Judges Are Kings in a Court of Law: They Do No Wrong By Amusan Tawfiiq ’Lekan
INTRODUCTION
Pitiable and
abysmal won’t do justice to the description of how muddled and barricaded one set
of individuals called Politicians have made every path through which the common
man on the street— the ordinary citizen— could spontaneously access and get
justice from the court of law whenever the situation now demands in Nigeria. These
individuals have almost succeeded in converting the crop of superior courts in Nigeria
to a warehouse for the compilation of political shenanigans— pilling up the
court’s registry with a country of suits, filling all manner of applications
anyone can think of, before and after election. Frivolity never existed in
their dictionary. Even when they finally get to the Supreme Court, they will
still wish there could be another court they could approach. Yet, at every slightest apportionment of
anything contrary to what they expect from court, they go all out desecrating
the sacredness of this same institution which they would have praised to the high
heavens had their ox not been gored.
BACKGROUND
A Federal High
Court Judge sitting in Abuja, Hon. Justice Inyang Ekwo, delivered judgment in a
political case involving the Peoples Democratic Party, the Ebonyi state’s incumbent
Governor, Engr. Dave Umahi and his Deputy, Mr. Eric Kelechi Igwe on the 8th
of March, 2022 finding in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party. As expected,
the outcome of the judgment did not sit well with His Excellency and, like
every typical Nigerian on the losing end of a court’s judgment would, he
ventured into hurling a long tirade of dishonourable and contumelious remarks not
only at the judgment (which may of course be pardonable) but also, regrettably,
the personality of his lordship who delivered the judgment. Provided here is a
link to the online report of the said Press Conference.[[i]]
THE MISCHIEF BY EMOTIONS
While it is
absolutely normal to criticize a court’s decision for whatever healthy reason— which is even common
among the Legal Practitioners— it’ll be an utterly disgraceful exercise to
embark on attacking the personality of any judge who hands down a “controversial”
decision. Making it more distasteful would be where the reason for launching
such attack is hinged on the mere fact that the said decision is not in one’s
favour or that it doesn’t actually tally with one’s expectation, irrespective
of whether or not one even has the professional knowledge required to
understand the judgment in the first place.
It is important
to state in passing that this writer is not unmindful of the fact that by the
doctrine of stare decisis, judges of
inferior courts (or of whatever court at all) are, by principle, required to
follow the decisions of their superior in the top reaches of the court’s
hierarchy. This followership is however not to be done in a slavish manner but
only where the facts are impari materia,
for “facts” are the springboard upon which the application of precedents is
always hung.
It will
therefore be very absurd for anyone to allow emotions push them to assume that
a whole Federal High Court Judge does not know the elementary principle that he’s
to follow a precedent from the Supreme Court particularly where such was even brought
to his attention while hearing the matter and also to assume that, by choosing
not to follow the decision of the supreme court, he doesn’t know the implications
of what he may be leaving at stake if the matter eventually goes to the Court
of Appeal where they may not spare him with fiery and harsh words of
chastisement. There are a lot of decided cases with clear and lucid words of
warning in this regard which altogether should make it very impracticable for
anyone to allow emotions get the better of them by doing any of those
assumptions.
In Okoniji v. Mudiaga Odge (1985) 10. S.C 267,
for instance, the Supreme Court per ESO, J.S.C (as he then was) in very
strong terms let out words of warning to the Court of Appeal (and by extension,
all other lower courts) about the due observance of respect required of it from
them by following its decisions, no matter how wrong, inasmuch as the facts involved
are similar. In the following strong words, the Supreme Court held;
“In the hierarchy of court in this country, as in all other common law
countries, one thing is clear, HOWEVER LEARNED A LOWER COURT CONSIDERS ITSELF
TO BE AND HOWEVER CONTEMPTUOUS OF THE HIGHER COURT, that lower court is still
bound by the decision of the higher court... I hope it will never happen again
whereby the lower court of appeal in this country or any lower court for that
matter would deliberately go against the decision of this court and in this
case, even to the extent of not considering the decision when those decision
were brought to the notice of that court. This is the discipline of law. This
is what makes the law certain and prevents it from being an ass.” (Emphasis is
mine).
Having put in a
few words on the mischief which sheer emotions may have pushed into some
critics’ minds— and for a number of reasons which are not unconnected with the
peculiarities as well as the present status of the said-case— I’ll refrain from
commenting on the correctness or the otherwise of it. Instead, I’ll focus
further on the reason for making this article.
