Uncategorized

The Independence of the Judiciary in a Democratic Dispensation (Pt. 4)

Published

1 year ago

July 19, 2024

Eric

By Mike Ozekhome

Introduction

In the last part of this intervention, we examined the abuse of ex-parte orders as part of our survey of the independence of the judiciary. We then moved on to political pressures exerted on the judiciary. We continues with this theme today and extend economic/fiscal pressures which undermines judicial independence. We shall also x-ray the intellectual dimensions of the judicial remit as well as the relevant legal codes for their appointment. Come with me.

POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE (continues)

The duty of maintaining a Judiciary that is free from political influence, an independent and impartial Judiciary in line with section 17(2)(e) of the 1999 Constitution, rests on the honourable men and women on the bench, the political class, the other two arms of government and all and sundry. An independent Judiciary that inspires confidence is a sine qua non for sustainable democracy. Judges have a special role to reject any attempt to undermine the independence of the Judiciary in this dispensation. It is sacred! The admonition of Hon. Justice (Prof.) A.F.D. Kuti in this wise is instructive.

“Of course, judges make laws by interpretations, as judges, by nature and training do not succumb to partisan considerations they are political, they should be abstinat a fabia. They must not allow themselves to be torn apart by any form of differences in our societies… The judges have a duty to chart an independent course and let it be known that the independence of (the) judiciary is of vital importance to the democratic process to maintain Human Rights Provisions and to maintain the non-adoption of sate Region… The Judiciary itself must be like Cinderella living in a glass house, above board like Caesar’s wife, also above suspicion”.

Economic/Fiscal Independence

It is a trite warfare strategy that the easiest way to weaken an army and overrun it is to cut off its supplies and starve it. Vital in the question of independence of the Judiciary is the issue of fiscal autonomy, and proper funding. As soon as we institutionalize the practice of judicial officers going cap in hand to beg for funds from the Executive, the idea of independence of the Judiciary has been trampled upon and blown into smithereens! Independence must involve economic ‘self-reliance’ and fiscal autonomy. By these, we mean that the Judiciary under this dispensation should always be able to have the funds due to it constitutionally falling directly to it without having to approach the Executive for any form of lobbying before funds can be released to it. The Constitution has substantially taken care of this area. It only remains for the frontiers of fiscal autonomy to be widened so that the Judiciary, (especially State Judiciaries) would be able to carry out capital projects so as to maintain befitting physical infrastructure for the Judicial institution. Agbakoba has argued that:

“Judicial Independence is meaningless if it is not accompanied by economic independence. Dishonest judicial staff has no credible claim to judicial independence. It is necessary to take steps to ensure that judges and magistrates can enjoy a professional status capable of guaranteeing them the required amount of professional independence coupled with an adequate remuneration package that can effectively isolate them from pecuniary pressures.”

In Nigeria and under this democratic dispensation, some jurisdictions have had to contend with dilapidated office buildings, inadequate supplies and regular power outages. Starvation of funds is a weapon used by the Executive, the keeper of the Federation purse, to achieve a balance of judicial power by giving judicial officials a sense of economic/fiscal dependency.

To stave off starvation of funds, many countries have had to increase budgetary allocations significantly in favour of the judiciary both to provide adequate physical facilities and to allow for the continuing education of judges, magistrate and their staff. In some cases, as in Madagascar, this new approach has resulted in the establishment of a school solely dedicated to the training of judicial personnel.

The poor state of fiscal ability of the Judiciary in Nigeria today aptly depicts the observation of the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton that:

“The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power. It has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no discretion either of the strength or the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may be said to have neither FORCE NOR WILL, but merely judgment.”

Although the salaries and recurrent expenditures of the Judiciary are constitutionally charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it does not appear that the Constitution specifically ensures the provision for the capital expenditure of the Judiciary. This is another ploy to still keep the Judiciary low and check its ferocity in holding the balance over government excesses. There are other pockets of ploys and half-truths.

It has, for example, been argued from the Bench that the concept of accountability has often been relied upon to justify restricting the administrative independence of the Judiciary. The Executive must, in this democratic dispensation, allow unfettered fiscal independence for the judiciary by freeing its funds from all restrictions so that judges do not have to continue to go to the Executive to seek for funds for capital projects and recurrent expenditure or extra budgetary expenses.

