Winning back its Golden Age

Through them the much touted leadership role of Nigeria was demonstrated in concrete terms by the pioneer contribution these fellows made to nation building on the continent. They, as it were, carried aloft the judicial sagacity that took root and was nurtured by Taslim Olawale Elias, the first indigenous Nigerian chief justice and those who […]

Through them the much touted leadership role of Nigeria was demonstrated in concrete terms by the pioneer contribution these fellows made to nation building on the continent. They, as it were, carried aloft the judicial sagacity that took root and was nurtured by Taslim Olawale Elias, the first indigenous Nigerian chief justice and those who followed him, to other countries to help in codifying their laws as well as establish the fine tenets of legal practice in those countries.  It must be underscored that drawing up new laws in societies emerging from colonial rule was not merely adopting the old English laws, it entailed making these laws to reflect the culture and traditions of those societies. It was a painstaking undertaking that called for the deep understanding of those societies.

This foray into how Nigerian judges helped in shaping the law elsewhere on the continent is important to show how respected and influential Nigerian jurisprudence has been in Africa.  With this at the backdrop the current unflattering image the judiciary has acquired which ensued because of the bad blood between the former Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Alloysius Katsina Alu and the former president of the Appeal Court, Justice Isa Ayo Salami leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.  It surely would make these legal sages turn in their graves when they consider what has happened to the edifice they studious erected now getting battered and bruised in eyes of Nigerian public.

Before the row, the public has been expressing misgivings about the incipient tawdry practices that had permeated the judiciary, including the long delays in the judicial process and muted allegations that the judiciary was not after all immune to the rapacity that has become endemic in the public service. The latest feud would serve in no small measure therefore to confirm most people’s suspicion.  One needs not be learned to know that the circumstances surrounding the election petition in Sokoto State, where an order halted the tribunal proceedings was to say the least a disservice to the law, capable of giving rise to all sorts of allegations, including the judiciary having been suborned by, as they say ‘’the powers that be’’. It accentuated the essential difficulty the judiciary has begun to face in performing its role in a democracy—that of adjudicating on the competing claims of political parties as they struggle for power.

Yet the challenge faced by the judiciary  in undertaking this onerous duty is to be scrupulous, assertive and above all fair when it hears cases on voting claims between political parties because it is its duty not only to be seen to be fair but to have acted fairly. This is necessary for several reasons, chief of which is the image and reputation of the judiciary itself and its impact on the health of our democracy. A judiciary deemed to be out and out at the behest of the dominant political party would sooner than later lose the respect of the electorate whose frustration could blow up in to political violence, as has happened in the past.

This is the reason why the current unhappy state of the judiciary should be the concern of everyone, particularly in emphasising the fact that its members need to be, at once, bold and circumspect in their actions because on them depends the continuous peace and tranquillity of the society.  To be sure, to achieve this it will not be enough to be well versed in the law, it will take the ability of the judicial institution in place now to bring forth from its ranks people who would look power in the face and still do what is proper and needful, no matter whose ox gored.

The judiciary under acting chief justice Dahiru Musdhapher must see this as an assignment he must undertake: to wit- purging the judiciary of the cynicism and other venalities that have taken hold of it in order to restore it to its proper role of the impartial arbiter.  We need not over labour the point that right now even among the legal guild not everyone believe it is playing that role. The rash of dissenting voices and litigations that greeted the outcome of the National Judicial Council’s ruling on Chief Judge Ibrahim Auta panel’s recommendation are sufficient evidence. So uproarious was the cry of foul among members that no one is left with any doubt that all is not well with the judiciary. It is the duty of the new leadership to win back the confidence of these people.

Thankfully, the law as a discipline itself has enough repertoire of knowledge as well as the ‘’dos and don’ts’’ the authorities could deep into to teach and to make members to conduct themselves as they should. Those at the top would need to show the needed example in this regard to win the moral ground necessary to convince the followership that proper conduct would be good for the profession. To bring this about recourse to seminal and symposia to inculcate the tenets both for the bar and the bench should be a regular occurrence.

All said, a judiciary extolled to be at its best in conduct would be to the credit and benefit of the men and women working in it, who would be adjudged, as the legalese go, fit and proper persons to practice the profession.