Opinion

Time for Judges to Be Statesmen by Sam Amadi

Published

1 year ago

May 8, 2023

Eric

As Nigeria wraps up its election, attention shifts to the judges. With over seven hundred cases filed at the tribunals, the judiciary will be overworked. Yet we expect wisdom, courage, and intelligence to correct all errors, deliberate or otherwise, made by the political branches of government. We rest our hopes on the judges, and their power of judicial review, to rebuke impunity, reverse error and strengthen us toward electoral justice.

It is ironic that whilst we think that increasing involvement of judges in determining who gets elected as political leader is inimical to consolidating democracy, we are forced to continue to call on judges to intervene in electoral matters for the sake of justice. Of course, courts are called temples of justice because they are fit and proper to receive the intercessions of a people who are brutalized, oppressed, and deprived of justice. So, the irony is not so depressing because when we beckon on judges to act in the name of justice, we are giving concrete expression to the expression that courts are temples of justice.

The conventional theory of constitutional democracy holds that there are two political branches and one non-political branch. The political branches are the executive and the legislature. Members of these two branches are elected by the people and have the liberty to act in furtherance of their interests. The theory of representation by foremost parliamentarian and jurisprudent, Edmund Burke, is that legislators are trustees of the people. As trustees, they are free to decide public interests according to their own understanding of what is in the best interests of the people. A contrary theory of representation argues that the legislator is but an agent of the people: he must do what the people want him to do, not what he thinks is best for the people. Whether legislators are agents or trustees of the people, the common logic is that the legislator act politically. To act politically is to advance the interests of one group notwithstanding that such interest is not rationally compelling. That is why we do not excoriate legislators who fight to ensure that projects are sited in their constituencies notwithstanding that economic rationality does not favor those places. We consider them good representatives. But we shame a judge who delivers judgement in favor of his relatives because of consanguinity.

So, the judicial branch is not so designed. Judges are not representatives of the people. A judge does not represent his family, his friends, or his constituency. He represents God in the religious sense, or rationality in ultra-rationality. Judges do justice. And justice is giving people what they deserve, not what they desire. We can see from this social portraiture that judges have more gravitas and bona fides to act as statesmen in times of troubles than representatives and executives. As we say, politicians care about the next election, but statesmen care about the nation. Judges ought to be statesmen.

The concept of judges as statesmen has a strong implication for sustaining democracy in difficult times and places. In good times and places democracy is safe even with interest-based politics. The foundations of democracy rest on the rule of law. The rule of law means that all persons and authorities are subject to the law; that the law respects basic equality of all persons and the law is executed without deference to prerogatives and merits, apart from the merits of justice. Overlaying the foundations of rule of law is accountability. There is no exemption from the rigor of the law because the institutions of law enforcement are professionally commitment to fair and equitable implementation. In such a society where justice is routinized in administrative practices, the court plays a passive role and is self-restrained. Judges merely adjudicate in matters where vagueness obscures fair and equitable administrative of justice by the political branches.

But in a society where justice is not routinized as administrative practices become of political capture by a powerful minority or a numerical majority, the court moves from passivity to activism to reestablish the rule of law. The legendary Justice Oputa put this pointedly thus: “Whenever the law is used to foster social, racial, economic or sex oppression, the judiciary should quickly intervene to redress the imbalance and thus restore justice”. The court does not act when justice is routinized. The court acts when justice is denied, especially when it is structurally denied.

This articulation of judicial activism bodes well with a powerful theory about the judiciary propounded by Harvard professor Abram Chayes. It is the ‘governance’ theory of the court. Chayes argues that the court has a right to govern just like the other branches of government when the other branches fail to do the job. Ordinarily, the court forebears to govern trusting the more ‘political’ branches to govern. But where the two fail to govern, the court steps in. Then, judges become statesmen. This explains the various curves of judicial activism.

US Supreme Justice Stephen Breyer traces the context of judicial activism in the constitutional history of the United States. He shows different periods when the US Supreme Court shifted the gear to promote justice or to disrupt structural violation of the people’s rights. For example, he argues that before Justice Warren, the US Supreme Court “overly emphasized the Constitution’s protection of private property ‘as against rights of political participation. In the Warren era, the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution to move away from the logic of property right in the Lochner v. New York case and find a basis in the constitution for ‘active liberty’ for citizens to govern themselves through the principle of ‘one man one vote’. By so doing, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren reconstructed the United States away from the legacy of Jim Crow.

The court is a political institution. So said Robert Dahl. The court is a political institution because of the role that it plays in the political management of the society. In his book about the Nigerian Supreme Court. Professor Isa Sagay paints a picture of the Nigerian Supreme Court that rose up to defends fundamental rights against the corrosion of military dictatorship. That heroic Supreme Court of Eso, Obaseki, Oputa, Uwais and others understood that in times of crisis the court become a political institution that defends the rule of law from new threats. The Uwais court would not have done such if the structure of justice had not been eroded by military dictatorship.