Judicial accountability, in fact, complements and reinforces judicial independence by creating the public confidence on which judicial independence ultimately depends. There is no gainsaying that the point is sometimes made that in relation to their judicial functions, judges are subject to a higher degree of accountability and transparency than any other public officers, or even with the present democratic dispensation, than indeed any holder of political office, be they ministers or special advisers or chairmen or members of parastatals.

It has also been argued from the Bench that financial independence of the Judiciary can only be guaranteed where the ‘order’ allows physical projection and administrative control of finances by officers accountable to the Judiciary.39 The notion of Independence of the Judiciary would remain mere rhetoric without complete fiscal autonomy for the Judiciary.

Intellectual Independence

This subhead is used here in a technical sense as an issue of judicial independence. But, it can best be described by the story in the Bible of Israel’s sojourn in the land of Egypt. A wicked king that hated the Hebrews and was afraid of their independence and prosperity had given an instruction to midwives in this manner,

“When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women….if it be a son, then ye shall kill him but it if be a daughter, then she shall live…Every son that is born ye shall case into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.”

Pharaoh preferred Hebrew females because he was afraid of male power in the event of war with the Hebrews. The same stratagem has been employed to destroy the intellectual vibrancy of the judiciary so as to weaken its independence. The calibre of judges that can stand their ground against assault on judicial independence are those imbued with high independent, incorruptible and analytical mind laced with profound intellectual fecundity. While the High Court Bench has a mixed multitude of judges, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are filled with such high calibre of intellectually vibrant and independent-minded justices. This would explain why the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have not only set impressive records of independent-mindedness and incorruptibility. Those two courts can hardly be faulted in the area of independence and absence of external influence. The problem of intellectual freedom mainly lies at the High Court Bench, and the lower benches.

Appointment

By virtue of section 250(3), 256(3) and 271(3) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, a person shall not be qualified to hold office of Chief judge or a judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge or a judge of the High court of the Federal Capital Territory and a judge of a High Court of a state, respectively:

“Unless he is qualified to practise as legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been so qualified for a period of not less than ten years”.

We are not really concerned here about the procedure for appointment of High Court judges. What has threatened the system with collapse is the bare assumption in these constitutional provisions that tends to imply that once a person has spent ten years on earth since he/she was called to the Bar, the person automatically has all the intellectual capability to be appointed a judge.

More than anything else, judicial incompetence (encompassing law intellectually, law productively etc) has contributed to rob the Judiciary the necessary intellectual freedom it needs to assert and guard its independence. According to Schewart:

“The quality of justice….depends more upon the quality of the men who administer the law then on the content of the law they administer.”

In his keynote address at the recent Bar Conference at Enugu, Chief Afe Babalola, SAN, observed on the constitutional qualification for appointment as a judge as follows:

“This allows great latitude for the appointment of ‘any lawyer’ who has met the ten years requirement regardless of where he is prior to his appointment. This explains why a new wig from the Nigerian Law School who, immediately after his call (and probably Youth Service) went straight to work in a company, multinationals and the life without any experience whatsoever in practice could be and are being appointed as High Court Judge”.

At the swearing in of the new Senior Advocates of Nigeria on Monday, September 8, 2003, the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN hinted that more stringent criteria for appointment of judges would be introduced. According to the Chief Law Officer of the Federation:

“We will propose that only those who can furnish evidence of contentious cases they handled in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the High Court within, say, three years preceding their application should be considered for appointment. By so doing, it will be possible to select only seasoned practitioners to occupy positions on the Bench.” (To be continued).

Thought for the Week

“I believe that an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. Brett Kavanaugh”. (Charles Evans Hughes).

Uncategorized

In a RUDE World, Organisations Are Learning to Stay CALM

Published

1 week ago

November 27, 2025

Admin

In an age shaped by volatility, rapid shifts and relentless uncertainty, experts are urging organisations to rethink the very foundations of how they understand and respond to risk. The global business terrain is no longer defined by tidy cycles or predictable patterns.

