The 2023 general elections brought the Nigerian judiciary under heavy criticism, even as the integrity of the judges were impugned. Is criticism of the judiciary justified? TOPE SUNDAY asks in this report.
In the aftermath of the 2023 Presidential elections, Nigerians have been very vocal in their criticism of the judiciary. Many decried what they saw as judicial interference, lack of independence, and partisanship in the handling of election petitions.
There were widespread allegations of vote rigging and malpractice during the 2023 general elections, with various parties contesting the results.
The role of the judiciary in resolving these disputes has been put under the microscope, with many Nigerians expressing dissatisfaction with the performance of the country’s legal system.
Much of the criticism has focused on the perceived lack of independence of the judiciary from political influence. Many have accused the courts of being subject to pressure from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) or other powerful interests, leading to biased rulings and miscarriages of justice.
Despite these criticisms, however, there have also been voices of support for the judiciary. Many have praised individual judges for their integrity and commitment to upholding the rule of law, even in the face of pressure from powerful interests.
Notable critics
A lot of Nigerians via social and traditional media have criticised the judiciary. While some of the critics are relatively unknown, criticism by legal gurus whose opinions are considered to be authority like the former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), carries a lot of weight.
For Agbakoba, the judiciary is the most undemocratic arm of government. The learned Silk, while reacting to the speech by retired Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad at his valedictory session, held recently in Abuja, also said the National Judicial Council (NJC) needed to take note of the points that were raised by Justice Dattijo to address the decay in Nigeria’s judicial system.
Agbakoba also emphasized that Dattijo’s speech was not in any way impugning the character of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Olukayode Ariwoola, but was addressing the inconsistencies of the office in itself.
Also, a Nigerian Professor based in the United States (US), Farooq Kperogi, in an article titled: “Lawan and Supreme Court of Shameless Judicial Bandits” which he shared on social media platforms, criticised the Supreme Court over its recent judgment that confirmed former Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Godswill Akpabio and Senate President Ahmad Lawan as senatorial candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 25 elections.
He also described the apex court “as the most hopeless Supreme Court in the history of the world’s supreme courts.”
Judiciary can be criticized, not scandalised – Falana
Speaking at the public presentation of “Dis Life No Balance; An Anthropology of Nigerian Diaspora Voices, a book, co-authored by Professors Farooq Kperogi, Moses Ochonu, and Dr. Osmund Agbo, in Abuja recently, Mr. Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), argued that judiciary can be criticised, noting that judges had in the past criticised their judgments.
Falana, who cited various instances where judges disagreed over judgments, however, warned against scandalising the judiciary.
He said: “From time to time, the Justices of the Supreme Court subject the judgments of their brethren to harsh criticism which are expressed in dissenting opinions.
“For instance, in Abacha v The State, Olufemi Ejiwunmi J.S.C. was peeved that his colleagues decided to discharge the appellant despite what his Lordship regarded as the overwhelming evidence of his involvement in the brutal murder of the Late Mrs Kudirat Abiola.
“In a critical dissenting opinion, his Lordship referred to the judgments of his colleagues as “the tyranny of the majority.” The Hon. Justice Cletus Nweze, who passed on a few months ago, never hesitated to write dissenting judgments whenever he felt that the decision of the Supreme Court could not be justified on legal grounds.
“Occasionally, his Lordship does so with some caustic words for his learned brethren in the Court. For instance, in the controversial case of Uzodinma v Ihediora, Nweze predicted that the majority judgment would haunt the Supreme Court for several years to come.
“Truly, the judgment has been haunting the Court since then and may continue until the judgment is revisited in the future.
“In the same vein, in Oghenovo & Anor v Governor of Delta State & Anor (2022) LPELR-48062(SC) the Supreme Court Court dismissed the appeal for want of locus standi. Convinced that the majority judgment was wrong the Hon. Justice Nweze delivered a dissenting judgment where he held that: “It would, in my view, be a grave lacuna in our system of public law, if a pressure group, like the federation, or even a single public-spirited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi, from bringing the matter to the attention of the Court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped.
“Incidentally, the leading judgment in the case of APC v Machina was read by the Honourable Justice Nweze. No doubt, the judgment was anchored on technicalities as the appeal succeeded on the ground that the respondent ought to have commenced the pre-election case by filing a writ of summons instead of originating summons. “Out of the 5-member panel of the Court, Agim and Jauro JJSC vehemently disagreed with the majority judgment on solid legal grounds that are devoid of sentiment.
” In particular, the Hon. Justice Jauro stated that he had painstakingly read the affidavit in support of the originating summons and cannot identify any crime reference to warrant the filing of a writ of summons in the case.
