Opposition and the Judiciary in Nigeria
|
|
By Franklin Otorofani, Esquire
03.06.08
|
|
It was the late
British Prime Minister during the 2nd World War—Sir, Winston Churchill, who with
brutal candor took a hard look at democracy, and described it as the “worst form
of government except for all the others.”
In one breath, Churchill was affirming the superiority of democracy over other
systems of government its shortcomings notwithstanding while in another breath
expressing his frustrations with democracy. The strength of democracy and
therefore its supposed superiority lies for the most part in its participatory
dimensions in the enterprise of governance by the generality of the citizenry
through the instrumentality of the electoral subsystem that recruits the
leadership cadres for the supra-system that animates and nurtures the
subsystems. Such participation affords the people themselves the opportunity to
own the government and therefore the decision making processes of leadership and
governance.
Another alluring feature of democracy is its consensual character—at least in
theory—which dictates that major public policies and programs are formulated and
executed through constitutionally and legally imposed consensual imperatives as
between and among the different branches of government constituted by the people
themselves through the electoral machinery alluded to above. The inbuilt
consensual mechanism in the democratic system is however a double-edged sword
that works either way to promote and advance the cause of democracy and
stability in the polity or undermine the very foundation of democracy itself.
Therefore by describing democracy in such unflattering terms, the former British
Prime Minister was drawing attention to the inherent weaknesses of democracy and
its excruciatingly slow and frustrating systemic processes many of which have
the potentials of actually defeating the fundamental purposes and expressed
objectives of governance itself if taken to extreme limits especially in
societies rooted in the ethos of monarchical absolutism and/or military
totalitarianism as evident in both pre-and post independence Nigerian history.
For example, the partisan gridlock in Congress orchestrated by “Contract with
America” famed House Speaker, Newt Gingrich of the Republican Party during
President Clinton’s first term in office, which was used to effectively shut
down the US government in peace time is symptomatic of the congenital disease of
democracy where the much vaunted consensual mechanism failed abysmally. That the
government of an entire nation can be shut down by the stubborn refusal of an
opposition-led Congress to appropriate funds for the executive arm to run the
government, exposes one of the fundamental weaknesses of democracy as a system
of government.
It’s not clear what an opposition-led National Assembly in Nigeria would do with
its majority if given the chance. However, if any conclusion could be drawn from
the experiences of PRP’s ex-governor Balarabe Musa of Kaduna state in the Second
Republic during former President Shehu Shagari’ administration in the hands of
the NPN controlled House of Assembly, and APGA’s governor Chris Obi of Anambra
State during ex-President Obasanjo’s administration in the hands of the PDP led
House of Assembly, it’s to the effect that no sooner would a President be sworn
in, in Nigeria than an opposition-led National Assembly would immediately embark
on the process of his impeachment! If ex-Speaker Ghali Na’Abba and former Senate
President Pius Anyim were in charge of an opposition-controlled National
Assembly, there would have been no second term for OBJ—in fact, there would have
no first term either, and our democracy would have been long dead and buried!
And even now, were President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s PDP not in control of the
National Assembly the nation would not have waited for the verdict of the
Presidential Election Tribunal. An opposition controlled National Assembly would
have, at the instigation of Abubakar Atiku and Muhammdu Buhari, consigned the
Yar’Adua Presidency to the dustbin of history the very first day he was sworn
in! In fact, Buhari and Atiku would not have even bothered to approach the
Tribunal to help them throw Yar’Adua out of Aso Rock. And there is nothing
Nigerians would have done about it!
If the United States with some three hundred years of democracy under her belt
could still be plagued by such democratic infirmities think of what havoc the
opposition would have wrought on the Nigerian polity if it were in control of
the National Assembly. I shudder each time I think about it! I can tell you with
absolute degree of certain of certainty that our young democracy would have long
suffered untimely death in the hands of the opposition in control of the
Nigerian Parliament. Thank goodness, for all its imperfections, PDP is in
control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, and some
might add, the judiciary as well thus affording Nigeria a shot at democratic
continuity and some semblance of peace and stability.
Now, the ruling party has been called names for alleged disobedience of court
orders especially during the previous administration of President Obasanjo. Yet
it is to the eternal credit of that administration that the judiciary was given
a free hand to administer justice without let or hindrance. The Nigerian
judiciary has earned considerable amount of praise nationally and
internationally most remarkably from the opposition in Nigeria on account of its
landmark decisions which courageously reversed the actions and/or declarations
of the Federal Government. The cases that readily come to mind would include the
seizure of the statutory allocations of local governments of Lagos State; the
declaration of Vice-President Abubakar Atiku’s tenure by the Court of Appeal as
unimpeachable on account of his defection to another party; as well as the
reversal by the Supreme Court the banning of Vice-President Atiku from
contesting the 2007 Presidential Election on account of his indictment by a
Presidential Panel and the EFCC; just to mention but a few of the landmark
decisions.
