Abubakar Malami’s inquisitorial tendency
Given
the terrible harm and retrogression corruption has brought upon
Nigeria, it is no surprise that President Muhammadu Buhari is fixated on
combating it, almost to the large scale exclusion of other great
policies needed to restructure and reposition the polity. He has shown
determination and grit in fighting the malaise, and he has swooped on it
with the frenzied passion of a crusader running out of time. He is
right to be very urgent about the problem. But the greater question is
whether the president has the appropriate solution. So far, in fact,
there has been no solution in the real sense of the word. Those alleged
to be corrupt are being named and shamed, even to the point of
subverting the rule of law. But because the people have massed behind
him, the president reposes greater confidence and trust in his own
methods. There has also been no mention of the political economy of
corruption, which is even more crucial to combating the menace. But
this, too, apparently requires some depth and holistic approach, and
exasperatingly far too much patience than the president and his fervent
supporters are willing to accommodate.
What is indisputable is that the president and many of his aides see the anti-corruption war simply and singularly in terms of law and order. Any other perspective is to them a luxury of theorising. The vast majority of Nigerians agree with the president. They see no exotic theory in the harmful impact of corruption; so why bother about the theory of its origins. During last year’s All Nigeria Judges Conference, President Buhari should have taken the opportunity to offer very profound thoughts on the judicial arm , the problem it faces, the remedies to those problems, and other transcendental and original perspectives on the rule of law and the defence of human rights vis-a-vis the challenges of governing and policing a complex and developing society. Instead, he spoke in his usual reprobationary language about the judiciary performing below public expectation, and the need for that arm of government to redeem its ‘faltering’ image.
Among other complaints, the President Buhari singled out “allegations of judicial corruption…dilatory tactics by lawyers sometimes with the apparent collusion of judges to stall trials indefinitely thereby denying the state and the accused persons of a judicial verdict…and negative perception arising from long delays in the trial process that have damaged the international reputation of the Nigerian judiciary, even among its international peers.” But these are just symptoms of the very fundamental problems plaguing the judiciary. While the Buhari presidency has upped its criticisms against the judiciary, with Abubakar Malami, the Attorney General of the Federation making strident and inquisitorial remarks, nothing concrete has been done to tackle the problems from the root. Little will be done, it seems, because the government’s understanding of the problem is restricted to law and order, and nothing in-between.
The Attorney General’s prognosis is a curious, hubristic misperception of judges and the judiciary. It requires extensive quotation to appreciate the full import of his opinion. Said he: “As we may be aware, this administration promised Nigerians that it will promptly address the challenges facing our nation in the three areas of corruption, economy and security. Let no one be in doubt, the legitimate expectation of Nigerians in this regard shall be met. In this regard therefore, I am reiterating that the fight against corruption shall be total and will not exclude judicial officers, who are found wanting. After all, it is beyond doubt that a corrupt judge cannot meaningfully contribute to the fight against corruption. In reality, it cannot be over-emphasised that systemic corruption and impunity are prevalent in Nigeria, and that they cut across all sectors of the society, unfortunately, including the judiciary – an institution that is universally believed to be the hope of the common man. Ideally, the judiciary in a democratic state ought to be accountable less to public opinion and more to public interest. It should discharge its constitutional roles by being principled, independent and impartial.”
This unflattering view from the chief law officer of Nigeria is further reiteration of the misconception both of the judiciary as an arm of government and the fundamentals of corruption. Mr. Malami is a young legal officer who apparently lacks an understanding of the weight of the judiciary’s place and role in the polity. That arm of government does not exist, despite its numerous imperfections, to be kicked about by the executive arm. It is a co-equal arm, one that is self-regulating, self-administering, and, had the executive at the states level not been short-sighted and obstinate about holding on to the judicial purse strings, would have been self-financing in the truest sense. Paragraph 21 (b)and (d) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution puts the onus of doing all that Mr. Malami spoke about on the National Judicial Council. Without making it obvious, and as an indication of a sublime understanding of the place of the judiciary in the sustenance of democracy, both the president and Mr. Malami should have spoken of this third arm of government in terms that do not give the impression of its subordination to the executive for either disciplinary or political reasons.
The danger of the executive arm speaking openly and pejoratively
about the judiciary is that it increasingly encourages commentators —
most of them ignorant of how the fulcrums upon which a society is
balanced must be positioned — to unleash venomous and destablising
attacks on that generally silent arm of government. Emotions are being
whipped up against the judiciary, and there are already careless talks
about the need to get the judiciary to key to President Buhari’s
programmes, especially the anti-corruption war. Even granted there is
corruption in the judiciary, it would be a surprise for judicial
officers and legal minds anywhere, whether at the executive, legislative
or judicial arm, to forswear their high education and begin to talk of
keying to anything. Surely, of all the professions, judicial minds know a
lot about ideological posturing, not to talk of constitutional and
procedural finesse. It is not the job of the judiciary to key to
anything; their job is to ensure justice is served to the extent of the
consistencies of behaviours, activities, programmes and policies with
the laws of the country and its constitution.
