Nigerians have taken keener interest in the judicial arm of government since the All Progressives Congress candidate, Mr Bola Tinubu, was declared winner of the February 25 presidential election.
The legal challenges mounted by the Labour Party candidate, Mr Peter Obi, and the People’s Democratic Party standard bearer, Mr Atiku Abubakar, have also elicited reactions from Nigerians, particularly the youth.
The heightened interest was demonstrated in March this year when, for the first time, many Nigerians were concerned about the whereabouts of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, who they falsely claimed was in London to meet Tinubu.
According to the data available, over 1,000 election petitions were filed by different aggrieved candidates and political parties that participated in the 2023 general election.
Ahead of the hearing of these petitions, especially the presidential petitions, various individuals have continued to express different opinions about the judiciary.
The waning confidence in judiciary
In a recent television interview, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr Olisa Agbakoba, who spoke about issues bordering on the election petitions, said that he had lost confidence in the Nigerian courts.
Agbakoba blamed his waning confidence in the Nigerian courts largely on some of their recent rulings.
“I have lost a bit of confidence in what the courts have been doing lately. There was a time you could say, oh, on the facts and the law, this is the likely outcome. Today, you cannot because there have been all kinds of silly decisions. The most silly was that concerning the President of the Senate, who, in order to become Nigerian president, rushed off to buy a ticket to be the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, and that meant he did not take part in the senatorial.
“Lo and behold, he lost. He now ran back after the horse had bolted. Clearly, to anybody who has any brain, including the Justice of the Supreme Court and my dad, and they said no, the man actually should be the senatorial candidate. That is the most ridiculous decision that I have ever heard that the Supreme Court had delivered,” the former NBA president explained.
Agbakoba also pointed at the apex court’s judgment on Imo State gubernatorial election where, according to him, “everything was turned upside down.”
Source: Twitter/Channels TV
By the Imo State judgment, the former NBA president referred to the Supreme Court judgment which declared Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) winner of the March 9, 2019 governorship election.
From the data available, it is not only Agbakoba that has lost confidence in the Nigerian judicial system (courts). Many Nigerians also hold the same view about the judiciary.
According to a public opinion poll published by NOIPolls in August 2020, 67 percent of Nigerians noted that they were not confident in the Nigerian judicial system. In contrast, 33 percent stated that they had confidence in the judicial system. Only four percent of the 33 percent indicated a high level of confidence in the judiciary.
Two of the major reasons highlighted in the NOIPolls for the lack of confidence in the judicial system were the perceived level of corruption within the system and some controversial previous rulings of publicly known cases.
Dataphyte interviews accentuate confidence loss
Much hasn’t really changed with respect to the perception many Nigerians hold about the judiciary, as Dataphyte learned from its interview with different Nigerians.
During the interview, Dataphyte asked different people the same set of questions, particularly on the upcoming presidential election tribunal which would begin on Monday, May 8.
First, the respondents were asked if they trusted the judiciary. The second question was if they thought that election petitioners would get justice from the courts. The second part of question two was about what the judiciary should do to redeem its image. The final question was if the respondent wanted the election tribunal, particularly the presidential tribunal, to be televised.
Here were what the respondents said to Dataphyte.
The Program Officer at Paradigm Leadership Support Initiative (PLSI), Mr Abdulahi Adebayo, noted that he had partial trust in the judiciary. On the second question, Mr Adebayo said he doubted if there would be justice for the petitioners, especially looking at the antecedents of the Nigerian judiciary.
“Looking at the antecedents of Nigerian judicial system, especially with regard to election petitions, I doubt if there will be justice for the presidential election petitioners. For instance, let’s take the Yobe North senatorial primary election petition as an example. The Supreme Court ‘robbed’ the constituents of their mandate and restored Senator Ahmed Lawal, who didn’t participate in the party primaries. Also, the judgement of the Supreme Court on the Imo State gubernatorial election petition in 2020 is also another case that shattered the heart and trust of the people in the judiciary, especially,” he further said.
Nonetheless, like many other Nigerians, Adebayo said he would be optimistic about the court despite past evidence of contradictory judgments.
“While all these (referring to his submission above) are evidence of distrust in the judicial system in the past, I still want to be hopeful of a different story this time around, especially with the significance of this 2023 presidential election and the attached petitions,” he said.
On what the judiciary must do to redeem its image, Adebayo made a number of suggestions, among which was that judgement should be more open and transparent. He called for citizens’ involvement, noting that there should be a public asset declaration for all the judges involved in the presidential petitions before and after the cases.
He added that the judiciary should allow citizens to monitor the process.
A medical doctor at Babcock University, Mr Solomon Chika, shared a similar view. Chika said he would like to see the election tribunal broadcast live for Nigerians to follow. “it is an important issue and a matter of interest to many people,” he said.
He also expressed a lack of trust in the judiciary and was uncertain if the petitioners would get justice. But he added that if the judiciary did what was right, then justice could be served.
To an economist, Ms Unekwu-Ojo John-Onoja, the judiciary did not have trusted antecedents, noting that she did not trust the institution.
She also stated that the chances of election petitioners getting justice looked slim because of the judiciary antecedents.
On the judiciary redeeming its image, Unekwu-Ojo said the institution just needed to ensure it delivered justice.
Like the previous two respondents, she would also want the election tribunal televised. “Everything about that tribunal should be made public,” she said.
Otomefa Hezekiah’s responses were not so different from the others. He noted vehemently that he did not trust the Nigerian judiciary.
On the petitioners getting justice, he stated that he had little or no confidence in that, judging from recent trends. Hezekiah went further to say that the judiciary could redeem its image in the eyes of Nigerians now if it would interpret the laws without bias or sentiments.
He would also want to see the election tribunal televised.
