But in recent times, we have seen enough ugly developments to make us worry. There are clear signs to suggest there is fire on the mountain. Indeed, there is. We can begin from the safest area to look at the challenges. For over 200 million citizens, we have one Supreme Court. What is the throwback? Those who walk the temple of justice say there are cases sent to the court five years ago that have never received a first mention. Our Supreme Court also doubles as the Constitutional Court as well as the Election Petitions Court.
A few days ago, a retiring Justice of that most respected court, Justice Musa Mohammed Dattijo, nearly pulled the roof down on all of us when he revealed the salary of Justices of the court. He said Justices of the Supreme Court earn far below N1 million. We do this to them and still expect them to be impartial and corruption-free. The registrar earns higher than the Chief Justice of the Federation. Now, we want discipline, yet the Chief Justice is at the head of all other organs of justice supervision and dispensation. Who calls who to order? How can the check be provided if the judiciary is made to see from one eye? No gifted judge can survive this choking atmosphere.
Why do political leaders have a hand in the appointment of judges and Justices? Someone said we ought to take for granted the high-level patriotism of high officeholders. Those who hold to this forget the theory of the peculiarity of the environment. What works in Europe may not make sense here. Our unique behaviour should determine the kind of structures we put in place. With reference to the judiciary, partisan interest should have nothing to do with the appointments of judges of all categories. What is more, we ought to have well laid out criteria for going up and staying with them. This isn›t the case currently.
Why have some of these changes and more not mentioned necessary? The quality of jurisprudential delivery has gone abysmally very low. One need not be trained in law to appreciate great legal output. Come to think of it, almost everyone in the country rose in salute when justices like Chukwudi Oputa, Elias, Karibi-Whyte etc, delivered their judgments. We saw erudition of the first order. We saw logic and grounded philosophy flow with the rudiments of finer points of law. Those judges took their time to look through the gamut of each case, to see the different angles, and to tinker with all possible thinking and viewpoints before reaching a verdict that harboured appreciable levels of social justice.
We didn›t say justice. Social justice. Most litigants went home from courts contented that the course of justice had been served and done so manifestly. These days, things are different. Our justices know things have gone down. Keen watchers do know they are not happy, but they are hamstrung to effect the kind of changes they would want to see. Some of the judgments that have come through the courts, including the apex court, have left many of them perplexed. There is no doubt whatsoever about this.
Governor Hope Uzodinma of Imo State will be going for a second tenure election sometime in November, but the matter arising from his nomination in the first is still with the Supreme Court; the court just said Wednesday it will give its verdict sometime in December. Some of us who mould opinions and try to set agendas couldn›t situate the last presidential election petitions through the Appeal Court to the Supreme Court and the reason was because the process from the initial stages weren›t transparent.
Kenya, South Africa and Ghana authorized live coverages of post-election proceedings so all interested citizens could follow and draw their own conclusions. The opposition parties wanted a similar thing to happen in our case. A progressive demand if you ask me, but what did we make of it? First, fear and concern about an uncertain future and then the matter was resolved on the side of fear and doubt.
The Appeal Court Justices said the application for live coverage lacked merit, as they said, «there was no regulatory framework or policy direction permitted to grant such application, adding that allowing cameras in the courtroom amounted to a major judicial policy that must be supported by law. We cannot permit a situation that may lead to dramatisation of our proceedings.» This is the position they held even when it would have been very clear that ushering in the cameras would extend the frontiers of progressive politicking in the country.
If they did, it won’t have amounted to positive adventure in the classical manner we know of the word, the rule or law they wanted is already with them. Appeal Court rule 21, 2021 is explicit on «Virtual Hearing». It stipulates that the court may conduct its proceedings virtually where it deems fit… A link should be provided for the public to observe proceedings.” This is with them yet…We have developed or perfected the style of running from our challenges, believing that time will solve it.
The same Appeal Court televised the conclusion of the petitions the same way as the Supreme Court, where they made jest of petitioners’ lawyers. Now, how does one know who did his job very well or not? Conclusions are not entirely synonymous with conclusions, especially in climes where a high degree of deviancy already exists, and ours, unfortunately, is one of the such. Justice John Okoro of the Supreme Court spoke of a broad interpretation of rules, a confirmation that our lord justices are conversant with rudiments of judicial activism but it seems things have turned to be a case of who bells the cat?
The teaching that law doesn›t take in public and popular opinions is neither here nor there. It is not the truth. That presupposition has become a refrain for those who desire to use law to do great harm to persons and the larger society. If the position was true, then the slave trade would still be a thriving business today. Apartheid in Southern Africa wouldn›t have been banished. Judiciary inebriates in a positive way the polity and the development pathways.
Kapil Sibal said: «The overreach of the judiciary can be attributed to the inability of the executive to deliver.» What could be truer? If the Independent National Electoral Commission had staked all in the electronic transmission of results, perhaps the credibility of the process would have saved the judiciary from unnecessary meddlesomeness on outcomes of electoral contests. If we had cultured citizens, perhaps the beauty of order and decency would be very clear in our lives and more importantly, our daily activities.
We must not let our judiciary die. Never. To keep it thriving is a task that must be done. Charles Evans Hughes gives one reason when he said, «we may be under the constitution, but the constitution is what judges say it is.» David Ludington adds another: «Rule of law and independence of the judiciary underpins our democracy and lies at the heart of our way of life.» The majority of us agree to this.