The private opinions of Judges are often kept private, except when they deliver judgements that are perhaps shaped or coloured by their ideological and experiential leanings. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) sometimes rises in the defence of the independence of the judiciary, independence that is sadly being subtly eroded by the exaggerated impressions and careless summations of the executive arm. While it is true that corruption is present in the judiciary, just as it is also present in both the executive and the legislature arms, the solution is not to single out the judiciary for lampooning. Corruption in Nigeria is society-wide. It cannot be tackled simply by condemning one group or individual. In the case of the judiciary, it is even more dangerous to single them out, as the Buhari presidency seems to be doing, for blame for the slow pace of justice delivery or perversion of justice.
President Buhari’s summation on corruption in the judiciary is truly baffling. Has he asked himself why there is corruption in the judiciary and elsewhere? Has he taken a look at that arm of government’s funding over the years? Has he looked into the virtually collapsed infrastructure in the judiciary? Indeed, has he taken a comprehensive look at the justice system, right from when a suspect is arrested to the last stage of imprisonment in order to enable him design an amelioration programme? It is baffling that he talked about the slow pace of justice delivery without reflecting on the staff strength of the judiciary. And both he and Mr. Malami talked sanctimoniously about the outrage over judges’ corruption as if the judiciary is isolated from Nigeria’s other publics; as if corruption in the judiciary, because of its moral and religious undertones and implications, is somehow more reprehensible than corruption elsewhere.
What both the president and Mr. Malami are doing to the judiciary is even more damaging than the corruption they conclude has hobbled justice delivery. Mr. Malami, from his outrageous meddlesomeness in the Kogi governorship impasse, is clearly more politically partisan than first thought, or than is good for his own office and reputation. He should be offering unimpeachable advice about law and justice to the president and his cabinet, and standing watch over the sanctity and rectitude of the country’s laws and constitution. If he chooses to be derelict in his responsibilities, the president, who is the country’s overall leader, has the biggest responsibility of all to ensure that the country works. He should speak loftily of his programmes and reveal his appreciation of the elements of corruption beyond inquisition and policy ad hocism; he should let the country know where he stands ideologically, and how that would impact on his policies and programmes; he should give the country a glimpse of his vision for Nigeria and how it can be realised; and, among other things, also suggest the behavioural changes at the sublime level that should form the building blocks of the character of the Nigerian. Let him do these with the right savvy.
No one can of course defend corruption in any form, let alone in the judiciary, nor anywhere for that matter. But it is portentous when a disproportionate focus, borne out of ignorance of what constitutes corruption, is put on the judiciary. The president and Mr. Malami were either elected or appointed because it was thought they had a more than average understanding of how the laws of the land and the constitution could best be protected and defended. They should justify the confidence reposed in them rather than interminably bellyache over problems they are expected to solve with sublime skill and élan.
NATION Newspaper
What is indisputable is that the president and many of his aides see the anti-corruption war simply and singularly in terms of law and order. Any other perspective is to them a luxury of theorising. The vast majority of Nigerians agree with the president. They see no exotic theory in the harmful impact of corruption; so why bother about the theory of its origins. During last year’s All Nigeria Judges Conference, President Buhari should have taken the opportunity to offer very profound thoughts on the judicial arm , the problem it faces, the remedies to those problems, and other transcendental and original perspectives on the rule of law and the defence of human rights vis-a-vis the challenges of governing and policing a complex and developing society. Instead, he spoke in his usual reprobationary language about the judiciary performing below public expectation, and the need for that arm of government to redeem its ‘faltering’ image.
Among other complaints, the President Buhari singled out “allegations of judicial corruption…dilatory tactics by lawyers sometimes with the apparent collusion of judges to stall trials indefinitely thereby denying the state and the accused persons of a judicial verdict…and negative perception arising from long delays in the trial process that have damaged the international reputation of the Nigerian judiciary, even among its international peers.” But these are just symptoms of the very fundamental problems plaguing the judiciary. While the Buhari presidency has upped its criticisms against the judiciary, with Abubakar Malami, the Attorney General of the Federation making strident and inquisitorial remarks, nothing concrete has been done to tackle the problems from the root. Little will be done, it seems, because the government’s understanding of the problem is restricted to law and order, and nothing in-between.