On her part, a public affiars analyst, Ms Nora Kalu, said she had lost trust in the judiciary because she perceived it to be a corrupt institution. “I no longer trust the judiciary because they are biased and corrupt,” she claimed.
Kalu stated that the petitioners ought to get justice, but alleged that they would be denied that due to the corruption in the system. She said the judiciary could still redeem its image if it could be transparent and turn down every form of inducement.
She would also want the whole process of the election tribunal televised. According to her, “It will make every decision and judgement transparent for the people and society at large to see.”
A Lagos-based journalist, Ms Bunmi Yekini, however, shared a contrary opinion. First, she noted that the idea of the live broadcast of the election tribunal would be great. However, it might compromise the safety of the judges.
“Showing it to the public amounts to giving room for anarchy because of the sensitivity of the cases,” she said.
Yekini also expressed confidence in the judiciary, noting that over the years, the institution had proven to be the last hope of the common man and had delivered fair judgement regardless of people’s socio-economic status.
On the election petitioners getting justice, Bunmi said that the prayers of the petitioners would determine the way the judgment would go. However, she believed that the court had eminent judges who would adjudicate on the merits and demerits of the cases and deliver fair judgement.
But the Executive Director of Hipcity Innovation Centre, Mr Bassey Bassey, disagreed. He said the judicial system had been compromised and it would be difficult to predict what to expect even if the judges looked at the merits of the case.
“I can’t say. We’ve seen the judiciary compromised before, so one can tell what to expect from them,” Bassey said.
He, however, suggested that the judiciary could redeem its image if the judges would be fair, transparent, and dispense justice without fear or favour.
On his level of trust in the judiciary, Bassey said he was indifferent about the institution but hoped that the judges would do their job without fear or favour.
He said he would also want to see the hearing of the petitions televised.
Dataphyte also spoke with Busolami Fadipe, who also shared her thoughts on the Nigerian judiciary.
According to her, she had little trust in the judiciary except in civil cases.
“In civil cases involving commercial or business law, yes, I trust the judiciary for the most part of it, but in public interest or public law cases, no, I don’t. Judges are appointed by the government, which means there’s hardly independence when public law is involved,” Busolami said.
On whether or not the election petitioners would get justice from the courts, particularly the presidential candidates, Busolami thought they would not. However, she was optimistic that certain things might change.
“Judging by the track record, no, I don’t believe they will get justice. However, I’m also hopeful that they might be successful on certain points this time around,” she said.
She further said that the judiciary could redeem its image or change Nigerians’ negative perception about them by “demonstrating independence and also seeing this election as an opportunity to set new precedents or establish new principles of law.
“It will be disappointing if the judiciary adjudicates a 2023 case with the lens of 1999 or early 2000s. This would mean giving weight to evidence on the flawed electoral process and eligibility of the president-elect, which are some of the things that have been called into question in this case.”
In response to the question on whether the tribunal should be televised, Busolami gave a nod.
“Yes, absolutely. The public has a stake in the outcome as it determines the future of our country. They should get to see how the future will be shaped,” she remarked.
A public analyst, Ms Olaitan Oladipo, shared a similar view with Fadipe. First, she said that it would be great for the petition to be televised.
She also noted her lack of trust in the judiciary. She explained that one of the major characteristics of a democracy was the independence of the judiciary, but she claimed that the institution had been compromised over time.
Oladipo also said she was indifferent as to whether election petitioners would get justice or not but suggested that the judiciary could redeem its image in the eyes of Nigerians by doing its job without any form of bias.
An active Nigerian, Mr Okemena Mazoje, expressed zero trust in the judiciary. “No, I do not trust the Nigerian judicial system,” he said.
He expressed doubts that the petitioners would get justice, especially as he argued that judicial officers were not bothered about the perception Nigerians had about them and might not even want to do what was right to redeem their image.
“The judiciary isn’t bothered about image, so there’s nothing to redeem,” Okemena told Dataphyte.
Nonetheless, he said he would like the election tribunal to televise the proceedings.
Another respondent who shared his thoughts with Dataphyte was Murkthar Suleiman,
The communications strategist said he did not have so much faith in Nigeria’s judicial system, citing the apex court judgement on the candidacy of Ahmad Lawan and the naira redesign policy as reasons for his waning confidence in the judiciary.
“I don’t think I trust the judicial system that much. In recent times, the Supreme Court has set precedent rulings that are somewhat against the law. We saw that with how the case of Ahmad Lawan was handled after the APC primaries. And we saw it again with the naira redesign. The court has, sort of, allowed itself to be used for political points. So, it is hard for me to trust the courts. In fact, I feel that the Supreme Court is compromised,” Suleiman explained.
He was also skeptical that the election petitioners would get justice.
Expert reacts
A Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law, Ahmadu Bello University, Yusuf Dankofa, told Dataphyte that he personally had no other option than to continue to have faith in the judiciary because doing otherwise would send a signal of total lack of confidence.
He said that it was worrisome that many Nigerians had zero trust in the judiciary, noting that this concern was also shared among many legal professionals.
“The truth must be said: there is a lot of disaffection by the people by the kind of decisions that continually come from the judiciary these days, unlike before,” Prof Dankofa said.
He explained that the lack of trust was due to many inconsistencies in decisions by courts of the same level and the emphasis on technical justice over and above real justice.
He advised that in the upcoming election tribunal, the judges should rely on the fact of the cases before them rather than on technicalities. He stressed that the judges should see their appointments as audacious responsibilities to dispense justice.
“People who are aggrieved by what they perceive as negative outcomes of the electoral process are now before the courts both at presidential, gubernatorial, senatorial, and other levels. Judges should know that they have been given the audacious responsibility to dispense justice and restore the confidence of the citizens in the judicial system,” he added.