“It is submitted that the right to criticize the decisions of courts in a democratic society is part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed by section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution and article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
“It has been observed that in a democracy, the three arms of government and all institutions including the courts are necessarily the subject of criticism. No public institution maintained with public funds is exempted from criticism scrutiny.
“It is submitted while the general right to criticize decisions of courts is not disputed, lawyers and members of the public are not permitted to scandalise judges or accuse them of corruption or misconduct without proof. In reacting to the controversial judgment of the court in Machina’s case, Kperoggi referred to the justices of the Supreme Court as “shameless judicial bandits.”
“With respect, Professor Kperoggi ought not to have engaged in such vulgar abuse in criticizing the judgment of the apex court.
“… It is pertinent to note that the Justices of the Supreme Court have continued to welcome criticism of their judgments.
“Two years ago, while speaking in Abuja on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of his call-to-bar along with some Justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Judges in other courts, and senior lawyers in the country, the immediate past Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad said, “As critical stakeholders in the task of justice delivery, you have the responsibility of drawing our attention to where things are going wrong or on the verge of going wrong.”
“Justice Muhammad was emphatic when he said that it would not be out of place for lawyers to subject Justices in the country to criticism where necessary as a step to ensuring improvement in the justice delivery system.
“Justice Muhammad, however, said that such criticism must be offered in good faith and objectivity that will propel judicial officers on the bench to enhanced performance. I concur with the retired Chief Justice”
‘2023 polls exposed judiciary’
Also speaking on the criticism of the judiciary, an Abuja-based Legal Practitioner, Chris Nevo Esq., said the 2023 general elections exposed the judiciary to forensic scrutiny, adding that the attack against the institution was not meant to scare the judges.
He said: “First, the attack is not, and can never be justified by any rational person. In my sincere estimation, it is also, in most cases, not an attempt to cow them.
“There may be a few instances, where the intent is clearly to browbeat the Judiciary. Notwithstanding, vicious and acerbic criticism of some aspects of their actions or conduct, should not be misconstrued.
“The 2023 general elections was unique and unparalleled in terms of the degree of awareness, mobilisation, interest, and participation. It offered hope and created alluring excitements, as people were made to, and, did genuinely believe that their vote would count.
“They had fervently relied on and trusted the fact the election would be substantially IT/electronically driven to leapfrog the usual manipulations, and they conscientiously invested in it.
“When it came and eventually ended the way it did, especially at the national level, people, especially, the young and digital savvy could not persuaded by the reasons or justifications provided by INEC for the abysmal disappointment, they were also enraged by the misplaced confidence with which INEC decreed ‘Go To Court’ for those dissatisfied.
“Since the Judiciary has been churning out some mysterious Judgments/decisions founded more on technicalities than substantial justice.
“The endpoint is that people became frustrated with the Judiciary and began to vigorously and fiercely interrogate their actions and decisions at every forum and any means – conventional/digital media.
“In all, the criticism is an admixture of frustration and the desire for the right to be done that will put an end to the theater of absurd in the conflicting and contradictory judgments of the courts occasioned by the 2023 elections.
“The elections opened up the Judiciary to forensic scrutiny as never before, and, there will be no end in sight until real justice starts surfacing.”
‘Bad losers criticising judiciary’
For Social Critic, Akinboye Adeoye, only bad losers were criticising the judiciary.
While reacting to Agbakoba’s allegation against the judiciary he said: “The accusations against the judiciary and Supreme Court have become predominant as a result of bad losers during the recent elections.
“Those who did not produce sufficient evidence in courts, expected the Courts to manufacture evidence for them as if the Supreme Court were Father Christmas.
“The same Agbakoba cautioned those he called armchair lawyers to stop condemning the supreme court justices. He is one of the pioneers of those objectionable and ridiculous 25 per cent votes of Abuja superiority. That Abuja Federal Capital votes is superior to 36 State votes. Agbakoba is bitter over the losses of his candidates.
“Are the Supreme Court justices not first and foremost lawyers that some people alleged to be liars? Those that Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi referred to as “legal mechanics”.
“That a lawyer can argue ‘A’ and ‘B’ here, and ‘C’ there depending on the highest bidders. Political and opposition lawyers are doing worse to our judges.
“How many of the senior lawyers are professionals in their conduct? The other day, one took a dead case in the Imo state of Ihedioha to court after four years.
“Let Agbakoba come out, especially in the recent cases where the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that was not in order. Let him articulate it point by point and not be going to the past.”
