AS THE anchor of the common man, arbiter of transgressions, and adjudicator of conflicts in society, Nigerians expect professional and ethical excellence from the Judiciary. But this expectation is becoming a mirage, since the Judiciary is at a crossroads of two opposed tendencies, each producing different judicial outcomes, eliciting different reactions from Nigerians.
In 1979, there was a crack between the UPN and the Judiciary over the determination of 2/3rd of 19 states. The judgment, which didn’t go well with the party, was regarded as a judicial ‘quackery’, which denied UPN victory in the presidential election. And thereafter, the Shagari government was tagged by the South West press a stolen presidency.
The nature of the economic system requires superhuman exertions from the human drivers of Judiciary to ensconce themselves in a judicial tower, removed from the pervasive materialism, and corruption in society. Judges who can’t resist the pressures become viciously corrupt, judicially cringing to the executive arm of government and rich defendants, unmindful of the impact of their behaviour on the society and Judiciary.
In the 4th Republic, there emerged a bigger crack between the judiciary and those interested in deepening democracy because there would be more quackeries which judicially upheld opaque elections.
The late Justice Niki Tobi, a Supreme Court Justice and a great jurist, dismissed public opinion as miles away from the law. He could be right! But unlike the late jurist, non-legal lords can dismiss public opinion at their own peril. This is because, like the law, public opinion is dynamic, reflecting the changing mood of society. But rather than public opinion swaying justice from its course, executive opinion has been shaping the outcomes of presidential election petitions in Nigeria.
ALSO READ: Aligning With Civil Society To Advance Democracy; By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
The golden days of Nigeria’s Judiciary include the era of great jurists: Sir Adetokumbo Ademola, the pioneer Chief Justice of Nigeria, and Dr Teslim Olawale Elias, the first Attorney General of the Federation, and the second Chief Justice of the Federation.
In those days, public opinion was sympathetic to the Judiciary, which wouldn’t function without inducing justice, facilitating cordial relations with society. The Judiciary was unblemished for some of its judges to be judicial exports. Justice Akinola Aguda was the first African Chief Justice of Botswana, and a triple judge of its Appeal Court, Swaziland and Lesotho; whilst Dr Teslim Olawale Elias was a judge of the ICJ, and later became its president.
Today, who would contemplate outsourcing a Nigerian judge to any other country, or an international court? Nigeria’s Supreme Court seems to be devoid of unity of purpose, transforming its justices into acrimonious petitioners against the Chief Justices?
ALSO READ: Providus, Sell Methodist Church Of Nigeria, Not School Lands; By Owei Lakemfa
There are two opposed trends in the Judiciary: the integrity and toxic tendencies, contextualised within the economic system, nature of the law, and the dynamics of its development. The first tendency impartially dispenses justice, shielding the powerless against transgressions in society, passionately projecting the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary; whilst the toxic tendency delivers justice to the highest bidder, soiling the name of Judiciary and its justices. The recent outpouring of grief by Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun on the conduct of some judges, highlights the toxic effects of the toxic tendency on Nigeria’s Judiciary.
Like politics and culture, law is a super-structural outgrowth of the economic base of society. Since the base is capitalist, the law ferociously protects existing property relations, even if that undermines justice in society.
Another legal monstrosity are technicalities, which undermine the nation’s democratic project. In each election cycle, judicial authorities caution election petition tribunals to dwell less on legal technicalities, and more on the substance of law in treating election petitions. But rather than heeding the directives, the tribunals largely use them to dismiss presidential election petitions. Democracy can only be deepened, and freed from the impact of anti-democratic forces by dwelling more on the substance of law rather than its technicalities.
The nature of the economic system requires superhuman exertions from the human drivers of Judiciary to ensconce themselves in a judicial tower, removed from the pervasive materialism, and corruption in society. Judges who can’t resist the pressures become viciously corrupt, judicially cringing to the executive arm of government and rich defendants, unmindful of the impact of their behaviour on the society and Judiciary.
ALSO READ: Nigeria, The EPL And The Contradictions; By Hassan Gimba
In the course of its development, the law creates legal monstrosities such as plea bargains and technicalities, used in swaying justice to the highest bidder, distancing the Judiciary further away from the people.
If plea bargains attract lesser sentence terms for defendants, allowing them to retain some proceeds of their crimes, they undermine the fight against corruption. Society would be better off without the faster justice delivery induced by plea bargains, providing opportunities for toxic judges to feather their nests, and soft-landing to defendants, thereby entrenching corruption in the society. Justice shouldn’t be encumbered by the time taken to conclude a case.
Another legal monstrosity are technicalities, which undermine the nation’s democratic project. In each election cycle, judicial authorities caution election petition tribunals to dwell less on legal technicalities, and more on the substance of law in treating election petitions. But rather than heeding the directives, the tribunals largely use them to dismiss presidential election petitions. Democracy can only be deepened, and freed from the impact of anti-democratic forces by dwelling more on the substance of law rather than its technicalities.
ALSO READ: Bad Governance And The Fear Of Regime Change; By Jibrin Ibrahim
A president interested in an election petition runs from pillar to post, shopping for corrupt judges to head election tribunals. Since Justice Ayo Salami couldn’t be used to unjustly deflate the CPC presidential election petition in 2011, he had to be forced out of the tribunal. The National Judicial Council sanctioned him, a pretext to disband the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, reconstituted with less independent-minded members, who would do the bidding of the executive.
Unless the nation produces judicial statesmen and jurists to rescue the Judiciary from its toxic members, there is a tendency that the integrity arm of the Judiciary would be neutralised, transforming the Judiciary into a unified toxic tendency.
A Judiciary which exported judicial expertise beyond the nation in its glorious days shouldn’t in its infamous days, hesitate to regain its lost glory by following the footsteps of judicial statesmen elsewhere.
John Marshall, the 4th United States Chief Justice (1801 to 1835), was an anticipatory jurist, and a judicial statesman, who believed that expansion of federal powers was necessary to fully realise the economic potentials of the United States. He used every available judicial opportunity to expand the powers of the American federal government.
Nigerians pray for their Marshall, who would anticipate the effects of a strengthened democracy on political stability, economic growth, accountability of public officers, and welfare of the people, through judicial reinforcement of democracy, which would make votes of Nigerians to truly count, freeing the nation from the conscience-less deployment of ill-gotten funds to steal presidencies.
Jahun, a public affairs commentator writes from Dutse, the Jigawa State Capital.
