Nigeria: Conflicting Judicial Pronouncements Are Not Healthy for the Judiciary and Nigeria – Adegboruwa
Ebun Olu-Adegboruwa, SAN, one of the guests at the Vanguard mid-term assessment mini-summit, speaks on the conflicting judgments coming out of the apex court and warns of its consequences. He also speaks about the vibrancy or otherwise of civil society organisations as well as corruption in Nigeria.
Excerpts:
Concerns about judgments of the Supreme Court
Human affairs are subject to errors. Only God is infallible. To that extent, it is expected that once in a while, there may be areas of confusion or conflict with the judgments emanating from the Supreme Court. The thing to realize is that being the apex court of the land, the Supreme Court needs all the caution that it can muster to achieve predictability in the decisions coming from that Court. The purpose of law is to predict and determine human conduct, and once there is uncertainty, ambiguity or conflict in many areas of judicial interpretation, it then becomes a matter of speculation and arbitrariness, which will not augur well for society.
We have had cases of conflicting decisions coming from the Supreme Court on the same or similar subject matter and this is not commendable at all. By the doctrine of judicial precedent, all other courts in Nigeria drink from the judicial fountain of the Supreme Court. What should flow from that court should carry jurisprudential precision in such a way as to help achieve stability within the polity. The conflict is rampant mostly in political cases, where the same set of facts giving rise to different cases lead to different and inconsistent decisions from the same court, without any explanation as to why this is so. In normal times, if the apex court has reason to depart from its previous decisions, it will list those decisions to be affected and proffer reasons why it is departing from them.
The other danger in this is that it raises unnecessary tension between the litigants and their counsel when it becomes difficult to advise the client on legal issues based on existing judicial decisions on the point. In very troubling circumstances, people make all manner of insinuations and read other motives into these developments. Some people read corrupt motives into these conflicting decisions, all of which affect the image and reputation of the judiciary, especially when it involves political cases. They posit that the only reason why Party A will do something and it will attract a different outcome from what Party B did earlier is because of corruption. In other circumstances, some other people impute political influence or extraneous pressure for the outcome of cases.
I personally believe, however, that many of the conflicts are due to human errors and they can be avoided. First, technology can be deployed to eliminate judicial conflicts. At the tip of the hand of legal researchers, potential conflicts can be detected and addressed. Available software can be adapted to profile cases addressing specific subject matters such that when they arise for consideration at the stage of judgment, previous decisions on the point can be assembled and dissected, to avoid conflict. Going forward, a data base can be created for all departments of law such as criminal law (murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc), admiralty, electoral law, family law, property law, commercial law, etc and the cases are segmented according to their categories. Second, the workload of judges is very enormous and this puts judicial officers under undue pressure to deliver. A quick solution is to outsource the software development and management to experts who will guide the court to mitigate against constant conflicts and errors. This should be done urgently as the development is not healthy for the judiciary and our nation.
Vibrancy of civil society organisations
In every society, we do have those who act as watchdogs on behalf of the masses in order to keep the government within the bounds of rule of law, due process and good governance. In particular, they work to ensure respect for the rights of citizens and strict adherence to the Constitution. These organisations and individuals act selflessly and patriotically, giving their time, resources and talents for the common good. During pre-independence, there were a lot of political parties and their notable leaders, students, labour unions, etc working to galvanize opinion and public support against the excesses of the government. In post-independent Nigeria, the opposition parties became the mouthpiece of the people, deploying sound ideology to x-ray the programmes of the government and to provide credible alternatives. The advent of military rule brought about the proliferation of civil society organisations and activists. This is mainly because of the nature of all military regimes which involve the suspension of the Constitution, enactment of draconian laws and abridgment of the rights and liberties of citizens. Politicians who have been robbed of political power also align themselves with civil societies and activists to confront the military and to demand for return to civil rule.
Since 1999 after the return of civil rule, succeeding governments have deployed various factors to decimate the opposition and civil society organisations. Politicians have recruited notable leaders of the civil society coalition into the government thus depleting their rank and file. They weaponize poverty as an instrument of coercion, thus depriving the people of their means of survival, making it extremely difficult for mass mobilisation and participation in mass protests. The situation however became worse from the advent of the regime of President Muhammadu Buhari, leading to the brutal repression of the #EndSARS protests and it has degenerated further under President Bola Tinubu, culminating in the murder of some of the #EndBadGovernance protesters.
It is not the case however that civil society organisations and activists have disappeared from the scene. The Socio Economic Rights and Accountability Project, (SERAP) has been very vocal and active as the voice of the masses. So also other notable organisations and activists. The decline in principled opposition from the political parties, the passivity of the legislature and seeming lethargy of the judiciary have also contributed to the decline in activism generally. By and large, people have however remained committed to certain ideals for which they have been known over the years. It may be that the government has become more intolerant of opposition and critical views, especially with the deployment of the Cybercrimes Act to criminalize freedom of speech. Notwithstanding all of these factors, we will continue to play our roles as the mouthpiece of the masses.
Anti-corruption fight
To my mind, what the anti-corruption fight means to every regime in power is two-fold. First, it is to gain public sympathy and support. Given the state of infrastructure decay in the land, it becomes easy to persuade people to support any campaign to recover money from those who have looted the common pool. In that regard, a lot of people, including notable leaders and activists, are usually swayed to galvanize support for any particular regime in the guise of anti-corruption, even when that regime is worse than its predecessor or those it claims to be prosecuting. The second reason is to silence the opposition and keep opponents under control. This is what has prompted many defections from one political party to another in recent times, especially when the leader of a ruling political party stated openly that once a politician joins the said party, all his previous sins will be forgiven. This literally translates to a withdrawal of pending criminal charges or compromise of ongoing investigations or court cases.
Having said that, we cannot but prosecute corrupt people but it must be done professionally and devoid of any political undertone. The anti-corruption agencies must be independent, adequately funded and led by principled individuals who can pilot their affairs without extraneous influences. When you look at the history of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, for instance, virtually all its past leaders have themselves faced one trial or investigation or the other, which means that they were only tolerated and accommodated so long as they satisfied the selfish or political motives of their appointors.
To my mind, the best way to combat corruption is good governance. Let us monitor the various governments of the federal, state and local governments to ensure that available resources are deployed to deliver durable infrastructure, create mass employment, empower the people and implement economic policies that will galvanize production and development. So long as private citizens have to run their generators and buy diesel and fuel, so long as insecurity is driving most travelers to patronize the airlines, if the roads are not motorable and public schools, hospitals and other facilities are neglected, there will always be corruption. The salary being paid to workers cannot sustain the standard of living and inflation that has been imposed on them by the cruel economic policies of the government. If you ask me, I will say that bad governance promotes corruption.
By Vanguard.
