Share!
A new report has revealed that bribery prevalence among prosecutors in Nigeria rose to 67 per cent, while that of judges and magistrates reached 52 per cent between 2019 and 2023, raising fresh concerns about corruption in the country’s judicial system.
The findings are contained in a report titled Judicial Corruption in Nigeria: Causes and Consequences, released on Tuesday by the Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF).
The report, which drew on data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), identified prosecutors as having the highest bribery prevalence among public officials surveyed.
It also referenced a 2020 survey by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), which found that 11 of the 124 judges interviewed reported receiving bribes totalling N3.7bn over a two-year period.
According to the report, judicial corruption, political interference, external pressure and manipulation of court procedures have continued to weaken the administration of justice and undermine accountability in Nigeria.
It warned that these practices have made it increasingly difficult to prosecute politically exposed persons, recover unexplained wealth and ensure equal access to justice, creating a system in which wealthy litigants can secure favourable treatment at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Speaking at the virtual launch of the report, governance and anti-corruption researcher, Matthew Page, called on investigative journalists to intensify scrutiny of the wealth and assets of judges, particularly senior judicial officers.
Page argued that investigating unexplained wealth could provide an effective means of identifying possible corruption, especially where the properties, foreign assets and lifestyles of public officials appear inconsistent with their legitimate earnings.
He urged journalists to examine judges’ career histories, declared income, property ownership and financial records to establish whether their wealth could be legitimately explained.
The report also identified procedural irregularities, prolonged trials and preferential treatment in high-profile corruption cases as factors weakening the country’s anti-corruption efforts.
It cited the cases of former governors Orji Uzor Kalu, Chimaroke Nnamani and Willie Obiano, as well as former pension reform boss Abdulrasheed Maina, as examples of judicial dysfunction and suspected corrupt interference in accountability proceedings.
On 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 allowing the trial judge to conclude proceedings.
It noted that six years after the conviction was nullified, the former Abia State governor had yet to be retried.
Page also identified weak enforcement of existing legislation as a major contributor to delays in the judicial system, particularly in cases involving survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.
He specifically referenced 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.
He maintained that the judiciary should prioritise implementing existing legal safeguards before introducing additional reforms.
On the role of anti-corruption agencies, Page acknowledged that institutions such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) could sometimes be ineffective or compromised, despite demonstrating the capacity to pursue politically exposed persons in certain cases.
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 inaction as an abuse of discretion, adding that failures by anti-corruption institutions could arise from misconduct by their leadership or unwillingness to pursue politically sensitive investigations.
The report also examined proposals for digital and random case assignments as a means of reducing human interference in judicial proceedings.
Page expressed support for the proposal, noting that it could limit opportunities for litigants to influence which judges handle their cases. However, he cautioned that heavy court workloads and manipulation of filing dates could undermine its effectiveness.
He further called for legislation prohibiting government officials from providing judges with mansions, sports utility vehicles and other benefits under the guise of judicial welfare.
Meanwhile, PPLAAF Executive Director, Jimmy Kande, said corruption, bribery and undue external pressure had continued to undermine the Nigerian judiciary, with far-reaching consequences for democracy and the rule of law.
He warned that judicial corruption could prevent influential public officials accused of financial crimes from being held accountable, allowing assets acquired through unexplained wealth to remain beyond the reach of authorities.
Similarly, Programme Manager of the African Centre for Media and Information Literacy, Godwin Onyeacholem, described corruption within the judiciary as a major threat to human rights and democratic development.
The report recommended comprehensive judicial reforms, including genuine financial independence for the judiciary, stronger accountability mechanisms and greater transparency in judicial appointments, budgets, expenditures and procurement processes.
It also called for the publication and independent verification of asset declarations by judges and other judicial personnel, sanctions for procedural abuses and independent vetting of serving judges and prosecutors under international oversight.
PPLAAF, established in 2017, is a non-governmental organisation that protects whistleblowers, advocates for their rights and engages in strategic litigation in cases involving disclosures affecting the public interest.
