Like most things in the last one year, the judiciary has a mixed record to tender either as the final arbiter or, as the cliche goes, the last hope of the common man. In fact, while there are some interesting and land mark cases, which the judiciary had disposed off adequately, what is often troubling though, are the controversial ones, which tend to denigrate the image of the judiciary and, thus, raises questions of competence of the judges, and the impartiality of the judicial system.
Notwithstanding some human failings at the bench, in the last one year the judicial system has had to contend with primitive working environment. Judges still take long hand notes, most court rooms have no functioning air-conditioning system. In fact the pay structure of judges, in some instances, is laughable, and is often cited by observers of the judicial system as one of the factors that exposes their lordships to temptations of inducement. Indeed, it is a matter of public record that in 2002, judges in Anambra state went on strike over their wage arrears and delay in pension payment.
Of significance though, despite the bleak out look on the state of the judiciary is that the bench has somehow managed to deliver landmark opinions in some instances.
One remarkable judgement which the judiciary rendered was on the dispute between the federal government and Lagos state over urban development control. It was a ruling which reenforced the doctrine of federalism, and was reminiscent of the apex court ruling on 2002 electoral act, the registration of political parties- the decision that cleared the way for the registration of 30 political parties, and even to a large extent the apex court ruling on the onshore/offshore dichotomy suit considered fundamental, but heavily criticised by the littoral states. Nevertheless, while the interventions of the supreme court had always been decisive, and when weighed on a scale is seen as above board, even progressive, the performance of lower courts had been a big let down on the integrity of the judiciary. Public scepticism of the judicial system had in the last one year often arisen because the lower courts almost always never managed to acquit itself well enough. Series of judgements given by the lower courts had in many instances inflamed the situation, and were often seen, rightly or wrongly, as judgement procured under certain inducement to pervert justice. These days the euphemism, midnight judgement, refers to such questionable judgement.
A typical judicial opnion that had done the courts no good was the pronouncement of Enugu High Court judge, Justice Stanley Nnaji, on January 4, asking the police to remove Anambra State Governor Chris Ngige from office the way the governor was installed after the botched attempt to remove him on July 10 failed. The court order was roundly condemned, and was seen as a spurious order, and was never obeyed. Indeed, Governor Chris Ngige the target of the court order came out to denounce the court dismissing its order as a kangaroo order. The Ngige issue was curiously a particular subject of interest to judges because Justice Wilson Egbo Egbo who, following his rather controversial handling of the clearance of Chief Adolphus Wabara to seek office, as Senate President, had acquired a certain image of notoriety, also made his own pronouncement on Ngige. Egbo-Egbo, who was approached to rule on the matter of security detail attached to the governor, ordered that Ngige was not entitled to them because by his purported letter of resignation should not have such state personnel attached to himself. However, even though this judgement was condemned by some people, the federal government was not slow in acting on the court order.
The security detail to the governor was speedily withdrawn, and has since been tied down by legal arguments in the Appeal Court. The obvious power play involved was not lost on anyone, because another order given by a state high court asking that the security detail be restored was ignored by the federal government which preferred to obey the Abuja High Court order. Attorney General of the federation, Chief Akinlolu Olujimi, reportedly advised the police Inspector General, Tafa Balogun, who sought legal opnion that they are not obliged to obey the court in Anambra state.
Aside the power struggle between Anambra governor and Abuja, the legal wrangling dramatised a deeper malaise within the polity in the last one year. A pattern has since emerged that show that a preponderance of federal high courts tend to give judgements favourable to Abuja, and state courts more often than not give opinion favourable to their principals in the state. When a conflicting view emerges no attempt is made to vacate the order of any of these courts, and thus strengthen the court system. A recent example will show that this pattern may not be accidental, but a consistent erosion of the powers of the judiciary. Using Anambra again as a case study, the Chris Uba group working to control the party machinery in the state having failed to reach a compromise with Ngige, went to Abuja to conduct the state special congress to produce a new leadership.
Ngige sensing that if carried through the special delegate election would undermine his control of the party in the state, reportedly instigated members of his group to approach an Ogidi high court in Anambra to stop the PDP from conducting the election. The order was obtained, but enforcing it became a problem. Chief Audu Ogbeh, who sought legal advice was told by Chief Olujimi, that an order given by a state high court has no effect on a matter that took place in Abuja. The argument has been made that PDP should not have proceeded to inaugurate the new state party leadership until the order by Ogidi high court was vacated. On the other hand, some view say that going to argue the matter in Ogidi was a waste of time, because Ngige would use his leverage at the court to stall proceedings, and the case would never reach its conclusion.
Thus, the way it stands today, while the PDP believes the Ogidi high court has no effect whatsoever on its affair in Abuja, Ngige faction anchors its activities on the legality of the court order, which has ruled return to status quo. The tendency to either obey or ignore a court depending on whether it is convenient or not has become a state policy.
Indeed, recent action of Nigeria Labour Congress ( NLC) shows that this sort of unusual behaviour is not the preserve of state officials.
Last week, the federal high court, under Justice Roseline Ukeje, ruled that labour cannot embark on strike on non-employment issues. The court having taken this position went ahead to pronounce on matters not even canvassed before it, such as its declaration that the office of NLC president is not known to law, amongst other issues. Labour has not taken kindly to these decisions, and has said what it got from Ukeje was judgement without justice.
This week labour is defying the court order by issuing notice of a 14-day strike action. Labour’s statement of denunciation of the federal high court judgement did not fail to create the impression that the court was a mere tool used by the presidency to execute its agenda.
But by far the biggest failings of the judiciary was its handling of the election petition hearing.
One year plus after the general elections were held, not many petitions had made progress. At the initial stages of the hearings many petitions were thrown away on frivolous grounds prompting the Appeal Court to declare that petitions should not be thrown out on technical grounds. While this intervention contained the problem, it merely scratched the surface, because many petitioners had either lost faith in the court system, or had exhausted their resources before the trial courts and could not continue. At the other end of the problem, allegations of bribery and miscarriage of justice at election petition proved a most thorny problem before the tribunals. Bribery allegations were raised against tribunal members in Akwa Ibom, Delta, Enugu, Rivers amongst many others, prompting Appeal Court President Umaru Abdullahi to dissolve and reconstitute some of these tribunals. The embarrassment of bribery allegations against judges, and the delay in disposing of elections petitions have terribly damaged the judiciary. Now, the common talk is that with the way things stand, any post-election dispute following 2007 election had better be resolved using other means rather appearing before a court to canvass election issues.
As frustrating as things may appear the silver lining is that the judiciary has also evolved a mechanism, the National Judicial Council ( NJC) for rooting out the bad apples from the system. Within the last one year Justice Egbo-Egbo and Nnaji, two notorious justices have left service in ignominy, on the recommendation of NJC. It may have been a bad year for the judiciary, but all hope is not lost. At least not yet.