It has morphed into what analysts now describe as a RUDE world: Random, Unpredictable, Dynamic and Entropic. These forces, once mere academic abstractions, now sit at the heart of every crisis briefing and boardroom conversation.

The consequences of ignoring this reality have been played out repeatedly on the global stage. Companies that cling to reactive strategies find themselves swamped by disruptions that arrive faster and hit harder than anything prior generations endured. Financial shocks, supply chain collapses, cybersecurity breaches and sudden reputational storms have shown that risks rarely stay contained. They jump boundaries, multiply and collide in ways that defy traditional planning.

A growing body of thought argues that the strategic antidote is a CALM response. CALM, which stands for Consistent, Anticipatory, Logical and Measured, offers a deliberate move away from firefighting and towards resilient, disciplined decision making. It urges organisations to stop chasing crises and start building systems that can hold steady even when the world does not.

A new book on the subject crystallises this shift by presenting a panoramic map of organisational exposure: fifty distinct risk categories, grouped into seven interconnected families. Far from being a checklist of threats, this framework functions as a living ecosystem. It invites leaders to stop examining risk as isolated problems and instead see the company as an integrated organism where one failure can cascade into many.

Beyond offering structure, the fifty categories serve as a diagnostic lens that widens an organisation’s field of vision. Each category highlights a particular pressure point, but their real power emerges when viewed together. Patterns surface that no siloed team could detect alone. A technical risk may quietly trigger a reputational issue, which then influences regulatory exposure, which eventually feeds into operational disruption. The framework forces executives to confront an uncomfortable truth: vulnerabilities rarely travel alone. By mapping risks this way, organisations gain an early warning system that sharpens judgment, strengthens preparedness and transforms vague uncertainty into targeted, informed action.

The RUDE characteristics explain why this broader lens is essential. Randomness describes shocks that arrive without pattern, making historical trends all but useless. Unpredictability captures the sudden appearance of new forces, from emerging technologies to cultural shifts, that can upend an industry overnight. The dynamic nature of global systems ensures that a decision made in a single office can send tremors through an entire enterprise. Entropy, the most insidious of the four, reflects internal decay: wasted energy, fading accountability and the slow erosion of organisational purpose.

Each threat finds its counterbalance in the CALM disciplines. Consistency stabilises organisations against random shocks. Anticipation replaces uncertainty with informed foresight. Logic cuts through dynamic complexity with clarity. A measured approach resists the quiet drift into disorder.

The danger of ignoring this interconnectedness is illustrated most clearly in the anatomy of a cybersecurity breach. What begins as a technical problem quickly spirals into a legal battle, a reputational crisis, a financial strain and, ultimately, an internal cultural wound that erodes trust. Treating such a crisis as an IT issue alone blinds organisations to the wider fallout. This fragmentation is the hidden vulnerability of modern business, and it is precisely what the RUDE framework seeks to eliminate.

The authors argue that RUDE creates a shared language for institutions that have long struggled to speak across departmental divides. It exposes the threads that link one risk to another. Most importantly, it embeds foresight into everyday operations, allowing leaders to predict how a small disturbance could morph into a systemic threat.

The message resounding through the research is unequivocal. Risk management can no longer be confined to compliance manuals or crisis playbooks. In a RUDE world, risk is not only a hazard; it is a resource, a source of competitive intelligence and strategic advantage. A mature, integrated risk program becomes less like a brake and more like a steering wheel, guiding organisations with confidence through turbulence that once seemed uncontrollable.

For leaders determined not just to survive disruption but to navigate it with mastery, the shift from RUDE to CALM is emerging as a strategic necessity. The stormy future remains, but with the right framework, it becomes something that can be read, understood and navigated. The waves keep rising, yet the organisation learns how to sail.

Uncategorized

Voice of Emancipation: Can Our Kings Be Trusted?

Published

3 months ago

August 31, 2025

Eric

By Kayode Emola

For the umpteenth time, it is worth asking ourselves if our traditional rulers can be trusted to serve the interests of the Yoruba people. We recall how Afonja betrayed the Alaafin and sold Oyo-Ile to the Fulani prince Alimi. One would have thought our Yoruba people would have learnt a lot of lessons from that incident, but it feels like we’ve learnt nothing.

