# content
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, has defended the integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary, arguing that corruption stems less from judges themselves and more from the pressures of politicians and litigants, particularly during politically charged periods like the 2003 general elections.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE News on Wednesday, Maduabuchi said public narratives unfairly demonise judges while ignoring the role of those who approach them with inducements.

“Let me just say that the judiciary does not corrupt itself. It is us people who go to corrupt the judiciary,” he said.

According to him, litigants often acting through lawyers  are central to the problem.

“Yes, it is these litigants that corrupt the judges. Maybe they use some lawyers. You know, there are two types of lawyers: lawyers that know the law and lawyers that know the judge.”

Maduabuchi explained that while lawyers who know the law confine themselves to courtroom advocacy, others build their practice around personal access to judges.

“If you are a lawyer that knows the law, you limit yourself to your business in the courtroom. But if you are one of those that know the judge, when you are charging fees, you also include the one you pass on to the judge.”

While acknowledging that corruption exists within the judiciary, the senior lawyer said its extent is often exaggerated.

“I think there is some large measure of exaggeration. But if it is whether there is corruption in the judiciary, if I say no, then I’m telling myself lies. And at my age, that would be unfortunate. There is corruption.”

He traced the escalation of judicial corruption to Nigeria’s political history, particularly election-related desperation.

“The corruption started from politicians who were desperate. In fact, in 2003, when the PDP wanted to retain power by all means, and President Obasanjo was visibly very unpopular, that was when this corruption assumed unpleasant proportions.”

Maduabuchi said the development negatively affected lawyers who relied on diligence and preparation.

“Those of us who spend our time reading our books and preparing our cases found that we were losing out to those who knew how to enter a judge, pass something to him and all that.”

Despite this, he stressed that many judges remain upright.

“There are judges who show a lot of integrity. There are judges who, no matter what you try to do, they will laugh and tell you, ‘please, when I finish, if you like, you can come and show me gratitude.’”

However, he warned that even such statements were inappropriate.

“Yes, it should be avoided.”

Reacting to recent comments by Justice Emeka Nwite alleging attempts to influence him, Maduabuchi criticised the handling of the situation, saying it raised troubling ethical questions.

“It is a very unfortunate statement to make because it leaves a lot to the imagination. Why is the man complaining? How did they get into his house?”

He questioned how lawyers allegedly gained access to the judge without his consent.

“A judge has orderlies. He lives in a house that has a gate. How did they cross the gate? Before the gateman allows them in, he must inform the judge.”

Maduabuchi stressed that judicial ethics forbid private meetings with counsel on active cases.

“Under our ethics, a judge is not supposed to see a lawyer who is handling a matter before him alone, without the lawyer on the other side.”

He added: “If there are lawyers who entered his house and tried to influence him, the first blame goes to him, because he was the one who allowed them.”

According to him, such circumstances should compel a judge to step aside.

“Justice Nwite should recuse himself. If you say they tried to influence you on bail and you still granted bail, people will ask questions.”

He argued that public confidence would be undermined by continued involvement.

“Every time there will be speculation. Who did he meet? Is it this person? Is it that person?”

On institutional accountability, Maduabuchi said the National Judicial Council (NJC) has a duty to investigate but cannot act without clear particulars.

“No judge, no lawyer, no person was named as having come to try to influence the judge. The NJC can investigate — that is their job — but I don’t like the aspect where the judge says people came to see me and I received them.”

He said judges must insist on transparency.

“If they came to see you, you could say, ‘bring the other lawyer.’ If you spoke to them alone, then you behaved improperly.”

Addressing judicial reform, Maduabuchi identified the appointment process as the biggest problem.

“So far as governors decide who becomes judges, that is the main issue. When you hear corruption, it is usually in political matters.”

He acknowledged improvements in screening procedures.

“They now publish names of prospective judges, and people can raise objections. Recently, about 34 people were pruned away.”