THE KINGSHIP OF A JUDGE (AS AN ADJUDICATOR)
This is a
metaphorical usage borrowed from a system traceable to the typical African
traditional society wherein the king is often regarded as a sovereign who does
no wrong, regardless of whether his verdicts are just or not. The borrowing in
this regard is however with a whole lot of modifications, seeing as, at all
time, the Judge’s primary and main mandate is to always do justice. But
then—and this is where all these hypotheses will make sense— we live in a world
wherein justice may not have a single, universal meaning. What an accused
person will term as justice may differ from what the Prosecution or even the
society may, in their own assessment, term as justice. Does anyone, of those
three parties, whose expectation of justice may not be met, then go around
accusing and lashing out at the judge, calling him all sorts of names?
After going as
far as calling his lordship a “hatchet
man”, Gov. Dave Umahi was still quoted to have said, “we have petitioned him to NJC and we will follow it up to ensure that
this man (referring to Justice Ekwo) is brought to justice”. As a litigant
who feels aggrieved by the decision of any court—as long as such court is not the
supreme court (I won’t like raising your hopes about an “application for review”)—
there are available statutory options through which such a decision can be
legally attacked. Personality-attack and issuance of threat about possible
maintenance of a disciplinary action against a judicial officer just for the
singular fact that one lost in the suit wherein he presided are definitely not
in the options. Scaffolding on the English case of Sirros v. Moore (1974) 3
All ER 776, the Nigerian Court of Appeal per Akaahs, J.C.A held in the case
of NDEFO v. OBIESE & ORS (2000) LPELR-6088 (CA) as follows;
“It has been accepted in our law that no action is maintainable against
a judge for anything said or done by him in the exercise of a jurisdiction
which belongs to him. The words which he speaks are protected by an absolute
privilege. The orders which he gives and the sentences which he imposes cannot
be made the subject of civil proceedings against him. NO MATTER THAT THE JUDGE
WAS UNDER SOME GROSS ERROR OR IGNORANCE or was actuated by envy, hatred and
malice and all uncharitableness, he is not liable to action. The remedy of the
party aggrieved is to APPEAL TO A COURT OF APPEAL or to apply for habeas
corpus, or a writ of error or certiorari, or take some steps to reverse his
ruling.” (Emphasis is mine).
This is not to,
with a wave of hand, rule out the possibility of a judge being complicit in
what could make him face the disciplinary committee of the Judicial officers
but until the legally recognized reasons together with cogent evidence
substantiating same surface, a judge is always immune from any action arising
from whatever decision he handled to the best of his judicial ability. Stating the reasons behind this protection,
the Supreme Court per Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C in EGBE V ADEFARASIN & ANOR
(1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 549 at p. 567 held as follows;
“The principle at law of exemption from being sued for matters done by
judges in their judicial capacity is of great importance. It is necessary to
the free and impartial administration of justice in that, the person
administering it should be uninfluenced by fear and unbiased by hope. Judges have
not been vested with this privilege for their own protection merely, it is
calculated for the benefit of the people by ensuring to them a calm, steady and
impartial administration of justice. It is a principle coeval with the law of
the land and the dispensation of justice in this country; and is founded on the
very frame of the constitution. It is to be met with in the earliest books of
law, and has been continued down to the present time without one authority or
dictum to the contrary that I have been able to find.”
CONCLUSSION
It’s quite
commendable that less than 24 hours after publication of the said vituperative
interview granted by the Governor, a press statement was released by the
Nigerian Bar Association, under the stewardship of Mr. Olumide Akpata
describing the outburst of the Governor as an unguarded and totally unwarranted
attack on the Judiciary for a whole lot of reasons accessible in the link
supplied hereunder.[[ii]] An instant
retraction of all the diatribes with a concomitant wide publication of apology
were therefore demanded of the Governor which, as reported herein[[iii]] were complied
with in a matter of hours. This act of comradeship from the NBA is once again
laudable and timely so as for the judiciary to retain the respect it should
command from other arms of government.
Amusan Tawfiiq ‘Lekan
is a 500L Student of the Faculty of Law, Bayero University, Kano. He can be
reached via Vickmanbaolad@gmail.com as well as
+2348108012253
REFERENCES
Comments
Post a Comment