Judiciary Reform Begins With Admitting Corruption, Sam Amadi Tells Kekere-Ekun

Judiciary Reform Begins With Admitting Corruption, Sam Amadi Tells Kekere-Ekun

The Director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Sam Amadi, has stated that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, can only achieve her pledge of zero tolerance for corruption by first admitting that the judiciary is corrupt. According to Amadi, the Nigerian courts are riddled with corruption, and addressing this is crucial to restoring an effective judicial system…..CONTINUE READING 

In an interview with *Arise TV* on Wednesday, Amadi expressed his belief that Kekere-Ekun, with her extensive experience in the judiciary, is well-positioned to tackle the issue. “She can do it if she’s truly committed,” Amadi said. “But first, she needs to acknowledge that this institution is corrupt. Not everyone in the judiciary is corrupt, but many are. If she admits that, she can begin to clean the system.”

Amadi emphasized the importance of legacy, noting that Kekere-Ekun must decide whether her tenure will be marked by collusion with those in power or by reforming the institution. “It takes an insider like her, who has risen through the ranks, to clean up the judiciary. She’s not an outsider, and that gives her the power to make real change,” he added.

The former Chairman of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission rejected the idea that corruption in the judiciary stems from poor welfare for judicial officers. He argued that better-paid judges still engage in corrupt practices, and Kekere-Ekun must prioritize reducing political interference in court processes. “Judges are not the worst-paid professionals, so poor welfare isn’t an excuse for corruption. She needs to reclaim the judiciary from the influence of politicians and stop the close interaction between them,” Amadi explained.

Amadi also disagreed with Chief Justice Kekere-Ekun’s stance on penalizing lawyers who comment on court cases via social media. He argued that such comments do not constitute contempt and that lawyers should have the freedom to express their views. “There’s a misconception that discussing cases in court is contemptuous. It’s the right of legal scholars and practitioners to engage in public discourse. As long as the discussion doesn’t constrain judges, it’s not contempt,” he said.

He concluded by criticizing the tendency of public officials to clamp down on free speech, emphasizing that open discussion about cases is part of fair speech and should not be restricted.