He also called for stronger intelligence oversight in sensitive cases.

“When a judge is handling a sensitive political case, his phone should be bugged. Yes, they should listen to his phone.”

According to him, this could help uncover wrongdoing early.

“If it is innocuous, you stop the bugging. But when you hear arrangements being made to influence a case, you catch the judge. Get a smoking gun.”

On claims that corruption extends to the Supreme Court, Maduabuchi said the apex court is often misunderstood.

“The Supreme Court is a court of policy and a court of justice. Sometimes, decisions are taken to stabilise the polity.”

He recalled the controversial 1979 judgment.

“They said, ‘please don’t cite this as authority anywhere.’ They wanted to move the country away from military rule and stabilise things.”

While conceding that corruption exists, he maintained it is not as pervasive as portrayed.

“There is corruption, I concede, but it is not as widespread as we would say.”

Maduabuchi also linked judicial integrity to welfare.

“It is impossible to ignore judges’ welfare and expect them to be above board. There was a time judges earned very little.”

He noted recent improvements, saying “Now their salaries have gone up, their houses are better, their welfare is better. But still, whoever wants to be corrupt will be corrupt, no matter what you do for the person.”

He concluded by emphasising that not all judges are the same, echoing recent judicial remarks. “All judges are not the same.”

# contentMap.en
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, has defended the integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary, arguing that corruption stems less from judges themselves and more from the pressures of politicians and litigants, particularly during politically charged periods like the 2003 general elections.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE News on Wednesday, Maduabuchi said public narratives unfairly demonise judges while ignoring the role of those who approach them with inducements.

“Let me just say that the judiciary does not corrupt itself. It is us people who go to corrupt the judiciary,” he said.

According to him, litigants often acting through lawyers  are central to the problem.

“Yes, it is these litigants that corrupt the judges. Maybe they use some lawyers. You know, there are two types of lawyers: lawyers that know the law and lawyers that know the judge.”

Maduabuchi explained that while lawyers who know the law confine themselves to courtroom advocacy, others build their practice around personal access to judges.

“If you are a lawyer that knows the law, you limit yourself to your business in the courtroom. But if you are one of those that know the judge, when you are charging fees, you also include the one you pass on to the judge.”

While acknowledging that corruption exists within the judiciary, the senior lawyer said its extent is often exaggerated.

“I think there is some large measure of exaggeration. But if it is whether there is corruption in the judiciary, if I say no, then I’m telling myself lies. And at my age, that would be unfortunate. There is corruption.”

He traced the escalation of judicial corruption to Nigeria’s political history, particularly election-related desperation.

“The corruption started from politicians who were desperate. In fact, in 2003, when the PDP wanted to retain power by all means, and President Obasanjo was visibly very unpopular, that was when this corruption assumed unpleasant proportions.”

Maduabuchi said the development negatively affected lawyers who relied on diligence and preparation.

“Those of us who spend our time reading our books and preparing our cases found that we were losing out to those who knew how to enter a judge, pass something to him and all that.”

Despite this, he stressed that many judges remain upright.

“There are judges who show a lot of integrity. There are judges who, no matter what you try to do, they will laugh and tell you, ‘please, when I finish, if you like, you can come and show me gratitude.’”

However, he warned that even such statements were inappropriate.

“Yes, it should be avoided.”

Reacting to recent comments by Justice Emeka Nwite alleging attempts to influence him, Maduabuchi criticised the handling of the situation, saying it raised troubling ethical questions.

“It is a very unfortunate statement to make because it leaves a lot to the imagination. Why is the man complaining? How did they get into his house?”

He questioned how lawyers allegedly gained access to the judge without his consent.

“A judge has orderlies. He lives in a house that has a gate. How did they cross the gate? Before the gateman allows them in, he must inform the judge.”

Maduabuchi stressed that judicial ethics forbid private meetings with counsel on active cases.

