Nigeria, We Hail Thee!
Posted July 25, 2007 · Ejike Okpa II
In a democracy, there is hardly a challenge and or question which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one, needing clarification and or decision. That is, assuming the various branches that make up a democracy are independent and when they act, they consider the impact their action will have on the nation and its mood. The saying that everybody has a day in court is noted in such situation. And once a matter makes its way to the Supreme Court, the final process in a judicial situation, the Court’s ruling must be final.
The Supreme Court is different in that its decision and rulings are driven not so much on the basis of the intent, letters and strict constricture of the law. But rather, on moral rightness, equity, honor, good reason, fairness, due reward and treatment of a situation, etc. In a lower court manned and handled by Judges, the outcome may be different. The Court’s decision maybe on the basis of an individual’s case but the decision sets the tone and mood of a nation.
The Supreme Court is a lens/prism through which the life and mood of a nation is magnified and illuminated, and where constitutional conducts are defined and precedents set. It is the Supreme Court which constitutionally has the power to declare any federal law unconstitutional and its decisions set the tone for repealing or reversal of lower court rulings. By virtue of the word ‘Supreme’, the Court is the final arbiter in all cases/challenges and or question of mercantile, social and constitutional laws. Whether the decisions favor or disfavor any particular group, the decision[s] of the Court continue to shape and influence every aspect of the life of a people in a democracy.
In Nigeria, as the Court matures in its responsibilities and begins an unapologetic stance to exert, insert and endow its independence, the confidence that Nigerians expect to strengthen their [nascent] democracy will be strongly rooted. However, if the Court is seem as an arm available to the presidency to exert his presidential wishes and unduly trample on the nation, the confidence and trust which are necessary for a successful democracy will erode and what exists, will simply be a masked and malfeasance democracy with a dose of glorified and justified dictatorship. The existence of the Court is an assurance that unruly constitutional conduct[s] of the presidency is challenged, checked and curtailed. The Court’s independence insures that no one is above the law, and their decision equalizes and rectifies the various warring factions that constantly co-exist in a democracy. A healthy warring faction though.
One does not need to be a lawyer to understand certain Court’s rulings, figure out its impact on the society, and so forth. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has in many of its rulings shown that it does add to the confusion and conflicts that drive the Nigeria’s political class and its obvious dysfunctional tendencies. In a lay parlance, when one ascends to the level of Justice as opposed to Judge, the Justice should decide not strictly on the basis of the letters of the law but rather on its social impact, equity, fairness, moral rightness and so forth. On the other hand, a Judge looks at the law from its intent; strict constricture and a judgment. The apex court as the Supreme Court is known in Nigeria, often do the work of the lower court. Their rulings leave many wondering how such affects the body of case law in Nigeria and impact the society. The Supreme Court is for the people while the lower court is for the litigating clients.
During Obasanjo’s terms/regime, Nigerians were not helped as many decisions by the Supreme Court were ignored, confusing and appeared manipulated by the presidency to achieve its undue objectives. However, in the Uba removal from governorship of Anambra State, a glaring assurance and shining development under President Yar’Adua, the Court’s decision [faulty though], was rendered to allow Obi complete a 4-Year term. I disagree with that because the completion of a term should be on any unfinished time in a term and not necessarily the start of a new one. If for instance, Obi got in, in Year 3 of a 4-Year term, Obi then has one year to go. It does not mean Obi gets 4 years afresh. That is what the Supreme Court ruled.
Because of the snail and confusing nature of how election matters are handled by the Court, it takes unnecessary length of time to render decision. In election matters, there should be a set time to hear election disputes and make a decision. Due to the nature of election, certain cases should go straight to the Supreme Court, on constitutional merit and for resolution. But so that the Court’s docket does not look like that of a customary or magistrate court, there should be strict guidelines on what case to hear and why. The back and forth filings of all sorts of election cases in the Court, derails and distracts the system and creates confusion and conflicts.
In Nigeria where people enjoy filing election complaints just to derail the process, INEC [Independent Election Commission], hardly independent; election cases should be handled with fiat. And only cases relating to that of the president, senators, House of Representatives should go to the Supreme Court. For cases relating to state governors, there should be Regional Election Tribunals set up to handle such matters, and their ruling should be final. However, if the Regional Election Tribunal rulings is challenged on constitutional and legal matters, and not just on the ruling; in other words; technicality, the Supreme Court may elect to hear the matter by taking oral argument from opposing lawyers without examination and then render a decision within a given date. All election matters should be concluded within 90 days after the general or special election.
However, in the case of obvious fraud and rigging, a Special Election should be conducted under the supervision of a panel made up of appointees of the Federal judiciary, state representatives, INEC as observer, and representatives of the various political parties appointed by a blind ballot. The incessant court challenges to election results mars and tarnishes the credibility of the system and calls to question the intention of those filing the complaints.
While I disagree with the ruling of the Supreme Court; giving Obi a 4 Year term, I agree with the Court on the basis of moral rightness, fairness, equity, good reason, because of the manner Uba got in. On legal grounds, the Supreme Court may have failed some [which is normal], but on social-political grounds, they handed Nigeria but especially the people of Anambra State justice not a win. And justice rendered by a Supreme Court may be legally wrong but morally right. And it’s about time things are RIGHT with Nigeria and Anambra State in particular.
The Supreme Court may finally be waning/weaning itself from the [milk and honey] connection with the presidency. And no matter the flaws in the Court’s decisions, Nigerians should see the development as a sign that when the excesses of the executive branch is curtailed, democracy begins its tap root and at such level, it is difficult to up root.
Nigerians, I hail Thee!
Ejike E. Okpa II
Next Generation Fellow
The American Assembly
Columbia University
Email to Friend | View Blog Archive
Comments
There are no comments on this entry yet.