Recently, we have seen reports of villagers fleeing their communities in Babanle and other towns of Kwara State circulating on social media. One would have expected the whole world to be outraged, like in the case of the Charlie Hebdo shooting in France in 2015. Where the whole world rallied round the victims of that shooting, but alas, no one seems to be bothered enough to act. By now, we should have witnessed government forces moving into the communities in Kwara State to restore law and order. Giving the villagers succour in the comfort of their own homes.

However, everyone in Nigeria is silent as is it doesn’t affect them directly, emboldening the terrorists to continue their assaults on Yorubaland unchallenged. For other Yoruba people who do not live in the area, they couldn’t be bothered to cry out because danger seems far away in Kwara state and not in the suburban Yorubaland like Oyo, Osun, Ekiti and other places like that.

Truth be told, if we can’t even cry out and be outraged about the numerous deaths that go unaccounted for, who do we expect to cry out on our behalf? The world will stay silent to our plight since we see the decimation of Yorubaland as the norm rather than something to act about.

The worst of it is the recent revelation that two monarchs in Kwara State are directly involved in the kidnapping and killings going on in the communities. The King of Alabe and Babanla is currently in police custody for their roles in terrorist activities going on in their domain. How can we be sure that several other monarchs are not causing similar havoc in their domains?

If two traditional leaders in Kwara are complicit in the atrocities going around them, how many more of our kings and chiefs are involved in criminal activities elsewhere? We have been crying that the Miyeti Allah cattle herders are killing innocent farmers on their own land and destroying their crops.

Instead of the Yoruba traditional leaders banding together, and looking for a lasting solution for their people, they sat on their hands doing nothing. As though if all the people are killed, they will have no subject to rule over.

Obviously, many of our kings and traditional rulers are in bed with these cattle herders, which is why this problem continues to fester. Many of our kings and their kinsmen are themselves the ones inviting the Fulani cattle herders to raise livestock for them, knowing that it is a profitable business.

Every single day, over eight thousand cows are being slaughtered in Lagos State, let alone other Yoruba states, making the trade one of the most profitable businesses outside of crude oil in Nigeria. Had the cattle herders conducted their business like any other businessperson in Nigeria, there wouldn’t have been any reason for clashes and the killings that go with it.

However, the fact that many Yoruba traditional leaders are the ones collecting bribes from these herders to roam the forest and bushes makes the matter a complicated one. How can a king who is entrusted with the safety of lives and properties in his domain be the same one who is endangering them?

Since we now know that many of our kings are themselves the ones putting the lives and properties of our people in peril. I believe it is time to put the spotlight on the custodian of our traditions and culture in check. We need to know those among them who are putting the lives and properties of their communities in danger and call them out.

As such, maybe we can bring some normalcy into our communities and protect the lives and properties of innocent people. If only we could do a statewide evangelism to see which of the kings and traditional rulers are involved with the cattle herders and the terrorists invading Yorubaland. Then we may be able to rid ourselves of the menace that is currently ripping the social fabric of Yorubaland into pieces bit by bit.

Uncategorized

Police Release Sowore after Two Days Detention

Published

4 months ago

August 8, 2025

Eric

Human rights activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, has been released by the Nigerian police after being detained for two days.

Sowore, who confirmed his release on Friday evening, expressed gratitude to supporters, who stood by him during the ordeal.

In a statement on social media, he said: “Nigeria Police Force has capitulated to the demands of the revolutionary movt, I have been released from unjust, illegal & unwarranted detention. However, it is nothing to celebrate, but thank u for not giving up! #RevolutionNow.”

The activist, known for his unwavering criticism of government policies and advocacy for democratic reforms, has previously faced multiple arrests linked to his #RevolutionNow movement, which calls for sweeping political and economic changes in Nigeria.

His latest detention generated outrage from rights groups and civic activists, who demanded his immediate release and decried what they described as an attack on free speech and civic freedoms.

Sowore, however, thanked human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former presidential candidate Peter Obi, Deji Adeyanju, and all other stakeholders who stood up and called for his release.