It is perhaps not generally appreciated that the ability of the courts of law to ensure peace and order in society derives largely from the respect they are customarily given and the awe in which they are held by the people.

When the courts and the Judges are stripped of their traditional respect and awe, people will begin to deny obedience to court orders; and when obedience is denied to the orders of the courts to any considerable extent, affairs in society will tend to be controlled by the powerful and ruthless. And now that the leaders wantonly accuse Judges of bias, partisanship and corruption, ordinary folk, taking their cue from their leaders, will soon start to believe that the Judges do not deserve to be obeyed. They will regard the courts, and the law itself, with contempt.

The focus of this article is the attacks on Election Petitions tribunals and the Judges who sit on them. These tribunals are set up by virtue of subsections (1) and (2) of section 285 of the Constitution. They have the status of courts of law and as such are entitled to be accorded the same respect as is given to any court of law. Nigerian politicians are now systematically stripping the law courts of their traditional awe and respect as some wage all-out wars on the courts when judgments do not go in their favour. And these are highly placed leaders who enjoy the unquestioning following of millions of people.

In the wake of the nullification on July 25, 2008 of the election of Governor Olusegun Agagu of Ondo State, it was reported that busloads of supporters of his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) came to the State capital, Akure, from the six local government areas of the State where election results were nullified to protest against the verdict of the Ondo State Election Petition Tribunal.

An odious example of the kind of attacks on the integrity of Judges we are talking about is provided by an advertorial made in a newspaper by a group calling itself "Association of Young Professionals (AYP), Ondo State Chapter"... Titled: Election Petitions Tribunal Judgment in Ondo State: An arrest of Justice, the advertorial declared: "...we consider it absolutely necessary, as stakeholders, to encounter, open up and engage the moral issues in the judgment in order to distill Ondo State from the froth of judicial poison and social disaffection which Justice Nabaruma's judgment portends."

The group went on to state: "Our intervention must be viewed as a patriotic call to resound with the force of intellect and strength of history, the symptom of the same disease and epidemic which unfortunately Justice Garba Nabaruma inflicted on the people of Anambra State in his weak and widely condemned judgment in 2004 removing Governor Chris Ngige from office as Governor. That controversial judgment virtually brought anarchy and chaos to the State. It nearly reduced the State to rubbles, putting the entire people under siege and fear. Thankfully, Dr Ngige appealed and Nabaruma's wopt (sic) judgment was disregarded and overruled by the appeal court which upheld the legitimate election of the Governor."

They went further still: "The truth is that the poison in Nabaruma's latest judgment in Ondo State consists of the stealing and silencing of the people's votes through an intricate packing, packaging and patenting of the Tribunal's opinion in sacred voice of justice. In colour, substance, procedure and entity, the judgment is eccentric, illogical and lacks integrity." (Nigerian Compass, August 6, 2008, p. 11)

It is necessary to comment at this point that rather than being "weak and widely condemned" and far from being "disregarded and overruled by the appeal court", Hon Justice Garba Nabaruma was praised in glowing terms by the Court of Appeal and the judgment of his Election Petitions Tribunal was affirmed by that Court.

Another publication which listed two traditional rulers (the Olubo of Obe-Nla and Alagho of Odonla Kingdom), retired Colonel Wole Ohunayo and two High Chiefs (Oloja Araromi Seaside and Bobagunwa of Etikan Kingdom) as the authors raised the following point, among others, in reaction to some invalidated election results:

"It should be noted that all the affected local government areas are strongholds of the PDP where the ruling party won convincingly. This is a rather curious coincidence, turning the loser into the winner and vice versa."

The publication then concluded as follows: "Meanwhile, we say capital No to the disenfranchisement of our people. We say a bigger No to the imposition of a minority candidate as Governor in our Sunshine State. We say an emphatic No to this daylight robbery. We say an unequivocal No to this rape on democracy. We say a resounding No to judicial rascality. We demand the restoration of our votes. We condemn the part-reading of the judgment in such a landmark case. We reject any abridged judgment giving no logical reasons for its conclusion! We call for a reversal of the induced judgment. We shall strive, we shall struggle, we shall go on, till our right is secured." (Nigerian Tribune, July 31, 2008.)

