The Nigerian Senate is considering increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices from 21 to 30 to address the growing backlog of cases and improve the court's efficiency.
Senator Osita Izunaso (Imo West), who is sponsoring the bill, disclosed this during a press briefing in Abuja on Friday, to mark his two years in the 10th National Assembly.
Senator Osita Izunaso, who sponsored the bill, highlighted that despite the recent appointment of 11 justices in 2023, the Supreme Court remains overwhelmed with cases.
The Supreme Court receives a high volume of cases daily, resulting in hearing dates being scheduled as far ahead as 2027 and 2028.
Increasing the number of justices to 30 would enable the court to form more panels, allowing for faster case adjudication. With 30 justices, the court could have at least five panels simultaneously, handling more cases at a faster pace.
Izunaso also advocates for limiting the types of cases the Supreme Court entertains, suggesting that minor disputes like land and tenancy cases should be resolved in lower courts.
He believes the apex court should focus on cases of national or constitutional importance, such as terrorism, homicide, and grand corruption.
Izunaso emphasizes that a single national Supreme Court preserves judicial unity and that better filtration of cases at lower levels is necessary rather than creating more Supreme Courts.
According to him, the proposed legislation would enable the apex court to form more panels to expedite the adjudication process.
“Supreme Court justices typically sit in panels of five, or seven for constitutional matters. If we have 30 justices, it allows the formation of at least five panels simultaneously. That way, more cases can be handled at a faster pace,” he said.
Izunaso’s proposal however goes beyond just increasing the number of judges.
The senator is also advocating a major reform in the type of cases the Supreme Court entertains, calling for an end to what he described as the “judicial congestion caused by trivial matters.”
He questioned the rationale behind allowing cases such as land disputes, tenancy disagreements, and divorce battles to reach the highest court in the land.
“Why should a land matter in my village end up in the Supreme Court?” he asked.
“Many of these issues should start from the Customary Court and end at the High Court.”
The people at those levels understand the context better. The apex court should be reserved for cases of national or constitutional importance, things like terrorism, homicide, and grand corruption.”
