Nigeria is on the verge of changing the baton of leadership, consequent upon the conclusion of the last general election in the country. Resulting from the outcome are several petitions filed in the various tribunals to interrogate the validity or otherwise of the results. Of interest to me in all of these is that the judges will have to determine the ultimate fates of the various declared winners and, by extension, the electorate in the various constituencies. Elections and their results have always been subject matters of litigation in Nigeria right from the days of the colonial enterprise from which many decisions of courts have arisen. The issue has always been that while the winning party is celebrating, the losing party is biting his fingers and licking his wounds. The situation has always put our judges on trial and the general public has always been querying the wisdom and the rationale that weigh against the loser.
The law has always been as stated by the statutes regulating the elections and the outcome of them. Judges do not derive their powers to determine election petitions from a vacuum and hence they have always been bound to interpret the provisions of the legislation by which they are vested with jurisdiction. It is indubitable that the electoral laws are tilted legislatively against the petitioner and which has substantially determined the number of petitions won and lost. Their lordships at the various levels of courts have always, therefore, been on trial even in the most hopeless of all cases where the petitioner knew from the beginning that he stood no iota of chance of winning the election and his complaints are based on mere frivolities designed to sustain his supporters or bargain his way into relevance in the government to be formed by the winner of the election if he is large-hearted enough to consider a government of national unity desirable. Beyond this, the technical rules of the election petition trials are equally unhelpful to electoral justice as I interrogated elsewhere. Honestly to my mind, I am not too sure that those rules as they stand now can engender electoral justice. That explains why in a lot of cases you discover the disconnect between the judgments and the populace. That has often led to the misrepresentation of issues and the undue tainting of our judges as corrupt.
We need to save the situation by improving on these rules and relaxing them as much as possible to enthrone purposeful electoral justice. As things stand now, they are substantially circumscribed by the rules and not so much the judges can do. They cannot circumvent the laws and the rules in order to attain electoral justice. The judges deserve our sympathy and pity in the dispensation of electoral justice. Hence, we still need to take a further look at the technical rules of election petitions.
Anyway, that is not my area of interest per se. it is my concern whether our judges are really ready to handle election petitions courageously as they have done in many cases. Are they ready to spare us the agony of elevating frivolous petitions to the status of life-defining judicial exercise? Are they prepared to let litigious petitioners know that the resources of the nation are being wasted when they courts are burdened with terrible and lifeless petitions that only want to trend on twitter and other social media platforms? Are our judges ready to show the way out to anyone who has rigged himself into power without battling an eyelid. Are they ready to tell the politicians of today that not all judges are corrupt and there are exceptions the majority of whom now sit on our bench? Are they prepared to let Nigerians know that justice still lives in our courts and the courts are the best place to turn without fear of intimidation either by the political class or a rabble-rousing multitude? Now that our fate is in the hands of the judges, do we think that we have prepared them for these challenges? By this, have we placed the judges in a position to resist any temptation from the political class who are ever at ease to compromise them?
I know this is certainly not so. An average litigant is ever ready to suggest a meeting with the judge in order to influence the scale of justice in his favour. Any time I come across such corrupt litigants; I always take time to educate them on why it should not be an option to consider. Imagine a situation where Mr. A. offered bribe to a judge and Mr. B gives a higher sum to the same judge, the two have made justice an item to be purchased and the corrupt judge may give judgment reflective of the interest of the higher bidder. Can politicians ever think that the judiciary is like a village stream which is polluted by defecation and urine anytime we compromise a judge? It is the same stream that we shall all return to in order to get water to drink, bath and wash our cloths.
Once polluted, the stream becomes a source of disease and death from which we all shall be victims. While not suggesting that all judges are corrupt so as to be ready and willing to be compromised, I am of the strong view that we must, at all times, insulate them against any temptation. The surest of the ways is to ensure that their take home pay can take them home and make them comfortable. A poverty-stricken judge is worse than a reckless rubber lurking the corner for his next victim. Since 2008, the remunerations of judges have remained static. Inflation is about 23 percent while exchange rate as at 2008 was 117 Naira to a dollar, today it is a minimum of 760 Naira to a dollar. Still, the judges are subjected to the same environment and market like others that have benefited from multiple reviews over time. It is simply miraculous that judges in Nigeria are still surviving and giving judgments that proclaim justice as indispensable in a number of cases. Honestly, the judges, in my view, are only existing and not living and the earlier we address the problems confronting the judiciary the better for us as a people.
The crucial need for the upward review of the remuneration of judges has occupied the centre stage for some time now but with no attendant action. Several high-powered interventions have been made including judicial intervention, still the agitation has not come to fruition. The latest effort is that of the Body of Benchers incorporating the views of virtually all other stakeholders. I understand that the recommendations from the Body are already submitted to the President for action, and still no positive consideration till now. The irony of all the above is that the outgoing government came to power on the mantra of eliminating corruption, and yet acts or omissions that are potential contributory factors are not tamed. I kept on wondering about the sincerity of government in this regard. Now, more than ever before, is the suitable time to effect this review.
Doing this by the outgoing government will be a legacy it will leave behind. It is one that will endure. Imagine the ‘Buhari judicial package’. I hope the spin doctors will catch this and do the needful urgently so that the President sees a future for himself in this situation. The decision recently of the National Industrial Court in a case instituted by Mr. Sebastine Tar Hon is a help for Mr. President. Obeying that decision rather than going on a frivolous appeal will do the magic. The remunerations of judges in this country have been a collection of pittances and the situation is quite worrisome. The locus classicus case has pointed out how we can bridge the gap between the living standards of Nigerian judges and their counterparts in other climes. Our failure to remedy this situation shall make the masses lack confidence in not only the government but the system that birthed and sustained it. The future of this country rests so much on the judiciary as we cannot afford to recede to the ancien regime of taking the law into our own hands.
Where the outgoing government is not able to address the situation of the judiciary, I implore Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu to make this issue one of primal importance in his regime. He tried in Lagos State in addressing the issue of welfare of judges, which later became a standard that other states were copying, but more still remains to be done. The case at the centre is worse and ought to be urgently addressed.