The Executive Director of Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic Rights (CASER), Dr. Frank Tietie, has expressed concerns about the Supreme Court being overwhelmed with frivolous cases and appeals. He advocates for restricting irrelevant cases from reaching the apex court, rather than simply increasing the number of Supreme Court justices.

“It is illogical that cases originating from Sharia courts in Zamfara State can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, traversing multiple levels of courts, and similarly, cases from Area Courts can be appealed to the High Court, then the Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court,” Tietie said.

He believes that certain cases, such as those related to fundamental rights enforcement, recovery of premises, rent disputes, and taxation, should be finalized at the High Court level. “Cases involving individual interests, such as land disputes or rent issues, should typically conclude at the Court of Appeal,” he added.

Tietie noted that cases involving policy matters with divergent state interests, such as currency redesign or abortion rights, are apt for the Supreme Court. “For example, if states disagree on issues like child marriage, with some permitting girls under 18 to marry and others prohibiting it, the Supreme Court can provide a definitive ruling,” he said.

The CASER ED also emphasized the need for lawyers to provide pro bono services to those who cannot afford legal representation. “Lawyers have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that individuals’ rights are protected and upheld, particularly for those who cannot afford their services,” he said.

Tietie’s comments come as the Senate proposes to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 21 to 30 to clear the case backlog and enhance efficiency. However, Tietie believes that reducing the volume of cases that reach the Supreme Court would be a more effective solution.