A body calling itself "Ondo State Youth Action Group," under the caption: RE: ONDO STATE ELECTION TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT: PERVERTED JUSTICE, proclaimed: "We the entire youths of Ondo State under the auspices of Ondo State Youth Action Group wish to inform Nigerians and the world in general that we totally disagree with the judgment of Friday, 25th July 2008 by the Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal led by Justice Garba Nabaruma which declared Dr Olusegun Mimiko as the winner of the April 14th 2007 Governorship election in Ondo State."

The group then posited a number of points, two of which were: "6. That it is alien to any civilised society like ours for thousands of eligible voters who exercised their constitutional rights to be disenfranchised through the cancellation of election results in Irele, Ilaje, Ese-Odo, Odigbo, Ile-Oluji, Okitipupa, Akoko NW, Akoko NE, Akure North and Ose local government areas [and] 7. That the cancellation only occurred in the strongholds of Governor Olusegun Agagu." (Nigerian Compass, August 6, 2008, p.9)

The political leaders themselves are often far from being restrained in their attacks on Judges. For instance, Chief Segun Adegoke, the Special Adviser on Political Matters to Governor Olusegun Agagu of Ondo State, was quoted in The Nation under the heading: "WHY Mimiko will not be sworn in", as saying in his remarks on the verdict of the Ondo State Election Petitions Tribunal declaring Dr Mimiko winner of the election: "But the long and short of it, it appeared, the tribunal worked towards an answer... It later turned out that the tribunal wrote 673 pages of judgment. This is rather impossible in four weeks after the adoption of written addresses. .. For the four weeks, the tribunal could not have written that lengthy judgment. My thinking is that the Chairman must have been writing his judgment daily while the sitting lasted. This only shows that he worked towards an answer."

Chief Adegoke then went on to say: "I don't see why on earth the tribunal should say [that] elections didn't take place there. But the tribunal nullified elections in Ilaje, Irele councils, the strong bases of Governor Agagu. .. In these places, Agagu would always score above 90 per cent of the votes cast. .. ..The nullified elections were unjustified. The evidence on which it (sic) was based was tenuous. Members of the tribunal believed what they wanted to believe, and that was exactly what happened." (The Nation, August 14, 2008.)

It is quite inappropriate for anyone, least of all a senior member of the Bar and a spokesman for the State Government such as Chief Adegoke, to say that the Governor-elect of the State would not be sworn in. By virtue of the judgment of the Ondo State Election Petitions Tribunal, Dr Olusegun Mimiko is the Governor-elect of the State. That is the position in law. It is a very serious allegation indeed to say, as Chief Adegoke did, that a Panel of Judges "worked towards an answer" in writing their judgment.

However, lest I seem to be saying that none of our political leaders accepts with due respect any judgment of court that does not favour them, I would like to mention Dr. Kayode Fayemi, the Ekiti State governorship candidate of the Action Congress in the 2007 elections. When his petition against the election of Governor Segun Oni of the State was dismissed by the State's Election Petitions Tribunal, it was reported that, "When encouraging party faithful and the entire Ekiti electorate who were demoralised and devastated by the judgment delivered on Thursday, Fayemi said [that] in spite of the verdict of the Tribunal, his faith and confidence in the Nigerian Judiciary remained firm and unshaken." [The Nation, August 30, 2008, p. 10.]

In the same vein, I would like to note that Senator Bode Olajumoke, "a staunch member of the PDP in the State" was reported as hailing the judgment of the Ondo State Election Petitions Tribunal and went further to "congratulate Dr Segun Mimiko, the Labour Party (LP) Governorship candidate. "God bless the judgment and congratulations to the winner", he was quoted to have said." (Nigerian Compass, August 4, 2008, p.14)

However, what we find generally in reaction to the judgment of the Ondo State Election Petitions Tribunal is quite different. For instance, when the Labour Party urged Governor Agagu to stop what the Party called the inflammatory statements on the Judiciary by his supporters, the Chief Press Secretary to the Governor, Mr. Yemi Olowolabi, dismissed the allegations and asked of the Labour Party: "Are they afraid of people's protest against disenfranchisement? Let it be known to the Labour Party and their collaborators in the Judiciary that the people of the State voted for Agagu and [those] whose votes had been voided had every right to protest." (The Nation, July 31, 2008, p.5)

How can the Chief Press Secretary to a State governor describe the Judiciary as a collaborator of one of the political parties in a case before a tribunal?

