THERE is no doubt that the judiciary in Nigeria in recent times attracted intense criticism by the public as it is vehemently accused of unabashed sleeze in the course of discharging its functions and responsibilities to the country.
This view is hinged on some apalling and gory signals from the judiciary manifesting more often than not, in its inability to stand firm in justice delivery.
Much of the swipe on the judiciary revolves around its apparent loss of transparency and a patriotic zeal that constitutes the hallmark of a reliable judiciary. Unfortunately, this was seen to be increasingly on the decline.
Besides, the time-honoured principles of fairness, equity and good conscience that form the bedrock of a dependable and responsive judiciary seem to have been slaughtered on the altar of needless compromise, favouritism, bribery and corruption.
Considering the nexus between a fearless, transparent and vibrant judiciary and modern democracy, Nigerians’ concern about our temple of justice should not be ignored further.
Such worries today are not far-fetched and hardly can the fears of the citizens be suppressed successfully.
For instance, the rising volley of conflicting court judgements, particularly on electoral matters across the country leaves much to be desired.
The present circumstances has its roots in past unsavoury court decisions such as the twelve two third saga of the 1979 presidential election result between chief Obafemi Awolowo of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and Alhaji Shehu Shagari of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), conflicting court orders on the June 12, 1993 presidential poll believed to had been won by Chief MKO Abiola but annuled by the Babangida-led military junta. More recently, the supreme court judgment in Imo State governorship election result just to mention a few, all constitute a reprehensible judicial somersault and a land mine for effective administration of justice capable of eroding public confidence or trust in the judiciary .
All these complicate the denigration and desecretion of the temple of justice and where this is no justice, impunity, sef-help and anarchy prevail.
While this battered image of the judiciary may to a large extent, be traced to military incursion in our politics and subsequent devastating attack on all democratic institutions and authorities, but there is no justification today for the judiciary in a democratic dispensation to allow itself to be manipulated or brow-beaten to submission by any person, persons or group of persons, no matter how highly placed.
Granted that some members of the judiciary today are firm, resolute, courageous, fair and just in the discharge of their constitutional duties to the nation, this fraction appears tiny and insignificant as the unmitigated damage done to the institution and administration of justice by the bad eggs far outweighs the genuine efforts of the former.
The law makes no pretences as to the fact that when the court compromises its role, the administration of justice suffers.
Indeed, in the words of Aderemi JCA “the Court exists for nothing but the dispensation of justice to all before it. The moment it ceases to dispense justice in a way that will be seen by reasonable man to be just and equitable, then it ceased to be a regular court of justice and becomes a Kangaroo Court…”
Similarly a learned silk, Chief C. Ekomaru (SAN) hinted thus “A hardworking, honest, and intellectually equipped judge is an asset to the administration of justice. A dishonest, corrupt but intellectually equipped judge is the greatest damage to the judicial system…”
From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that a corrupt judicial officer or compromised judiciary poses a threat to the administration of justice of any nation.
It is against this backdrop that we urge the judiciary to apply a fine tooth comb to weed out bad eggs in its fold.
The National Judicial Council (NJC) charged with the disciplinary control of justices/judge should at all material times demonstrate a strong commitment to duty by fishing out the bad eggs within the judiciary. Some lawyers are also known to be over-bearing, especially the SANs, many of whom have been accused of being the go-between between clients and corrupt judges.
Finally, while remanding our judicial officers of their oaths to do justice to all manner of persons without fear, favour, ill-will or affection, we draw the attention of the third arm of government to an admonition “Take heed to what you are doing for you do not judge for man but for the Lord who is with you in judgement.”