The Attorney General’s prognosis is a curious, hubristic misperception of judges and the judiciary. It requires extensive quotation to appreciate the full import of his opinion. Said he: “As we may be aware, this administration promised Nigerians that it will promptly address the challenges facing our nation in the three areas of corruption, economy and security. Let no one be in doubt, the legitimate expectation of Nigerians in this regard shall be met. In this regard therefore, I am reiterating that the fight against corruption shall be total and will not exclude judicial officers, who are found wanting. After all, it is beyond doubt that a corrupt judge cannot meaningfully contribute to the fight against corruption. In reality, it cannot be over-emphasised that systemic corruption and impunity are prevalent in Nigeria, and that they cut across all sectors of the society, unfortunately, including the judiciary – an institution that is universally believed to be the hope of the common man. Ideally, the judiciary in a democratic state ought to be accountable less to public opinion and more to public interest. It should discharge its constitutional roles by being principled, independent and impartial.”
This unflattering view from the chief law officer of Nigeria is further reiteration of the misconception both of the judiciary as an arm of government and the fundamentals of corruption. Mr. Malami is a young legal officer who apparently lacks an understanding of the weight of the judiciary’s place and role in the polity. That arm of government does not exist, despite its numerous imperfections, to be kicked about by the executive arm. It is a co-equal arm, one that is self-regulating, self-administering, and, had the executive at the states level not been short-sighted and obstinate about holding on to the judicial purse strings, would have been self-financing in the truest sense. Paragraph 21 (b)and (d) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution puts the onus of doing all that Mr. Malami spoke about on the National Judicial Council. Without making it obvious, and as an indication of a sublime understanding of the place of the judiciary in the sustenance of democracy, both the president and Mr. Malami should have spoken of this third arm of government in terms that do not give the impression of its subordination to the executive for either disciplinary or political reasons.
The private opinions of Judges are often kept private, except when they deliver judgements that are perhaps shaped or coloured by their ideological and experiential leanings. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) sometimes rises in the defence of the independence of the judiciary, independence that is sadly being subtly eroded by the exaggerated impressions and careless summations of the executive arm. While it is true that corruption is present in the judiciary, just as it is also present in both the executive and the legislature arms, the solution is not to single out the judiciary for lampooning. Corruption in Nigeria is society-wide. It cannot be tackled simply by condemning one group or individual. In the case of the judiciary, it is even more dangerous to single them out, as the Buhari presidency seems to be doing, for blame for the slow pace of justice delivery or perversion of justice.
President Buhari’s summation on corruption in the judiciary is truly baffling. Has he asked himself why there is corruption in the judiciary and elsewhere? Has he taken a look at that arm of government’s funding over the years? Has he looked into the virtually collapsed infrastructure in the judiciary? Indeed, has he taken a comprehensive look at the justice system, right from when a suspect is arrested to the last stage of imprisonment in order to enable him design an amelioration programme? It is baffling that he talked about the slow pace of justice delivery without reflecting on the staff strength of the judiciary. And both he and Mr. Malami talked sanctimoniously about the outrage over judges’ corruption as if the judiciary is isolated from Nigeria’s other publics; as if corruption in the judiciary, because of its moral and religious undertones and implications, is somehow more reprehensible than corruption elsewhere.
What both the president and Mr. Malami are doing to the judiciary is even more damaging than the corruption they conclude has hobbled justice delivery. Mr. Malami, from his outrageous meddlesomeness in the Kogi governorship impasse, is clearly more politically partisan than first thought, or than is good for his own office and reputation. He should be offering unimpeachable advice about law and justice to the president and his cabinet, and standing watch over the sanctity and rectitude of the country’s laws and constitution. If he chooses to be derelict in his responsibilities, the president, who is the country’s overall leader, has the biggest responsibility of all to ensure that the country works. He should speak loftily of his programmes and reveal his appreciation of the elements of corruption beyond inquisition and policy ad hocism; he should let the country know where he stands ideologically, and how that would impact on his policies and programmes; he should give the country a glimpse of his vision for Nigeria and how it can be realised; and, among other things, also suggest the behavioural changes at the sublime level that should form the building blocks of the character of the Nigerian. Let him do these with the right savvy.
No one can of course defend corruption in any form, let alone in the judiciary, nor anywhere for that matter. But it is portentous when a disproportionate focus, borne out of ignorance of what constitutes corruption, is put on the judiciary. The president and Mr. Malami were either elected or appointed because it was thought they had a more than average understanding of how the laws of the land and the constitution could best be protected and defended. They should justify the confidence reposed in them rather than interminably bellyache over problems they are expected to solve with sublime skill and élan.
NATION Newspaper
No comments:
Post a Comment