“Under our ethics, a judge is not supposed to see a lawyer who is handling a matter before him alone, without the lawyer on the other side.”

He added: “If there are lawyers who entered his house and tried to influence him, the first blame goes to him, because he was the one who allowed them.”

According to him, such circumstances should compel a judge to step aside.

“Justice Nwite should recuse himself. If you say they tried to influence you on bail and you still granted bail, people will ask questions.”

He argued that public confidence would be undermined by continued involvement.

“Every time there will be speculation. Who did he meet? Is it this person? Is it that person?”

On institutional accountability, Maduabuchi said the National Judicial Council (NJC) has a duty to investigate but cannot act without clear particulars.

“No judge, no lawyer, no person was named as having come to try to influence the judge. The NJC can investigate — that is their job — but I don’t like the aspect where the judge says people came to see me and I received them.”

He said judges must insist on transparency.

“If they came to see you, you could say, ‘bring the other lawyer.’ If you spoke to them alone, then you behaved improperly.”

Addressing judicial reform, Maduabuchi identified the appointment process as the biggest problem.

“So far as governors decide who becomes judges, that is the main issue. When you hear corruption, it is usually in political matters.”

He acknowledged improvements in screening procedures.

“They now publish names of prospective judges, and people can raise objections. Recently, about 34 people were pruned away.”

He also called for stronger intelligence oversight in sensitive cases.

“When a judge is handling a sensitive political case, his phone should be bugged. Yes, they should listen to his phone.”

According to him, this could help uncover wrongdoing early.

“If it is innocuous, you stop the bugging. But when you hear arrangements being made to influence a case, you catch the judge. Get a smoking gun.”

On claims that corruption extends to the Supreme Court, Maduabuchi said the apex court is often misunderstood.

“The Supreme Court is a court of policy and a court of justice. Sometimes, decisions are taken to stabilise the polity.”

He recalled the controversial 1979 judgment.

“They said, ‘please don’t cite this as authority anywhere.’ They wanted to move the country away from military rule and stabilise things.”

While conceding that corruption exists, he maintained it is not as pervasive as portrayed.

“There is corruption, I concede, but it is not as widespread as we would say.”

Maduabuchi also linked judicial integrity to welfare.

“It is impossible to ignore judges’ welfare and expect them to be above board. There was a time judges earned very little.”

He noted recent improvements, saying “Now their salaries have gone up, their houses are better, their welfare is better. But still, whoever wants to be corrupt will be corrupt, no matter what you do for the person.”

He concluded by emphasising that not all judges are the same, echoing recent judicial remarks. “All judges are not the same.”

# name
“There Are Lawyers Who Know the Judge, Not the Law” —Oba Maduabuchi, SAN Questions Justice Nwite’s Conduct in Malami’s N8.7Billion Trial

# nameMap.en
“There Are Lawyers Who Know the Judge, Not the Law” —Oba Maduabuchi, SAN Questions Justice Nwite’s Conduct in Malami’s N8.7Billion Trial

# preview.content
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, has defended the integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary, arguing that corruption stems less from judges themselves and more from the pressures of politicians and litigants, particularly during politically charged periods like the 2003 general elections.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE News on Wednesday, Maduabuchi said public narratives unfairly demonise judges while ignoring the role of those who approach them with inducements.

“Let me just say […]

# summary
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, has defended the integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary, arguing that corruption stems less from judges themselves and more from the pressures of politicians and litigants, particularly during politically charged periods like the 2003 general elections.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE News on Wednesday, Maduabuchi said public narratives unfairly demonise judges while ignoring the role of those who approach them with inducements.

“Let me just say […]

# summaryMap.en
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, has defended the integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary, arguing that corruption stems less from judges themselves and more from the pressures of politicians and litigants, particularly during politically charged periods like the 2003 general elections.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE News on Wednesday, Maduabuchi said public narratives unfairly demonise judges while ignoring the role of those who approach them with inducements.

“Let me just say […]