One of the cardinal points in the presidential system of government or democracy is separation of power. This is the setting where the three arms of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, function independently while working towards achieving the same goal: Good governance. What this entails is that as the legislature makes the law, the executive enforces the law. The judiciary, on the other hand, administers justice. With the making of the law, its enforcement/implementation of policies and the administration of justice, government works.
Indeed, the principle of separation of power presupposes that no arm of government should interfere or attempt to usurp the function of the other, as the three arms of government, being independent, would serve as check on one another for good governance. Where, therefore, the executive, in enforcing the law, also makes the law and administers justice, it is no longer democracy but dictatorship. In Nigeria, where the presidential system of government is in place, the Presidency represents the executive (the president, vice president, ministers, special advisers/assistants to the president/vice president, heads of government parastatals/agencies, etc.), while the National Assembly represents the legislature. The courts (magistrate’s court, state and federal high courts, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) represent the judiciary. These three arms of government are supposed to face their assignments without let or hindrance.
With this setting in mind, it’s, therefore, worrisome that agents of the executive have found it convenient to criticise the judiciary when court cases do not go their way. To be sure, in the last couple of weeks, the judiciary has been under attack by the Presidency and its agents. Yes, President Muhammadu Buhari recently came hard on the courts, when he declared that the judiciary was his main headache in the fight against corruption. Also, the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu, had stated that members of the judiciary were frustrating the war against corruption. In the same manner, some members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) have slammed the judiciary over recent rulings of the Supreme Court, as they affect governorship elections in Rivers and Akwa Ibom states.
I understand the frustration of President Buhari and Mr. Magu. It’s not every man that comes to terms with not having his will prevail. But the truth is that their anger is misplaced. To say that the judiciary is their problem is unfair to judges and lawyers. I consider such comments and position as an attempt to blackmail and intimidate the judiciary, with the view to cowing this arm of government. First, we are all living witnesses to the fact that many corrupt suspects, both in the public and private sectors, have been found guilty in the country and punished. Incidentally, when this happens, nobody in government or the prosecution ever comes out to condemn the judiciary for giving them favourable judgment. But when they do not get what they want, they accuse the judiciary of compromise or corruption.
An accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty. To convict an accused, the prosecution must prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Judges decide cases based on evidence before the court. What has happened in many instances is that cases are not thoroughly investigated before they are taken to court. Without concrete evidence, no case can be sustained in court. Judges will strike out such cases or rule against the prosecution. In the fight against corruption, what has been happening is that the EFCC and other agencies of government saddled with the responsibility of fishing out and bringing to book culprits, engage in media trial. They throw up allegations, which are not thoroughly investigated and which are not backed by evidence and take such matter to court. When judges, in examining the cases, discover that the evidence assembled cannot support the allegation, dismiss such cases, those who have not done their home work well would cry foul instead of owning up to their shoddy job.
It is apparent that the President Buhari government is no longer pretending that it wants to play the role of the executive and judiciary. When the president told the world that former National Security Adviser (NSA), Colonel Sambo Dasuki, and leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, would not be released on bail because their crimes are grievous and in order to stop them from “running away,” it was obvious that he wants a setting where the executive is both the accuser, the prosecutor and the arbiter. Dasuki and Kanu have been granted bail by the courts but they are still in custody, as security agents re-arraign them on fresh charges. This is simply to ensure that they remain incarcerated throughout the duration of their trial. Well, that this is coming from Buhari, a former soldier, is not a surprise. What is, however, surprising is that lawyers, who should know better, are supporting such unfortunate situation. If we emasculate the judiciary, in the name of politics, the country will pay the prize, as a nation and as a people. The judiciary is the final arbiter. It is the last hope of the common man. Judges are supposed to decide cases based on evidence and not on sentiment or emotion. In doing so, they would rather err on the side of caution than commit error of commission. This is why, in the judiciary, it is better for many guilty people to be set free than for one innocent man to be found guilty.
It is funny that since the Supreme Court delivered judgments on the Rivers and Akwa Ibom governorship elections, APC members and their supporters have continued to malign the judiciary. It started with the APC National Chairman, Chief John Oyegun, condemning the Supreme Court for dispensing justice based on the evidence tendered. The APC governorship candidate in Rivers, Dakuku Peterside, took the accusation to a ridiculous level when he directly accused the Supreme Court of being compromised. He also said that the decision of the apex court was influenced by Justice Mary Odili, one of the justices of the Supreme Court, who was not even on the panel that decided the cases. To say the least, these people make me laugh. Just because the Supreme Court’s judgment did not favour them, it must have been procured with money. This is insult taken too far. The question I ask Peterside, Oyegun and others is: When the Court of Appeal delivered judgment in their favour in Rivers and Akwa Ibom states’ cases, did they pay the justices? If they are saying that the Supreme Court must have been bribed to affirm the elections of Governor Nyesom Wike (Rivers) and Governor Udom Emmanuel (Akwa Ibom), are they saying that they bribed the Court of Appeal to annul the elections? Why is it that the APC and its members go out of their way to condemn what does not favour them?
In the past, many a member of the APC benefitted from courts’ decisions. When this happened, they clapped and rejoiced. Now that the cases are not in their favour, they are pointing fingers. Peterside’s godfather, Chibuike Amaechi, is a beneficiary of the benevolence of the courts. He did not contest election, but the Supreme Court ruled that he should be sworn in as governor, as, according to the apex court, political parties, and not candidates win elections. And since, in the court’s judgment, Amaechi was the legally chosen candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), he should take over office from Celestine Omehia, who stood for the election. When this happened, to the Amaechis, the judiciary lived up its name. Now that the apex court is ruling against the Amaechi tendency, the judgment must have been procured. In Osun and Ekiti states, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), which is now a part of APC, was handed the governorship seats by the Court of Appeal. At that time, it was good. Now that APC does not have favourable judgment, the judiciary must be corrupt.
The judiciary should be left to do its job, just as the Presidency is doing its own. Different layers of courts are in place, so that people not satisfied with whatever judgment could seek redress. Cases decided by the Supreme Court end there, except the apex court reverses itself. Anybody who has any misgivings about whatever case should write a petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC) with evidence attached. Such petition will be investigated and acted upon. There have been cases where the NJC punished erring judges. It is not for the Presidency to institute a probe of the judiciary, as being canvassed by some people. The judiciary is capable of purging itself. The judiciary, as an institution, is also capable of dispensing justice. If there are some bad eggs, it does not make the entire institution bad. Many times in the country, the judiciary has risen to the occasion, to the extent of once declaring a military-constituted Interim National Government led by Chief Ernest Shonekan illegal. We cannot, therefore, throw away the baby with the bath water, just to please some people, who are obviously bad losers. Blackmail of judiciary will only bring doom
from The Sun News http://ift.tt/1Qbfi1F
via IFTTT
0 comments:
Post a Comment