That our judiciary has risen up to the challenge of democracy in this
dispensation is indeed remarkable even though I personally disagree with many of
its decisions. But that is beside the point. Agree or not, the fact of the
matter is that the judiciary has demonstrated its independence without a shadow
of doubt, which is testament to the fact that our democracy is live and well. A
healthy and robust judiciary and the press is evidence of a healthy democracy.
And this is without prejudice to the charges that our democracy has yet to
deliver its ‘dividends’ in remarkable numbers.
What is more remarkable however is the penchant of opposition politicians in
Nigeria to applaud the judiciary to high heavens each and every time it hands
down a ruling that is unfavorable to either the government or the ruling party,
the PDP, even in matters that are purely internal to it. Whether it was Governor
Celestine Omehia being yanked off the Government House in Rivers State and
replaced by another PDP man who never contested the election in the first place,
or Senator Araraume of Imo State being given the green light by the court to fly
his party gubernatorial flag, the opposition made it its business to gleefully
applaud the judiciary to high heavens for overruling the ruling party in its
internal affairs. On such occasions we have heard the Nigerian judiciary being
described by members of the opposition in superlatives terms such as “courageous
and fearless” “last hope of the common man,” “pride of the nation,” and the
“bulwark of democracy” just to mention but a few of such unsolicited praises by
the opposition.
With a raft of favorable rulings by the judiciary on its side, the opposition
literarily swooned and worshipped at the court of the judiciary. It would rush
to the judiciary at the drop of a hat knowing it would obtain a favorable ruling
to the extent that it appeared that the Nigerian judiciary had been hijacked by
the opposition to serve its partisan political interests. It got to a point that
ex-Vice President Atiku, who prided himself as the leader of the opposition,
literarily relocated his office from the presidency to the superior courts where
he worshipped at the feet of the Justices of the Court of the Appeal and the
Supreme Court in his endless battle with his boss for political survival in the
name of “defending democracy.” That litigious predilection on the part of the
opposition has continued to this day and constitutes the greatest threat to our
young democracy which badly requires some breathing space live, grow, and mature
without being subjected to constant stress.
However, the hitherto melodious ‘Songs of Praise’ for the Nigerian Judiciary
orchestrated and rendered by the opposition choristers have suddenly turned to
vicious attacks on the judiciary by the same opposition. Why the sudden u-turn?
It’s because the Court of Appeal, doubling as the Presidential Election
Tribunal, had the audacity to deviate from its long tradition of handing down
favorable rulings for the opposition and instead gave judgment to Yar’Adua as
duly elected! What a “travesty of justice!” railed the opposition. The Justices
of the Court of Appeal have been “bribed!” it charged.
Overnight, stories of bribery sprouted from the oversized rumor mills. Each time
the Federal Government and/or the PDP obtain a favorable ruling from the courts
a rash of attacks is unleashed on the judiciary and the particular judges
concerned, by the opposition, joined of course by its comrade in arms—the
Nigerian Labor Congress. And before you say Jack Robinson!—the Agbakoba-led NBA
and the so-called civil society groups have jumped in to side with the
opposition to condemn the judiciary for daring to rule against it. But there are
no charges of bribery when the Judiciary rules in favor of the opposition. There
is no opposition outcry about ‘travesty of justice’ when it obtains a favorable
ruling from the judiciary. The judiciary is ‘corrupt’ only when the opposition
loses its case to the ruling party or the presidency as the case may be.
Which makes one wonder what manner of opposition we have in that country called
Nigeria? Why is our judiciary the ‘best’ in the world when it gives rulings in
favor of the opposition and the ‘worst’ in the world when it rules against it?
Why are our judges ‘incorruptible’ when they rule in favor of the opposition but
‘bribed’ when they rule against it? Why is the Nigerian judiciary ‘a danger’ to
democracy when it dismisses a petition by the opposition but a ‘bulwark’ of
democracy when it upholds its petition? Or for that matter, why is our judiciary
‘courageous’ when the opposition wins a case and ‘timid’ when it loses its case?
Are we dealing with true democrats or some impostors masquerading as democrats?
And come to think of it: how much democracy would a Buhari or an Atiku
presidency, have bequeathed to the nation had either of them won the
presidential election? The question can be answered by the way they run their
one-man parties. How democratic is the internal workings of the ANPP before the
election when Buhari was firmly in charge, and the AC, when Atiku was firmly in
control? For starters, how democratic was the process that led to the emergence
of Muhammadu Buhari and Abubakar Atiku as the presidential flag-bearers of the
ANPP, and the AC respectively? How could autocratic opposition presidential
candidates such as Buhari and Atiku, who brook no opposition whatsoever in their
own parties, preach democracy to anybody in Nigeria? The reality on the ground
is that the opposition parties are not nearly as democratic as the ruling party—PDP
that they malign and criticize as anti-democratic. I stand to be challenged by a
contrary opinion.