The greatest seduction today will be to believe that we are now an entrenched democracy and therefore the court should carve for itself a routinized retail work that does not override the iniquities of the political class. That is a recipe for disaster for the commonwealth and irrelevance for the court. The true description of Nigeria today is, as the University of Guttenberg’s acclaimed ‘Verities of Democracy’ report 2022 puts it, ‘an electoral autocracy’. Nigeria is not yet a democracy by the evident capture of state institutions by ruling elites. The 2023 election has further cemented this reputation. The election has seen the recklessness of Nigerian politicians who refuse to respect the most fundamental tenets of electoral democracy.

We have always had electoral irregularities and frauds. But we have never had this level of criminalization of elections and wanton collapse of regulatory oversight. The election manager, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) refused to apply its own electronic safeguards in a bewildering capitulation to political banditry. Even the basic regulatory tasks like determining the eligibility of candidates to stand for elections and whether candidates have multiple nominations, regulatory oversight that could be established without expending resources, were abandoned. The regulator did not bother to apply simple rules, even rules that it made pursuant to its statutory powers.

The Supreme Court has inherited the regulatory failures of the election manager. It has been saddled with correcting the impunity of the political class. It beholds that the country is disintegrating on account of reckless disregards for basic rules of justice. It sees the continuing immiseration of the people whose anger is boiling over. The judges know that unrebuked impunity has established a powerful incentive structure that will inexorably lead to the total collapse of the rule of law. In such situation, judges must become statesmen to save their beloved country. They have many things challenging them. They will contend with fear for their lives. They will contend with favors from corrupt politicians. But they should brush aside all these and do justice, even if the heavens fall.

All eyes are on the judges.

Opinion

Day Dele Momodu Made Me Live Above My Means

Published

2 weeks ago

September 1, 2024

Eric

By Uzor Maxim Uzoatu

These are dangerous days of gross shamelessness in totalitarian Nigeria.
Pathetic flaunting of clannish power is all the rage, and a good number of supposedly modern-day Nigerians have thrown their brains into the primordial ring.

One pathetic character came to me the other day stressing that the only way I can prove to him that I am not an ethnic bigot is to write an article attacking Dele Momodu!

I could not make any head or tail of the bloke’s proposition because I did not understand how ethnic bigotry can come up in an issue concerning Dele Momodu and my poor self.

The dotty guy made the further elaboration that I stand accused of turning into a “philosopher of the right” instead of supporting the government of the day which belongs to the left!

A toast to Karl Marx in presidential jet and presidential yacht!

I nearly expired with laughter as I remembered how one fat kept man who spells his surname as “San” (for Senior Advocate of Nigeria – SAN) wrote a wretched piece on me as an ethnic bigot and compelled one boozy rascal that dubiously studied law in my time at Great Ife to put it on my Facebook wall!

The excited tribesmen of Nigerian democracy and their giddy slaves have been greased to use attack as the first aspect of defence by calling all dissenting voices “ethnic bigots” as balm on their rotted consciences.

The bloke urging me to attack Dele Momodu was saddened when he learnt that I regarded the Ovation publisher as “my brother”!

Even amid the strange doings in Nigeria of the moment I can still count on some famous brothers who have not denied me such as Senator Babafemi Ojudu who privileged me to read his soon-to-be-published memoir as a fellow Guerrilla Journalist, and the lionized actor Richard Mofe-Damijo (RMD) who while on a recent film project in faraway Canada made my professor cousin over there to know that “Uzor is my brother!”

It is now incumbent on me to tell the world of the day that Dele Momodu made me live above my means.

All the court jesters, toadies, fawners, bootlickers and ill-assorted jobbers and hirelings put together can never be renewed with enough palliatives to countermand my respect for Dele Momodu who once told our friend in London who was boasting that he was chased out of Nigeria by General Babangida because of his activism: “Babangida did not chase you out of Nigeria. You found love with an oyinbo woman and followed her to London. Leave Babangida out of the matter!”

Dele Momodu takes his writing seriously, and does let me have a look at his manuscripts – even the one written on his presidential campaign by his campaign manager.

Unlike most Nigerians who are given to half measures, Dele Momodu writes so well and insists on having different fresh eyes to look at his works.

It was a sunny day in Lagos that I got a call from the Ovation publisher that I should stand by to do some work on a biography he was about to publish.

He warned me that I have only one day to do the work, and I replied him that I was raring to go because I love impossible challenges.

The manuscript of the biography hit my email in fast seconds, and before I could say Bob Dee a fat alert burst my spare bank account!

Being a ragged-trousered philanthropist, a la the title of Robert Tressel’s proletarian novel, I protested to Dele that it’s only beer money I needed but, kind and ever rendering soul that he is, he would not hear of it.