In an item headed "Councils rise for Agagu, Condemn Tribunal Verdict", the local government councils in the State were reported to have stated: "To say the people of Ondo South Senatorial District, where the resources of the State come from should not have a say in who governs the State is a misnomer and unacceptable to us. We count in the State and our votes count as well." (Nigerian Compass, August 5, 2008, p. 7)

In conclusion and in my view, these obviously orchestrated attacks on the Judiciary are a part of the effort to subordinate the Judiciary to the will of the politicians. Already, the politicians are, through the various legislative houses, relentlessly blurring the principle of the separation of powers and functions enshrined in the Constitution through their claim of what they term "Oversight functions" by which they are now taking over much of the work of the Executive arm of government. They have no such oversight functions under the Constitution. In addition, they are now taking over the constitutional function of the Judiciary by conducting "probes" into many actions of the Executive. These "probes" do not even meet the judicial standard required in the conduct of public inquiries.

One should ask what is the real motive behind these excessive comments on the verdict of the Ondo State election Petitions Tribunal? It seems to me that the real aim of those who brought busloads of protesters, including traditional rulers, to the State capital to condemn the verdict of the Tribunal and those who organised the unprecedented number of attacks on the tribunal's verdict is to create the impression that the whole State would descend into chaos and anarchy should the Court of Appeal fail to reverse the verdict of the Tribunal. This is clear intimidation of the Judiciary and it is totally unacceptable under the rule of law.

An additional means of weakening the Judiciary is through the mounting of an unprecedented degree of pressures on individual judges. Traditional rulers and powerful political office holders are pressed into service. Also, and very sadly, there are now widespread stories of politicians attempting to induce members of Election Petitions Tribunals as well as those who hear appeals from the tribunals with bribes running into millions of naira. Even figures as high as one billion naira and more are mentioned.

A legal practitioner, Mr. Festus Keyamo, in what he called Notes for the Bar Conference, drew the attention of his Learned Friends attending the Annual Delegates Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association held in Abuja, August 23 - 30, 2008 to the cankerworm of corruption now eating deep into the fabric of the profession. He wrote: "Today, nothing has put our profession and the Judiciary on trial more than the widespread allegation of corruption oozing out of many election tribunals. If left unchecked, very soon the politicians will have scant regard for lawyers and their skills. They will simply come and pay you only transport fare to show your face in court. The rest, they will tell you 'have been taken care of'." (Sunday Sun, August 24, 2008, p.15)

What is the result of the torrent of attacks on the judges and the denigration of court judgments? The effect of these attacks on the judiciary and the judges is to erode the people's confidence in the country's judicial system. The attackers know full well that the judges are prevented by judicial tradition from answering back any unwarranted allegations and, in any case, the Judges do not possess anything like the enormous resources available to the politicians to engage in media confrontation.

It should be appreciated that Judges are human beings. It is most unfair, and even cruel, to falsely accuse them of bias, partisanship or corruption when they have performed their judicial functions honestly and to the best of their ability. Of course, where a judge falls below the standard of performance or integrity expected of his office, he should be criticised and, where necessary, sanctioned in proper form. The Judiciary should not be destroyed through unwarranted vulgar attacks. The Judiciary needs to be guarded against the unwholesome pressures now being put on it.

While there certainly is the need to enquire into corruption in the Executive arm of government as well as in other aspects of national life in Nigeria, such inquiries should be conducted as laid down in the Constitution. They should satisfy requisite judicial procedure. Similarly, while there are corrupt judges and there are other aspects of the Judiciaryís performance which cause disquiet for many Nigerians, the laid-down procedures for dealing with such matters should be followed.

Nobody can deny the disquiet now being caused by the Supreme Court's very long delay in pronouncing on the appeal in the election petition against the President. It is equally worrying that more than six months after an appeal was lodged in the Edo State governorship election petition, the Presiding Justice of the Benin Division of the Court of Appeal is (as at today, September 22, 2008 ) yet to announce the Panel that will hear the appeal. Are these instances of justice being denied through undue delay?

-Justice Aguda retired as a judge of the Ondo State High Court. He is the author of Understanding the Constitution of Nigeria 1999