'Travails of Truth: Achieving Justice for Victims of Impunity in Nigeria”'

Following its transition to democracy from an authoritarian military rule marked by gross violations of human rights, Nigeria established the Human Rights Violations Investigations Commission (HRVIC) in 1999. This paper critically examines the contributions of the HRVIC, popularly known as the ‘Oputa Panel,’ to the field of transitional justice and the rule of law. It sets out the process of establishing the Commission, its mandate and how this mandate was interpreted during the course of the Commission’s work. The challenges faced by the Oputa Panel, particularly those that relate to its legal status and relationship with the judiciary, are analyzed in an attempt to draw useful guidelines from these challenges for other truth commissions. Recourse by powerful individuals to the judicial process in a bid to shield themselves from the HRVIC merits particular review as it raises questions regarding the transformation of the judiciary and the rule of law in the wake of an authoritarian regime.

Propensity to Apply for Judicial Office under the new Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments System::A qualitative study for the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission October

The study of representation and participation in the judiciary is hardly novel. There have been substantial studies in a number of countries – often these have preceded the setting up of judicial appointment commissions – which have looked at the continuing problem of female representation in judicial posts. Prior to the setting up of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission a study carried out by Dermot Feenan for the Commissioner for Judicial Appointments for Northern Ireland also looked into this topic and produced a large number of recommendations. What differs from the Feenan project, in this project, has been the number of individuals consulted in interviews and focus groups. This has allowed us to provide a detailed qualitative attitudinal perspective to enhance the questionnaire study undertaken as Stage 1 in this research project. Further, we have carried out this study after many of the recommendations made in previous research have been implemented.
2
Our interviews and focus groups covered a broad range of individuals – solicitors outwith and within Belfast (private and public service), barristers in private practice and public service and also barristers no longer in practice. We also sought responses from student lawyers. In total there were 71 respondents, with a typical interview/focus group length of 60 minutes. The group included candidates who had little interest in applying for judicial office, those who might consider this in future, and candidates who had applied for one or more judicial posts and who may or may not consider reapplication. We did not seek the views of successful candidates for judicial posts under the new NIJAC process.
The timing of this project, with interviews and focus groups held between December 2007 and March 2008, offers an early perspective on the whether the creation of a NI Judicial Appointments Commission has affected, and if so, in what way, the decision to apply for a judicial post. Generally, we found that there was a significant impact upon attitudes to judicial application which had arisen from the creation of NIJAC and that this was more positive than negative.

Rewarding Merit in Judicial Appointments?: A research project undertaken by the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast for the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission

This research involved carrying out an online survey using a number of vignettes/scenarios to explore understandings and attitudes to judicial appointments. This sort of survey is relatively novel in this context and provided a useful way of understanding how a range of factors such as merit and seniority, career paths and connections, as well as gender and visibility, are perceived as operating within the appointments system. The research also involved a series of focus group interviews with a number of individuals with various professional backgrounds and at different levels of seniority. These, and a limited number of individual interviews, afforded an opportunity to explore more closely some of the themes arising from the scenarios as well as a chance to look in some depth at some of the views and concerns of a range of members of the legal professions.

Building upon the previous research project, this work was less concerned with revisiting earlier themes and more interested in exploring how the idea of “merit” as a governing factor in judicial appointment is seen as working in practice, and whether it is perceived as being most likely to be found within particular career profiles. We also investigated issues such as the possible development of formal and informal pathways to a judicial career and practical problems such as how an applicant might become known to the senior judiciary, and the importance of this. Overall our interest was primarily in developing an understanding of how gender is perceived to operate in the appointments process and how any barriers to recruiting women, particularly to the senior judiciary, could be further broken down.