I went to Lagos Country Club, Ikeja and sacked my young brother, Vitus Akudinobi, from his office in the club so that I can concentrate fully on the work.

Many phone calls came my way, and I told my friends to go to my divine watering-hole to wait for me there and eat and drink all that they wanted because “money is not my problem!”

More calls came from my guys and their groupies asking for all makes of booze, isiewu, nkwobi and the assorted lots, and I asked them to continue to have a ball in my absence, that I would join them later to pick up the bill!

The many friends of the poor poet were astonished at the new-fangled wealth and confidence of the new member of the idle rich class!

It was a beautiful read that Dele Momodu had on offer, and by late evening I had read the entire book, and done some minor editing here and there.

It was then up to me to conclude the task by doing routine editing – or adding “style” as Tom Sawyer would tell his buddy Huckleberry Finn in the eponymous adventure books of Mark Twain.

I chose the style option, and I was indeed in my elements, enjoying all aspects of the book until it was getting to ten in the night, and my partying friends were frantically calling for my appearance.

I was totally satisfied with my effort such that I felt proud pressing the “Send” button on my laptop for onward transmission to Dele Momodu’s email.

I then rushed to the restaurant where my friends were waiting for me, and I had hardly settled down when one of Dele’s assistants called to say that there were some issues with the script I sent!

I had to perforce reopen up my computer in the bar, and I could not immediately fathom which of the saved copies happened to be the real deal.

One then remembered that there were tell-tale signs when the computer kept warning that I was putting too much on the clipboard or whatever.

It’s such a downer that after feeling so high that one had done the best possible work only to be left with the words of James Hadley Chase in The Sucker Punch: “It’s only when a guy gets full of confidence that he’s wide open for the sucker punch.”
Lesson learnt: keep it simple – even if you have been made to live above your means by Dele Momodu!

To end, how can a wannabe state agent and government apologist, a hired askari, hope to get me to write an article against a brother who has done me no harm whatsoever? Mba!

I admire Dele Momodu immensely for his courage of conviction to tell truth to power.

Opinion

PDP at 26, A Time for Reflection not Celebration

Published

2 weeks ago

September 1, 2024

Eric

By Obianuju Kanu-Ogoko

At 26 years, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) should have been a pillar of strength, a beacon of hope and a testament to the enduring promise of democracy in Nigeria.*

Yet, as we stand at this milestone, it is clear that we have little, if anything, to celebrate. Instead, this anniversary marks a sobering moment of reflection, a time to confront the hard truths that have plagued our journey and to acknowledge the gap between our potential and our reality.

Twenty-six years should have seen us mature into a force for good, a party that consistently upholds the values of integrity, unity and progress for all Nigerians.

But the reality is far from this ideal. Instead of celebrating, we must face the uncomfortable truth: *at 26, the PDP has failed to live up to the promise that once inspired millions.*

We cannot celebrate when our internal divisions have weakened our ability to lead. We cannot celebrate when the very principles that should guide us: justice, fairness and accountability,have been sidelined in favor of personal ambition and short-term gains. We cannot celebrate when the Nigerian people, who once looked to the PDP for leadership, now question our relevance and our commitment to their welfare.

This is not a time for self-congratulation. It is a time for deep introspection and honest assessment. What have we truly achieved? Where did we go wrong? And most importantly, how do we rebuild the trust that has been lost? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, not just as a party, but as individuals who believe in the ideals that the PDP was founded upon.

At 26, we should be at the height of our powers, but instead, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The path forward is not easy, but it is necessary. We must return to our roots, to the values that once made the PDP a symbol of hope and possibility. We must rebuild from within, embracing transparency, unity and a renewed commitment to serving the people of Nigeria.

There is no celebration today, only the recognition that we have a long road ahead. But if we use this moment wisely, if we truly learn from our past mistakes, there is still hope for a future where the PDP can once again stand tall, not just in name, but in action and impact. The journey begins now, not with *fanfare but with resolve.

Opinion

Is the Recent Supreme Court Judgment on Payments Being Made Directly to Local Government Councils from the Federation Account Enforceable?

Published

1 month ago

August 9, 2024

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN, CON, OFR

Many Nigerians and non-Nigerians alike have repeatedly asked me if the Supreme Court was not wrong in its interpretation of section 162(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution and what happens to the allegedly wrong judgement. They want to know if the judgment is superior to the said “clear” provisions of the Constitution and if it is ENFORCEABLE or capable of being enforced. They also want to know how,in the event that I say it is enforceable.My simple answers to both questions are yes, yes and yes. Let’s take them one after the other.

1. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IS SUPERIOR TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

A law is only what the courts interpret it to be, not what it says on bare paper. That was why Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr, a very influential civil rights Jurist, Brevet Colonel during the American Civil War and longest serving Justice of the US Supreme Court (1902-1932), who retired from the US Supreme Court at 90, once famously declared that, “the prophesies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law”.

In other words, the law (whether constitutional, substantive, statutory, or adjectival) remains what it is-inanimate and dead on paper-until the life and the oxygen of interpretation are breathed into it by a court of law. Consequently, it is thus the interpretation which was given by the Supreme Court to the entire section 162 of the Constitution on the sharing procedure between the Federal government, states and the LGCs, and not the bare provisions of the Constitution that prevails.

IS THE JUDGMENT ENFORCEABLE?

The answer is also in the affirmative. Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution comes to our rescue by providing that “the decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced by in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts of subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court”.

Even if the Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of section 162 dealing with the State Joint Local Government Account, the judgement remains binding on all and for all times.It is only an amendment of the Constitution under section 9 thereof that can override the decision. No person or authority can decide,whimsically and arbitrarily to disobey the judgement, or pick and choose what portions of the judgment to obey or which to discard. In Rt Hon Michael Balonwu & Ors V Governor of Anambra State& Ors (2007) 5 NWLR ( Pt 1028) 488, the intermediate court held that “an order of court whether valid or not must be obeyed until it is set aside. An order of court must be obeyed as long as it is subsisting by all no matter how lowly or lightly placed in the society. This is what the rule of law is all about, hence the courts have always stressed the need for obedience to court orders”. It therefore does not matter that the judgment is downright stupid, illogical, or not well researched; or that parties affected do not like it. That is what the rule of law dictatesb and is all about. See AG Anambra v AG FRN (2008) LPELR-13(SC); Abeke v Odunsi & Anor (2013) LPELR-20640( SC); Ngere v Okuruket & Ors ( 2014) LPELR-22883 ( SC).

Right or wrong therefore, court judgements must be obeyed until set aside by a higher court, or a challenged section is amended by the Legislature. Since no court is higher than the Supreme Court of Nigeria, only an amendment to the Constitution by the NASS under section 9 can override the judgment: Obineche & ORS v. Akusobi & ORS (2010) LPELR-2178 (SC); Anchorage Leisures LTD & Ors V. Ecobank (NIG) LTD (2023) LPELR-59978 (SC) . That was why the same Supreme Court, acutely aware that it is susceptible to mistakes and errors being constituted by mere mortals and not almighty God or angels, once famously declared through late venerable Socrates of the Nigerian Bench, Honourable Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, in the causa celebre of Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya (1989) NWLR ( Pt 109) 250, that “the Supreme Court is final not because it is infallible, it is infallible because it is final”.

2. ON HOW THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IS IMPLEMENTABLE

The answer is equally simple. The FG, states and LGCs should now meet (and I am told they have been meeting) at FAAC and decide on modalities and procedures of opening up accounts for LGCs so that their allocation under section 162 is paid directly to them and not to the joint state LG account that is oftentimes waylaid by state Governors and fleeced without the helpless and hamstrung LGCs being able to raise a finger.

This is not rocket science. That refusal by state governors to remit to the LGCs was the ugly mischief the apex court judgment sought to cure; and it did so perfectly, loud and clear, in my own humble opinion. Inter alia, the apex court had declared emphatically that, “by virtue of section 162(3) and (5) of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, the amount standing to the credit of LGCs in the Federation Account shall be distributed to them and be paid directly to them”; that “a state, either by itself or Governor or other agencies, has no power to keep, control, manage, or disburse in any manner, allocations from the Federation Account to LGCs”.

The apex court also granted injunctive orders restraining “Governors and their agents, officials or privies from tampering with funds meant for the LGCs in the Federation Account” ; and further ordered “immediate compliance by the states, through their appointed officials and public officers with the terms of the judgment and orders”.

The apex court further ordered the “Federation or Federal Government of Nigeria through its relevant officials, to forthwith commence the direct payment to each LGC of the amount standing to the credit of each of them in the Federation Account”.

The content, terms and directives contained in this judgement, are in my humble opinion, very straight forward, unambiguous and are as clear and clean as a whistle. All parties concerned, – FG, states and LGCs- must therefore obey and enforce this judgement IMMEDIATELY. There is no option.I had earlier made public this same opinion of mine. I had written and stated on several TV stations that in my humble understanding of the principles of interpretation, the Supreme Court was right in the interpretation it gave to section 162 of the Constitution, so as to prevent continuation of years of wanton abuse of the provisions of section 162 by state governors. (See “LG Autonomy: Supreme Court’s verdict timely, regenerative-Ozekhome”, www.vanguard.com., 11, July, 2024 ). I still stand very firmly by this my earlier opinion.

God bless Nigeria as we collectively seek true fiscal federalism and not the present unitary system of government that we are currently operating under the thin guise of federalism.