Eze Anaba
30 December 2007
ONE of the benefits Nigerians expected to gain from the civilian government which was embraced enthusiastically in 1999 was restoration of the rule of law which the military trampled on when they invited themselves to power.
Besides the damage the soldiers inflicted on the economy and their supervision of the collapse of infrastructure, one area Nigerians felt the grip of the military government most was access to justice.
Not that the courts were not in place physically to receive case files, such writs in most cases did not go beyond the high courts because there were one or more decrees stopping them from getting justice. Except in very rare cases, writs by individuals against military authorities were dismissed either because of one decree or the military legislation barred the judges from questioning the decisions of military authorities.
So, complaints of the citizens usually hit a brick wall immediately a decree was waived in front of a judge. So overbearing were the decrees that one State High Court chief judge, in an amazing admission of judicial impotence, declared former military president Ibrahim Babangida as "Kabiyesi" against whom no suit could be sustained.
The judge's declaration was a classic example of how the courts were not accessible to the ordinary Nigerian. While their rule lasted, the soldiers ruled with force and everything was destroyed forcefully. The casualty was the rule of law, transparency and the collapse of vital institutions of governance. This reign of terror lasted till 1999 when the civilians came to power. With the restoration of democracy came hope that if the economy did not pick up immediately, at least the people could have access to the court to challenge policies of government.
The essence being that they could enforce their rights. The first term of the civilian government gave way to the second. If Nigerians were prepared to give their new leaders time to adjust to their new role as civilian leaders, they were increasingly exasperated by their inability to enforce rights in court. Obedience to court orders were observed more in breach; instead of hearing issues that enhance the rule of law, familiar words like disobedience of court orders, arbitrary arrest and detention, illegal arrest of the high and low by government's agents started hitting the headlines.
In short, impunity became the order of the day - all reminiscent of the dark days of the military. The acts of impunity almost became a daily occurrence in government, political parties and even in civil relations. The theatre for most acts of impunity in the political arena was in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Politicians were selected, not elected as positions were filled whimsically depending on the mood of the party hierarchy; names were substituted 24 hours to election. Arbitrariness reigned supreme. The aggrieved, in most cases, could not challenge the injustice meted out to them.
Outside the party, a battle royale ensued between the president and his vice and since both men had a formidable war chest to go for each other's jugular, they succeeded in heating up the polity so much so that whispers of soldiers staging a come back became an uncomfortable gossip. While Nigerians were being treated to salacious revelations of alleged abuse of power in high places, governors who had offended the 'gods' in power became the target of sting operations aimed at bringing them to "justice." Although most of the governors so treated were accused of pinching their state treasuries.
Flagrant lawlessness
With fiat from Aso Rock, such governors were snatched from their states and driven to Abuja. Most of these seizures were carried out against court orders. The first victims of this flagrant lawlessness were the former governors of Bayelsa and Plateau states. The governors were later impeached by sometimes laughable number of legislators. For instance, former governor of Plateau State, Chief Joshua Dariye, was impeached by six legislators in a House of Assembly that had 24 members. This hopelessness persisted until the judiciary intervened boldly.
The Judiciary responded when court registries all over the country were filled with suits filed by aggrieved politician seeking redress for the injustices meted out to them. Some lost at the court of first instance, in this case, the state high court. But because of either lack of means to push their claim to the appellate courts or persecution, they dropped their quest.
Admittedly, initial signals from the courts concerning suits challenging cases of executive arbitrariness were depressing especially at the tribunal but those who persisted to the Supreme Court realised the court could bite. One of the early beneficiaries of the judicial fight back to ensure the supremacy of the Rule of Law was Governor Peter Obi whom the court declared was the rightful winner of the 2003 gubernatorial election in Anambra State. The ruling of the Election Tribunal was in furtherance of the Supreme Court pronouncement in Governor of Lagos State vs Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR Pt. 18621 at 836 where it held that the ANigerian Constitution is founded on the Rule of Law, the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law.
It means also that government should be conducted within the framework of recognised rules and principles which restrict discretionary power which Gok Colony spoke of as golden and straight metwand of law as opposed to the uncertain and crooked cord of discretion. More relevant to the case in hand, the rule of law means that disputes as to the legality of acts of government are to be decided by judges who are wholly independent of the executive. Shortly after Obi got judicial succour at the election tribunal, the Supreme Court also came to the rescue. Appeals to the court especially those filed by aggrieved politicians against their parties or the executive succeeded.
And like an avalanche, executive endorsed breaches started tumbling with the Supreme Court railing against this arbitrariness, shattering the cloak of invincibility that the executive thought it had. More bile flowed from the Supreme Court when it reversed the decision of the PDP in the case of Araraume and Dariye. In the case of Dariye, he was reinstated as governor of Plateau State. The sacking of Andy Uba as elected governor of Anambra and declaring with stunning finality that his election was a non-event was a loud pronouncement by the Supreme Court on the status of the judiciary in a democracy.
The court followed the epochal judgment in the Uba case with the sacking of Celestine Omehia as governor of Rivers State. H e was replaced by Rotimi Amaechi whom the court held was unfairly removed from the guber polls by the gods of PDP. Suddenly, the despair that had enveloped the country following the ceaseless acts of impunity in the face of a collapsing economy suddenly gave way to hope.
The Supreme Court, acting as a counter weight to the forces of the executive arm of government seemed to give meaning to our democracy that it is not the exclusive preserve of one arm of government in line with its statement in Igbe vs Governor of Bendel State (1983) 1 SCLNLR 73 at 91 that "it is the duty of every government to comply with the provisions of the Constitution and to preserve, protect and defend it. To act contrary to the provisions of the Constitution will not, if properly brought to the notice of this court, be condoned but such an act will invite the proper sanctions and reliefs."
Apparently, the activism of the Supreme Court stemmed from what it did in the case of Ojukwu Vs Lagos State government. The court, according to Dr. Kolawole Olaniyan, through Justice Chukwudifu Oputa said "...here in Nigeria even under a military government, the law is no respecter of persons, principalities, governments or powers and that the court stands between the citizens and the government, alert to see that the state or government is bound by the law and respects the law. The court system cannot be maintained without the willingness of parties to abide by the findings and orders of a competent court until it is reversed on appeal..."
The Supreme Court also played a major role in reducing the tension in the country when the feud between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and his vice, Atiku Abubakar threatened to tear the country apart and both men took their differences to the apex court. The Supreme court also spoke when the former president moved to bar the former vice president from contesting the last presidential election, of course, the court ruled against the former president.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
