Judiciary and inconclusive judgments

Noam Chomsky, a Jew born in Philadelphia, United States, made this significant statement: “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.” He was an academic very interested in the study of anarchy. His background, though important, isn’t the issue at stake in this outing. Rather, it is the point that he made that is important.  

Societies move from bad to worse and finally into the worst because most of the time, men and women equipped to speak choose to keep calm, stay in a safe corner and for the greater part hide in an attitude of conspiratorial passivity. Silence it has been noted emboldens the oppressors. It encourages them to continue on the path of perfidy.

The Judiciary that was once our pride, watchdog, savior and liberator has suddenly turned full circle to become a national albatross, progenitor of all that is bad and evil. This position may seem very harsh but this is exactly what the country requires if we won’t record a plunge from the cliff into the inner recesses of a deep valley. The country’s fate currently hangs on the balance. So, if we must make success of any redemptive effort then the startup point would be to call a spade by its real name.

Our focus in today’s discourse is the judiciary. As of the three arms of government, it is one that is most strategically placed to whip the other two and indeed the citizens into line and into order. After the people, it is the Judiciary that exercises more of the powers embedded in the sovereignty. The Judiciary can create and uncreate; this is immense power.

The judiciary’s exercise of control is embracive, economical, social and political, which is our interest in this outing. Its role in governance cannot by any means be played down. The judiciary provides a check on power, ensuring that governance aligns with constitutional ideals.

Unfortunately, in very recent times, concern is growing because of contributions coming through from the sector. We must be careful about making a blanket condemnation of the entire system. Despite obvious challenges, when taken into account, our judiciary has done excellently in pushing developments in the country. The judiciary resisted dictators in the past and set rich standards in pushing the development course. Justices and Judges who make up the judiciary have not done badly in civil and criminal arbitrations but their involvement in political matters in recent times has become very suspect. As we have observed in a previous write-up, “Conscience is an open wound which only truth can heal.”

The judiciary’s attitude to political and governance matters hasn’t been salutary at all. In fact the standards appear to be dropping so fast for reasons Nigerians are yet to fully discover. In the past, the judiciary was proactive. Through quick and quality interventions, Judges and Justices kept political players, irrespective of rank in check, they didn’t hesitate to pull them into order and circle of sensible thinking; they ensured rascality was driven away and the sanctity of the constitution held very high. We recall the incident where a citizen of the country was arrested and deported to a foreign country. The judiciary didn’t fear the ruling party neither did the justices prevaricate. The judiciary reversed the development almost immediately and made very explicit order for the immediate return of the victim and compensation to be paid. There was no ambiguity. Ordinary people understood very clearly what the verdict was all about.

Cases involving political activities were handled with dispatch and very clear judgments given. Parties to the issues knew who won and what exactly was required of them. In that golden era, the Judiciary never appropriated the role of the citizens as the electors of persons. They knew this strategic assignment belonged only to the people who remained the true sovereignty under a democratic order. After voting and there were post-election litigations, the court examined critical matters and where infringement was discovered it called for a fresh election except in very few instances. It was these instances that paved the way for the complete take-over of the electors’ role. The descent started from the exceptions, this is why those who know oppose nurture of contradictions in any form.

What appeared innocuous and harmless in those days had since grown to become monstrous these days. We have had with us verdicts that declared polls “inconclusive.”  Nothing would have been wrong with the trend except that facts surrounding such declarations would suggest that the poll could have been certified, given that what remained wasn’t enough to order a return. But because a rerun would favour the ruling party that was in hot pursuit, the judges would declare the poll inconclusive. Governor Adeleke who later became Osun State governor lost his first bid on that score.

What has become of the opposition political parties wouldn’t be if our judges chose to walk the path of natural justice, one in which justice is not only done but clearly seen to be done. Magaji Mato, a senior advocate of Nigeria said Wednesday on AriseTV that the existing political culture has placed so much burden on the Judiciary because our politicians desire to win at all costs, none is ready to accept he lost.”

He is quite correct. It is the poor attitude of political players that provoke the judiciary to greater responsibility in the discharge of the onerous task placed on their shoulders. Renowned writer, Chinua Achebe, observed, “Eneke, the bird said it has learnt to fly without perching, because the hunter has learnt to shoot without missing.” The desperate and despicable actions of the political class seriously require deliberate and very intentional response from the judiciary. Judgments and verdicts including judiciary pronouncements should come in very specific clear terms. They should be full of sound background. Law students read logic and philosophy and it is for a purpose – so that verdicts can carry flesh and reflect humanity, not something abstract, relating to a world diametrically far off from where the people live and carry out activities some of which lead to the litigations.

The events surrounding the thriving of the People’s Democratic party (PDP), New Nigerian People’s Party (NNPP) and now African Democratic Congress (ADC) would not have gotten to the stage where the will of one man working through a few anti-democratic elements becomes the winning card. One of the key functions of the Judiciary is to properly understand society, its workings and to observe when events likely to impinge on the healthy working of the society begin to rear up their ugly head and nip them in the bud before they grow to become real threats. Reckless anti-democratic temperament, subversion and imposition of the will of a few over the majority are some of the threats that shouldn’t be allowed to find a fertile soil.

They have found good soil because the Judiciary abandoned cardinal responsibility in this regard. It has become very costly. Some of us in the critical circle have tried to find out why things turned out this way. One answer we get is that the Judiciary or courts are not “Father Christmas”, they don’t go beyond what the parties request. Doing so would be seen as the jury entering the arena.

 Fine but who says drawing conclusions around demands can’t do with some measure of sensitivity? Why would a judge give platitude to the desire of a faction when it is very clear the group is out to play on opportunism as means to achieve undue advantage?

What kind of law training would make our law enforcers not ask very critical but pertinent questions to show that they live within the same society and have not been imported from the moon for the purpose of sitting or adjudicating over a matter? What is this training that makes the adjudicator seem aloof? What is the teaching that makes judgments come through as technical reports? Recent judgments don’t have souls. The delay that goes with all of the process is

Some critical observers of national development know that in the beginning it wasn’t so. When we ordinary folks heard and read judgments and judicial pronouncements we nodded in agreement. The conclusions were direct and very understandable. Verdicts had philosophy and psychological foundations to it. We have watched Judges in developed settings do same work and one can rightly predict outcomes before the actual verdict going by the kind of informed interrogation and interjections judges make. It should be so in our case. Kenya decided post-president election dispute in less than 14 days. Ghana didn’t have to go

On a final note, we can alter the current trajectory in the Judiciary. It is an easy exercise to undertake. The challenges bedeviling this crucial sector appear enormous and daunting as well.

 The country’s judiciary faces issues with corruption and efficiency, hindering its effectiveness in promoting sustainable development. There is urgent need for reforms. To better serve development, the judiciary requires reforms, including greater financial independence, adoption of technology to speed up cases, and stricter anti-corruption measures. This last point is a burning matter if one had access to offer view.