In an unsettling turn of events, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja recently issued a ruling that freezes FAAC (Federation Account Allocation Committee) allocations to Rivers State, seemingly misinterpreting federalism's bedrock principles. It’s clear the court’s powers don't extend to denying a state its constitutional revenue allocation. This incident is only the latest in a string of questionable judgments that raise the specter of judges serving political patrons instead of justice. Is Nigeria’s judiciary at risk of becoming an instrument for repayment of political debts rather than a guardian of constitutional principles?
The Courtroom Cashier: When Judgments Have a Price Tag
The judiciary is, by design, meant to be a pillar of impartiality, unswayed by political winds. But lately, one can’t help but notice a worrisome trend: judicial decisions that appear to be rewards for political allegiance rather than resolutions based on the law. In the case of Justice Abdulmalik's ruling, Rivers State is left hanging in financial limbo because of a court that seems more willing to dabble in politics than defend the rights of the state and its citizens. This not only jeopardizes Rivers State’s financial autonomy but also raises serious questions about the independence of the judiciary. If court judgments start looking like favor paybacks, the trust the public places in the judicial system unravels rapidly.
Imagine the consequences when a governor, a legislator, or any public official can nudge a judge in a favorable direction by leaning on political connections or settling “IOUs” from the last election season. It becomes a chilling game where legal principles are less important than the ability to influence and leverage personal loyalty. Is Nigeria at risk of transforming the judicial bench into a “courtroom cashier,” where decisions are subtly up for sale?
Conflicting Judgments: When the Bench Becomes a Battlefield
Nigeria’s judiciary, unfortunately, has seen an influx of conflicting judgments that leave both the public and legal experts scratching their heads. In recent times, the frequency of conflicting rulings has turned the court system into something of a lottery, where outcomes are unpredictable, and justice is elusive. Cases with similar facts and issues are met with opposing judgments depending on the court or the judge handling them, a clear sign that personal biases and political interests may be creeping into legal decisions.
The uncertainty surrounding judgments doesn’t just erode public confidence in the judiciary—it undermines the rule of law itself. When citizens and institutions can’t rely on clear, consistent rulings, chaos ensues, leaving everyone in the dark about what the law actually entails. The danger here isn’t just theoretical: it manifests in a society where rules mean little, and the interpretation of justice depends on who’s sitting on the bench that day.
The Nigeria Judicial Council (NJC): A Call to Action
If ever there was a time for the Nigeria Judicial Council (NJC) to step up and tackle this downward spiral, it’s now. The NJC has a constitutional mandate to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, but allowing conflicting judgments and apparent favoritism to fester is an abdication of that duty. For the NJC, the solution begins with a commitment to accountability. Judges must be evaluated rigorously, not only for technical legal knowledge but for a demonstrated history of impartiality. Instances where judges appear to leverage their office to curry political favor or enact personal agendas must be investigated and sanctioned.
Perhaps more importantly, the NJC needs to develop mechanisms to address inconsistencies in judgments. A higher level of scrutiny, perhaps even mandatory reviews of cases with political implications, could help standardize rulings and prevent the judiciary from being used as a pawn in political rivalries.
The Sarcastic Close: Judging by Favors, Governing by Decrees?
Nigeria’s judicial system cannot afford to devolve into a puppet show where the real actors stand in the shadows, pulling the strings. When a judge feels empowered to freeze the revenue of an entire state without basis, one wonders: what’s next? Perhaps a ruling to install a “godfather” as a life-long political advisor to every public office holder in Nigeria? Or maybe a judgment that political favors are now official court currency? Such scenarios might seem absurd, but they only feel that way because we still cling to the hope that Nigeria’s judiciary has principles that cannot be bought.
Justice is supposed to be blind, not deaf to reason. If the NJC does not rise to the challenge of restoring discipline, impartiality, and respect for the rule of law, Nigeria risks a future where the gavel becomes a tool not of judgment, but of political patronage. After all, if judges are allowed to play Godfathers with political patrons, who will guard the guardians of justice?
0 comments:
Post a Comment
please leave us a comment to this post