The negative side of justice

Agreed that the law is an ass and does punish the innocent while setting the guilty free; agreed also that dispensation of justice is as subjective as the judgment of the judicial officer, but one thing that will continue to cast serious aspersions on the propriety of judgments will to a great extent be determined […]

Agreed that the law is an ass and does punish the innocent while setting the guilty free; agreed also that dispensation of justice is as subjective as the judgment of the judicial officer, but one thing that will continue to cast serious aspersions on the propriety of judgments will to a great extent be determined by several factors among which is the perception of the judicial officer in relation to the critical question of time, limit and space.

I think any reasonable judgment is informed by certain critical considerations. When in the last two presidential elections in 2003 and 2007 we were told that the overriding reason that informed the decisions of the Court of Appeal as court of first instance in the presidential election petition was the consideration of national peace in relation to the implications that any annulment of those elections was likely to cause to the nation’s body polity aside from the seeming inability of the petitioners to prove their cases of electoral fraud beyond reasonable doubts.

Yes, the law has been crafted in such a way that it is difficult for one who has been rigged out in an election to get justice. Little wonder it is that a lot of wise people would rather leave the matter to God than to pursue their mandate stolen in times of election. In that case, it may not be the fault of the jury but the difficult terrain under which the law subsists.

There are often cases of courts complicating local and national issues at critical thresholds. The annulment of the June 12 election was mainly precipitated by series of injunctions and judgments that came from courts, especially those around the Abuja and Lagos legal environments. The substance of the law may not have been in doubt, but the failure of the legal determinists to take into cognizance the vexed question of time, limit and space tremendously contributed in the national political turmoil and impasse which almost brought the nation to its knees.

I think it is a miscarriage of justice or put another way a negative application of it for anybody to at this critical threshold hide under the banner of justice and cause national political crisis. I am not worried about the technicalities in the matter because no matter what line of action one decides to take, sensible argument could be made as to whether the President must or mustn’t sign the constitution before it becomes effective.

Of course I belong to the categories of those who see matters relating to constitution and constitutionality as not as technical legal condiments as they are being made to look. I often argue that constitution and even constitution making is more of a political exercise than it is legal. The desire to subject it to extreme legalism is responsible for an array of problems that are encountered in the nation’s drive to democracy.

Without delving into the provisions of the constitution it is imperative to posit that the process of amending the Nigerian constitution is very rigid, typical of all written constitutions. The process is cumbersome and it’s often argued that such constitutions have prescribed difficult procedures of amendment in order that in reality the constitution is unable to be amended.

I remember not too long ago, especially in the aftermath of the defeat of the third term bid by the former dictator, President Obasanjo several experts did say that the constitution cannot be amended because the process that are to be followed are almost impossible. Similar apprehensions were expressed soon after the January 2009 disagreement between the Senate and House of Representatives on the leadership of the Joint Committee on the Review of the Constitution.

At the end of the day, the two houses went their ways only to meet at critical junctures where such meetings became obligatory before getting the constitution finally amended in June 2010. One of the most difficult stages in the process apart from the inclusion of state Houses of Assembly which again makes the bill not strictly an executive one and the requirement of 2/3 approval of these assemblies is the necessity of concurrence on any matter and the vote of 2/3 of members of each chamber of the parliament at the center to get any particular matter accepted for amendment.

What in my views makes the constitution review act different from any other one for that matter is that all other acts of the National Assembly are passed by simple majority during voting.  Voting may be through voice or division or members raising hands to signify their preference.

In the case of vote taking on constitution amendment, it does not take place until the required 2/3 number of members are in session. Votes are taken through actual head-count. In this case, the electronic voting system of the two chambers of the parliament had to be reactivated because the record of votes among other things must equally be taken. The vote of every Member or Senator is recorded against his name and that forms the record of the exercise and parliament for ever.

The constitution has clearly prescribed that in the case of other bills passed by the National Assembly and unaccented to by the President for whatever reason could be returned for override with 2/3 majority of votes of members in the two chambers of the Assembly. Now, here we are faced with a bill that was though an executive bill or started from the center but had to be passed with the power of 2/3 of members of the two Houses and corroborated by the concurrence of 24 of the 36 state Houses of Assembly in the country.

Now the question that we the laymen are asking is what happens in the current circumstances if the President withholds his accent on the amendment? Is it going to be returned for another voting to secure acceptance of 2/3 of Members before the act becomes law? Or in the alternative, the decision of the court implies that if the President fails to accent to the amendment after 30 days and it is returned to the parliament will it automatically have the force of law?

Aside from the very critical issues of illegality that surrounds most of the decisions taken by both the parliament and the executive arm of government since the completion of the amendment, what is the status of the entire electoral process?

Thinking aloud! Several Nigerians are getting the feeling that somebody somewhere is not interested in having elections hold in this country. With the judgment in Lagos, the fear and belief in this thesis is further reinforced, otherwise how would any judge disregard such critical issues of national political tranquility at this critical threshold and decide to push the hand of the clock backward?

Nigerians will need answers to these questions now and in the near future.