscarried because litigants won’t have the resources to fund their cases,” he stressed.

Evans Ufeli, an activist lawyer, said removal of subsidy has made the practice of law extremely demanding, especially for those involved in litigation.

According to him, it is a herculean task to start a case and conclude it in record time.

“The current removal of subsidy and the attendant increase in fuel price has created a huge burden for lawyers such that it now requires more resources to prosecute already secured briefs effectively.

“This is a critical issue at this time, in a country like ours, where there are no social support systems available to cushion the effects of a radical policy of government on the fuel subsidy removal,” he stated.

Ufeli said lawyers are in a crossroad, as they grapple with practice to make meaning out of their many or few cases already engaged in, with stale bargain in a new reality influence by the outcome of a policy that has increased cost tremendously.

His words: “These are apparently cases/matters undertook whilst the cost of living, in particular, transportation, was not as exorbitant as it is presently. The effect of this is that the lawyer is drained; he is professionally expected to deliver, irrespective of the sudden surge in cost of maintaining his productivity optimally.

“The lawyer in the case under reference, must manage and maintain his chambers, pay salaries of staff, and make necessary increments for support staff to address the current hike in transportation and make provision for rental, for the chamber space.

“The reality of legal practice in the post-subsidy regime is a huge challenge to the judicial sector. The problem is further exacerbated by some clients who can no longer pay their lawyers, as the lawyer relies on proceeds from his practice to shoulder his family and professional responsibilities.”

He argued that the economic implication is that the profession by its very nature and demand suffer tremendously in times like this.

“There are upcoming firms and young lawyers, who are completely disillusioned by the high cost of living, particularly as it adversely affects them professionally. Not many law firms are employing right now and not many can pay a living wage.

“While there is a new legislation as it relates to the remuneration of lawyers and charges, it comes at a time when the economic challenges of the country are blatantly overwhelming.

“The courts are equally facing the brunt of the new economic reality – the Judicial workers, officials of court and the general staff have to face the harsh reality of the time, as this stalls their productivity and pace of delivery.

“The cost of running daily administrative activities of the courts has increased in the post-subsidy regime. There is visible adjustment everywhere to jack up activities, to brace up the affairs of men in tandem with the new reality on ground. I do not think the policy was a good one,” he stated.

According to Ufeli, instead of plunging already impoverished people deeper into the poverty net, the government ought to proceed against those manipulating and making undue illegal profits from the system through official corruption in the name of subsidy.

That way, he said, the problem is resolved, and the objective of the subsidy regime realised.

He maintained that the approach adopted by the Federal Government was counter-productive, as it threw everyone out there on the street.

He wondered why the government is reviewing tax laws for which the same citizens would be compelled to pay.

The lawyer suggested that there should be tax holidays for Nigerians, having been made to go through the harrowing experience of a “thoughtless policy”.

He, therefore, charged the government to make the refineries work. “It can never make sense that we have crude oil in abundance, and our best option is having it exported, and import refined product upon higher costs.

“Our sheer lack of strategy, systems, methods and crass indiscipline is the reason we have to face this harsh self-inflicted economic and persisting/enduring downturn,” he declared.

For Ayo Ademiluyi, a lawyer, the purported fuel subsidy removal has had calamitous effect on the operations of the judiciary.

With irregular power supply in Nigeria, he said, most courtrooms are powered by generators, which must be fueled daily. With increase in fuel price, this has meant reduction of hours of court sittings for most courts.

“With the neglect of critical infrastructure for the judiciary, most courtrooms are small and stuffy. With higher power cuts, they have turned to baking ovens!

“What is needed to be done is to reverse the fuel price hike and deal decisively with the Shylock fuel marketers whose greed is being satisfied by this astronomical price increment,” he suggested.

Culled from The Guardian