Why both justices should go now
The current brouhaha between Justice Ayo Salami and Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu is as epic as they come – a judicial pore seeping to all forms of interpretations. It is now common knowledge that the duo were law school classmates. The circumstances that led to one being elevated to the highest court in the land and […]
The current brouhaha between Justice Ayo Salami and Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu is as epic as they come – a judicial pore seeping to all forms of interpretations. It is now common knowledge that the duo were law school classmates. The circumstances that led to one being elevated to the highest court in the land and the other to the highest appellate court are as classical as they come. What we now know is that the two were appointed to their respective positions at the same time. The classical sides did not end there. Salami is a Muslim and his base is Yorubaland where, incidentally an opposition party believes it has an unchallengeable stronghold. Katsina-Alu is a Christian from Benue in what conservative trouble-makers would call the north. The north is where the ruling party at the centre holds sway and hopes to retain. Whether the circumstances of one being ‘promoted’ over the other over time is politically motivated or not is not an issue open to us the unlearned. For the sanctity of the judiciary, we would perhaps be comfortable not to pry.
But given the scenario, the combination is a political keg of gunpowder volatile to explosion if not properly handled. The two courts are autonomous. Judges are expected to make their rulings based on facts of law and evidence. Evidence and facts are like beauty – in the eye of the beholder. In a primitive political situation where the power is more important than even national cohesion, there is a dynamite here, waiting to explode. When the circumstances in which the last two governors of the southwest had their electoral credentials re-examined and upturned happened, not many people read any political meanings to it. Largely, it was seen as justice finally catching up with its long arms. But hindsight is proving all that wrong.
The story now making the rounds is that one judge used his privileged position to support the wishes of his ethnic region and that with the botched and very fuzzy circumstances in which the Sokoto appeal went; there was an attempt to stop the opposition making inroads into ruling party strongholds. The final straw being the promotion of Justice Salami to the Supreme Court; which promotion, in the light of the above is not only circumspect but unprecedented since no elevation has ever been made from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court? But does it matter? As a friend would say, isn’t it the wish of every member of the bench to end up at the apex court, the zenith of their career? Why then the brouhaha? Good questions. But do we truly need answers to those questions? Can the answers to those questions help preserve the sanctity of the judicial system and keep the glint of hope that the common man has in its ways? Those are the questions that, in my mind are more germane.
Did Justice Salami rush to the press in a manner unbecoming of a member of the bench even in the face of promotional provocation? Did Justice Katsina-Alu keep quiet to preserve the sanctity of the judiciary or as a result of guilt? We all know that at certain levels of appointments, be it in the army, the civil service or the judiciary, a little politics comes into it. When political power is in the hands of people who are less altruistic, such politics are overplayed to detriment of the sanctity of hallowed institutions.
Fortunately, the judiciary has come a long way to be rubbished on this score. Its pronouncements have been proved to be populist and helpful to the norms of democracy and to a large extent insulated from the claws of political manipulators. This is why it is very difficult to preclude the unlearned from discussing and debating the squabble between the two justices as being advocated by some legal pundits or to sweep this matter under the carpet.
The duel blew open like a festering sore and is now gangrenous. The two legal colossi can help preserve the image of the judiciary from further erosion if they both resign their appointments with full honours. Any other attempt to paper over the cracks would leave the judiciary in tatters. When that is done, let us hope that the NJC can learn a few lessons from this duel by ensuring that in future, two classmates are not placed in disproportionate positions where real or imagined egos will clash.