Fellow Nigerians, be wise to these politicians and their wily ways. We must pay
heed to what’s happening in other lands even in our own backyards. This writer
remembers vividly during the third term debate editors of THISDAY newspapers,
led by Mr. Olusegun Adeniyi, Yar’Adua’s communication, director telling
President Obasanjo to emulate President Putin of Russia who had publicly
declared that he would not go for a third term. Putin was held up by Mr. Adeniyi
and his editorial colleagues as the paragon of a democrat for not going for
third term. Today Putin has secured a third term as Prime Minister of Russia
while making his hand picked surrogate Dimitri Medvedev, President of the
Russian Federation as figure head. If OBJ had followed the advice of Adeniyi and
his colleagues he would have been Prime Minister of Nigeria today and enjoying
his third term like Putin!
Another example is Kenya. Tidings from across Kenya have opened our eyes to the
fact that an opposition candidate is not necessarily a better or more democratic
just because he is in the opposition. Barely five years ago, President Kibaki of
Kenya led a coalition of opposition parties against then unpopular President
Arap Moi. Kenyans were swooning over his victory against Arap Moi because they
were eager to get rid of Arap Moi and vote in the opposition at all costs. Cries
of: “Change! Change!” rented the air in cities and towns across Kenya. Today
Kenyans are causing the day they cast their votes for Kibaki and looking to
bring in another opposition leader, Mr. Odinga, to replace Kibaki. They have
refused to learn from their own raw history.
It has been said with much validity that those who refuse to learn from history
are condemned to repeat it. That is the fate of Kenyans today. Thank goodness,
it’s the one fate Nigerian can do without…!
How is the Nigerian judiciary doing? Try ask members of the opposition today.
They will likely tell you that the judiciary has done well on the whole but it
has recently “performed below expectation!” Prod them further by asking how so?
They will readily cite the Court of Appeal ruling that declared President
Yar’Adua duly elected in the last election. To them the judiciary has performed
‘below expectation’ for giving judgment to Yar’Adua rather than to Buhari and
Atiku. It doesn’t matter if Atiku and Buhari could not prove their case at the
Tribunal. It doesn’t matter if they did not claim to have won the election and
only wanted to be given another chance to re-contest the presidential election
at public expense. It doesn’t matter whether it would be in the public interest
for electoral losers who could not prove their allegations of rigging in court
to be given another chance to re-contest elections at public expense. If every
litigant who loses a court case should be given a second chance to re-litigate
the same issues there will be no end to cases. Thank goodness, our jurisprudence
frowns at re-litigation of decided cases by losing parties. The same holds true
for electoral contests in order to bring finality to the democratic processes
and move the nation forward save in proven cases of gross improprieties.
Therefore members of the opposition need to be educated to the effect that the
Nigerian judiciary is not the judicial arm of the CNPP, AC, or ANPP. It is not
and should not be beholden to the government of the day nor to any political
party whether in government or in opposition. That the PDP which is the ruling
party and the Federal Government have suffered and continue to suffer judicial
reverses since the time of OBJ till date, shows that the Nigerian judiciary is
not at all beholden to the ruling party or the Federal Government. Why then must
it be beholden to the opposition and attacked when it rules against it and
praised when it rules in its favor? Why is it that it’s only the opposition that
is always attacking the judiciary whenever it loses a case? I have not for once
heard the PDP mount an attack against the judiciary in the several cases it has
lost to the opposition since the time of OBJ.
This anti-democratic attitude must stop forthwith or be stopped. We must not
allow those who take delight in destroying the integrity of every public
institution in the nation the way they did to INEC and Iwu, to determine our
fate. Whoever calls himself a democrat must be prepared to respect the rulings
of our courts favorable or unfavorable without seeking to impugn the integrity
of the judiciary, needlessly. Our democratic institutions must not be allowed to
be pulled down by political desperadoes and hack writers on their payrolls whose
stock in trade is to destroy every public institution in the land when things do
not go their way. Patriotism, while still a rare commodity in Nigeria,
nevertheless imposes on every true citizen a duty to defend the integrity of our
democratic institutions and proffer corrective measures whenever they are
objectively and manifestly found wanting in any particular respects rather than
seek to destroy them in pursuit of selfish agenda.
It’s not the role of the opposition to pull down the house if it fails to win
elections. Opposition goes beyond winning elections to helping to build an
enduring democratic culture and institutions. Pulling down democratic
institutions does not help that process…When will the Nigerian opposition learn
to respect our democratic institutions and processes including results of
elections? That is the ultimate mark of a true democrat. It’s about time…!
Long live democracy in Nigeria!
Franklin Otorofani, Esquire (USA)
Contact: mudiagaone@yahoo.com
|
|
