The level of stability, development and advancement of
any society, can often times be ascertained with some measure of precision from
the level of independence, transparency and predictability, based on the rule
of law, of its judiciary. The less independent, more opaque and unpredictable
the judiciary is, the more likely a society is retrogressive, lawless and
subject to the whims and caprices of whomsoever has temporary custody of the
instrument of force or purse strings of the particular enclave - in other
words, the more likely a society can be termed a 'banana republic'.
Under the Nigeria
Constitution, the Judiciary is eloquently and lavishly described and portrayed
as an independent third arm of government - this pretence is very far from the
reality. The judiciary in Nigeria in practice acts like and could rightly be termed
an appendage of the Executive branch of government. The cup-in-hand approach of
the judicial branch to the Executive arm for virtually all needs of the
judiciary sector, ranging from salaries for Judges and other personnel, to
requests for operational vehicles and office stationery and other overhead and
infrastructural expenses, makes the concept of an independent judiciary in
Nigeria clearly a figment of the imagination. This hallucination, it must be
pointed out is more prevalent at the State level of Nigeria's purportedly
federal system, where State Governors get away with blue murder in their
treatment and control of the judicial arm.
The near
impossibility of aggrieved litigants to secure judgments holding State
Governments accountable for civil transgressions in State High Courts and
ability of officials of State governments to use the instrumentality of courts
controlled by such States to ensure the prolonged detention of their
adversaries or those who happen to ‘cross their path’ is clearly indicative
of the allegiance of the judiciary (at the State level) to the Executive branch
of government as opposed to the Constitution, law or justice. At the federal
level, the pendulum of justice swings more with the personal idiosyncrasies of
a presiding judicial officer and at times the preference of those who control
the seat of power as opposed to any known concepts in our domestic statutes or
justice generally.
The uncanny practice
of shopping-for-'justice', whereby litigants strive to institute matters or accused
persons insist on being tried before judicial officers who will grant them a
particular desired judgment evolved. Some litigants took the practice to
extreme lengths by crossing State and regional boundaries in desperate efforts
to procure favorable judgment. In a particularly gross instance, a judicial
division of the Federal Courts was surreptitiously created in the home State of
an ex-Governor who was standing trial for monumental fraud for the purpose of
ensuring acquittal. The ex-Governor (James Onanefe Ibori of Delta State) was
acquitted, but as providence would have it, this ex-con had cause to travel
outside Nigeria where he was finally arrested and is presently serving term in
a British jailhouse for some of the same crimes for which ‘his’ Nigerian court
had acquitted him.
The situation in the
Nigerian judiciary is clearly inseparable from the general decay in the
Nigerian society. Though the entire situation is murky and near hopeless, three
instances of judicial pronouncements in the course of our experimentation with
civil rule could very rightly be described as when we attained our lowest
points - these are:
1. The Justice Ayo Salami Scandal: The felony (interference in the judicial process) allegations leveled against
the then Chief Justice of the Federation (Justice Aloysius Kastina-Alu), by the
President of the Federal Court of Appeal (Justice Ayo Salami). In belatedly
making the allegations against the Chief Justice, Justice Salami, who had been
suspended from office based on allegations that he had been involved in
unethical communication with litigants before his Court, had unwittingly
admitted to the commission of yet another crime, concealment of a felony.
The putrid stench
emanating from the ugly public altercation between the two highest judicial
authorities in Nigeria was further prolonged by desperate efforts by Justice Salami to
cling unto his office via court processes.
-the shameless public acrimony displayed by the President of the Court of Appeals caused and continues to cause lasting injury to the perception of the judiciary as being above board.
-the shameless public acrimony displayed by the President of the Court of Appeals caused and continues to cause lasting injury to the perception of the judiciary as being above board.
2. The Trial of Mr. Bola Ahmed Tinubu for Operating Foreign Accounts: The badgering of a duly constituted court of law (the Code of Conduct Tribunal under the Chairmanship of Justice Danladi Umar), by an armada of legal
practitioners, into acquiescing to not having an accused person stand in the
dock when appearing before the Court – and eventual discharge of the said
accused person on technicalities without venturing into the merits of the
charges. In all sane judicial environments, there are properly designated
places in a court room where persons whose matters are being heard by a court
will be located during the duration of a particular court session.
The inability of the
judges who constitute the Code of Conduct Tribunal which was then trying the
corruption cases and illicit maintenance of foreign accounts by a public officer (then Governor Bola Tinubu) to overcome the mob action of the horde of
lawyers who besieged the Tribunal irrevocably tainted the efficacy of not just
the Tribunal but the entirety of the anti-corruption efforts it represented.
- the war against corruption had buckled under intimidation and attacks against the Court by lawyers for the accused amongst whom had been sitting State Governors.
- the war against corruption had buckled under intimidation and attacks against the Court by lawyers for the accused amongst whom had been sitting State Governors.
3. Enthronement of a non-contestant as Governor by the Supreme Court: The third and perhaps most insidious judicial pronouncement of our current era
is the 2007 decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court which enthroned as Governor
of a State, a man whose name was neither on the ballot nor contested nor
campaigned for the gubernatorial elections. This benefactor of the Supreme
Courts benevolence never also nominated any person as a ‘running mate’, prior
to the gubernatorial elections as expressly required by the Nigerian
constitution.
In arriving at their
odd decision enthroning Mr. Chibuike Amaechi as Governor of Rivers State, the
Supreme Court Justices appeared to have been ventilating anger with former Head
of State Obasanjo regarding an earlier disregard of the Courts pronouncement on
a totally unrelated matter involving a totally different State. The vain efforts by the Supreme Court Justices to, in their judgement in the instant case, clothe their 'get-back-at-him' efforts in legalese, was not only a most pitiable failure but also left the people of Rivers State and believers in the rule of law in Nigeria greatly short-changed. .
- total rubbishing of express constitutional provisions by the highest court in the land on account of personal feelings of the Justices had brought the issue of relevance and efficacy of the constitution to question
- total rubbishing of express constitutional provisions by the highest court in the land on account of personal feelings of the Justices had brought the issue of relevance and efficacy of the constitution to question
Our three lowest points
as identified above in no way represents the worst to which our judicial system seems set to degrade to - there are already indications, as
evidenced by conflicting pronouncements on same subject matter by courts of
concurrent jurisdictions in the ongoing Anambra State gubernatorial contest,
that as we progress towards the general elections scheduled for May 2015, there will
be judicial pronouncements that will make the examples cited above appear
divine Socratic judgments.
Considering how
entrenched corruption has permeated through our system, it is obviously wishful thinking
to delude oneself in the hope that, per chance, the judiciary would be immune
from its vile allure. Corruption, like every other cancer, could have been
removed by precise surgical procedures at its inception. We have alas, allowed
ours to metastasize and with its entry into and overwhelming of our judicial sector,
we are now without doubt at a terminal stage of our societal cancer.
Unlike an individual
cancer patient, however, restructuring and renegotiation of the contraption,
will give us a fresh lease and opportunity at life.
Let us restructure and renegotiate the contraption whilst there is still some life in it.
Let us restructure and renegotiate the contraption whilst there is still some life in it.
http://www.pointblanknews.com/News/os5520.html
Picture: Mr. Bola
Tinubu contemptuously sits in the dock during his trial before the Code of
Conduct Tribunal session prior to the assault on the Tribunal.
No comments:
Post a Comment