Judiciary As The Last Hope Of Itself

By

I. M. Attahir Esq.

attahirmi@yahoo.com

 

As the popular saying goes, judiciary is the last hope of the common man. Even the high and mighty is supposed to have hope in the judiciary in a civilized society. However, whether the common and the uncommon man have unshakable hope in the Nigerian judiciary is debatable depending on the side of the social or political divide one stands.

 

What is not in doubt is that the judiciary has been severely condemned, lambasted and castigated since the aftermath of 2003 presidential election otherwise known as 419 elections. Even the verdict of the apex court in Buhari’s petition has not abated the anger of Nigerians on the judiciary. This situation is therefore a pointer that something is wrong somewhere with the hope Nigerians are supposed to have in the judiciary.

 

To be fair to the judiciary, it does not bear all the blame on all that goes wrong with our electoral system / laws. Some people just condemn the judiciary without knowing (or rather mischievously ignoring) the root of the problem. The judiciary does not make laws. It only interprets and applies the laws made by the legislature on a given situation. A careful look at the Electoral Act 2002 will clearly show that it is a bad law at least for a petitioner.

 

We must not forget that it was politicians who sat in the legislature and passed that bad law. Some other politicians, not the judiciary, where also caught pants down trying to forge the Act as if the bad provisions it contained were not enough. Therefore, the bulk of the blame should go to the politicians who made the bad law in the first place because they wanted to manipulate it to rig elections. If the politicians want a good law to govern the elections they have all the right to make it so. But they prefer the bad one because it serves their selfish interest better. So many people disliked the way and manner the various election tribunals struck out so many petitions on technical grounds after the 2003 general elections. But it was the lawmakers that made the law so technical.  Mere filing of petition was made cumbersome that even senior advocates filed petitions, which were struck out for improper filing!    

 

On the other hand, the scheming of the politicians as shown above does not entirely absolve the judiciary. It is true that it is not the business of the court to amend a law to be in tune with sound social policy. Yet the court should not follow such a bad law too slavishly especially on issues of technicalities, which the courts are now shifting away from. The trend now in judicial circles is to follow the path of substantial justice. The judiciary must be more courageous especially in electoral and other politically related matters.

 

The judiciary must know that the common man and the generality of Nigerians will not understand and appreciate this dogon turanci. All they know is that a court is a court and should do justice. Period! Therefore, the general perception of Nigerians on the judiciary especially with regards to electoral and politically related matters is nothing to write home about. The judiciary also needs to know that being in the good books of the people also has its own advantages sooner or later.

 

As we move towards 2007 opportunities will open for the judiciary to earn the confidence of generality of Nigerians. May be the third term agitators will listen to voices of reason and abandon the idea especially now that their American masters have spoken. Or our legislators may also heed the warning of elder statesmen to throw out the proposed constitutional amendment seeking to accommodate the third term ambition. Otherwise, the issue will ultimately end in the courts. That will be the time for the judiciary to act to save the country. The courts should not be cowed by the bogus that lawmaking is the prerogative of the legislature. Yes it is. But there is constitutional limitation to it. The constitution is very clear on the legislative powers to make laws for peace, order and good government. An amendment of the constitution clearly intended to facilitate selfish ambition of an individual or group of opportunists can never be for peace, order and good government of Nigeria. It is the direct opposite. In the case of A.G. Fed Vs Guardian Newspaper Ltd (1999) NWLR part 618 at page 187 the Supreme Court said: -

 

“I think it is a valid argument that that would no longer be the way of making laws for peace, order and good government of Nigeria but tyranny by an absolute despot, ruling as conqueror of a people. I do not think that would be in consonance with the spirit and letter of decree 107 of 1993”.

 

This constitutional test is a good check to the excesses of the legislature if the judiciary will chose to be bold as in the Guardian’s case. A constitutional amendment capable of undermining democratic process and throwing the country into confusion must not be allowed by the judiciary to pass this test. If care is not taken what started as democracy will end up as an imperial arrangement. It happened in some countries where after their presidents served for life constitutional amendments were used for their children to succeed them.

 

I believe when the stage is set the ball will be in the judiciary’s court. It will be a golden opportunity for the judiciary to rescue the country and its democratic institutions, including itself. Probably the judiciary is going to be the last hope of itself before being the last hope of the common man.  

 

I.M. ATTAHIR ESQ

Majidadi Road,

Abuja Qtrs Gombe,

attahirmi@yahoo.com