Follow Us on Google
From Obinna Odogwu, Awka
Human rights lawyer, Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has called on relevant stakeholders in Nigeria, particularly those within the judicial circle, to do everything within their powers to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is fully protected and guaranteed.
This, he argued, had become necessary because of the growing concerns across the country about the independence of that arm of the government, especially as it concerns sensitive political issues.
Ejiofor, in a statement, pointed out that the judiciary was essential to Nigeria’s political stability, constitutional democracy and socioeconomic development and as such, must live above board.
He said the recent judicial pronouncements on matters of national importance, particularly those affecting the country’s democratic process, had generated widespread legal debate and public concerns.
“Two recent decisions of the Federal High Court have especially provoked constitutional discourse.
“The first concerns proceedings reportedly conducted and concluded, notwithstanding a subsisting order of the Court of Appeal restraining further action by the trial court.
“The second concerns the reported judgment/ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Kogi State, which set aside an earlier judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) as a political party.
“These developments naturally invite important constitutional questions. By what recognised legal principle may a court revisit its own final judgment? Were exceptional circumstances, such as fraud, nullity or the concealment of material facts, established to justify such intervention?” he queried.
Speaking further, he argued: “Our law has long settled that once a court delivers its final judgment, it becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to reopen that decision except in narrowly defined circumstances.
Other News
The doctrine exists for a compelling reason which is that litigation must, at some point, come to an end.
“The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this settled principle when it deprecated an application inviting it to review and set aside its own final judgment.
“The apex court condemned the application as a grave abuse of judicial process and imposed substantial costs on counsel, reinforcing the long-established principle that final judgments cannot be casually revisited.”
Ejiofor opined that the broader concern, however, extends beyond any particular case, saying that increasingly, certain judicial decisions in politically sensitive matters had given rise to public debate regarding judicial independence.
“Whether such perceptions are justified or not, they deserve serious attention because perception itself is fundamental to the legitimacy of the judicial institution.
“Perhaps, no development poses a greater threat to constitutional democracy than a judiciary perceived as vulnerable to external influence,” he said.
He reminded the stakeholders that the courts remain the citizen’s last refuge against executive arbitrariness, legislative excesses and the abuse of public power.
“They command neither the sword nor the purse; their authority rests almost entirely on public confidence. Once that confidence is eroded, the rule of law itself begins to unravel.
“A corrupt politician may impoverish a nation. A corrupt civil servant may frustrate governance. A compromised electoral officer may distort an election. But, a compromised judicial officer possesses the extraordinary power to legitimise illegality beneath the majestic cloak of judicial authority.
“That damage extends far beyond the litigants before the court. It weakens constitutionalism itself,” he emphasised.
