Sam Amadi, Director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, has stated that Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun’s promise of zero tolerance for corruption can only be fulfilled if she acknowledges the existence of corruption within the judiciary.
Amadi emphasized that Nigerian courts are deeply troubled by corruption and require thorough reform to ensure an effective judicial system.
Speaking during an interview with Arise TV on Wednesday, Amadi expressed confidence that Justice Kekere-Ekun, with her extensive experience in the judiciary, is well-positioned to address the issue.
“She can, if she is truly committed. But first, she must admit that this court is corrupt. The judiciary is a flawed institution, and only by recognizing this can it be saved. While not all judges and lawyers are corrupt, there is a collective responsibility,” Amadi remarked.
Amadi also challenged Justice Kekere-Ekun to define her legacy clearly. He posed the question of whether her legacy would be one of collaboration with those in power to suppress the truth, or one of cleansing the judiciary from corruption. As someone who has risen through the ranks, Amadi suggested that only an insider like Kekere-Ekun has the authority and perspective to drive genuine reform within the judiciary.
The former Chairman of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission dismissed the notion that judicial corruption stems from poor welfare, arguing that judges are adequately compensated. Instead, Amadi pointed to the undue influence of politicians in judicial matters, urging Justice Kekere-Ekun to reclaim judicial independence from political interference.
“Judges are not the worst paid professionals, so corruption cannot be excused by financial reasons. To curb interference, she must start by distancing the judiciary from the executive, particularly by limiting unnecessary interactions between politicians and judges,” Amadi added.
Amadi also expressed disagreement with the Chief Justice’s stance on lawyers commenting on ongoing court cases via social media, asserting that such comments do not amount to contempt. He argued that restricting lawyers’ speech in this context undermines freedom of expression.
“There’s this misconception that discussing ongoing cases is contemptuous. Judges are trained to remain impartial, regardless of external discussions. It’s troubling when the first instinct of a public official is to silence speech rather than address deeper issues within the judiciary,” Amadi concluded.
