THE Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, was emphatic during the 2019 Annual General Meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) that judges bowed before no one in deciding cases. However, it is not clear exactly what he meant, considering that almost in the same breath he groaned at the paradox of state governments refusing to respect the financial autonomy of the judiciary in their states. “Let me assure this assembly,” he asserted, “we don’t look at anybody’s face or feelings before taking our decisions. If there is any deity to be feared, that deity is the Almighty God. We will never be subservient to anybody, no matter how highly placed.” But on the other hand, he complained, “If you say that I am independent, but in a way whether I like it or not, I have to go and bend down, asking (for funds) I have lost my independence.”
Even if the contradictions in the CJN’s observations were resolved, few Nigerians really believe that the Nigerian judiciary could be described as truly independent. They know by experience, contrary to the CJN’s optimism, that neither the federal nor state governments are as keen to let the judiciary be free as they routinely proclaim. But the assault on the judiciary is not only from the states. Consider for instance the emergence of Justice Muhammad himself, a product of the ingenious psychological and sub-legal war waged against the judiciary by the federal government. Regardless of the culpability of the former CJN, Walter Onnoghen, who was accused of unexplained wealth and other financial malfeasances, none of the constitutional provisions for his removal was followed. Railroaded through a court not envisaged by the constitution for his removal, he was suspended, then tried, and just when the case looked like becoming entangled in a legal logjam and thicket, he was cajoled into resigning.
A number of states have mistreated the judiciary, castrated judges, and subordinated chief judges to political encumbrances so burdensome that some judicial officers have been frustrated into involuntary resignations. The situation is so bad in some states that it has become a rarity to find a few bold judges who can call their souls their own. Justice Muhammad was, therefore, guilty of generalisation when he declared at the NBA conference that judges did not look at anybody’s face or feelings before taking decisions. The statement is generally untrue, but only true in some particular cases. The CJN was, however, more accurate when he suggested that without financial autonomy the judiciary could not be independent.
No meaningful progress can be made without Nigeria’s judicial leadership acknowledging the bondage in which political authorities have driven them. There are of course a number of cases where judgement was entered against the federal government and the decision stood. But other cases exist, such as the Fed Gov V. Sambo Dasuki, and Fed Govt V. Ibraheem El-Zakzaky, where the government demonstrated adamantine resolve to openly and unrepentantly defy the courts. That sort of defiance has not only been sustained in recent years, the government often cleverly muddies the waters by initiating fresh trials based on new charges in order to obfuscate or even scuttle old and untenable charges.
The judiciary in Nigeria is not quite free, especially in some cases where the government has interest. Some of the fetters might have been self-inflicted, a consequence of abominable corruption in the temple of justice, but others have been deployed by the government, an indication of their shallow understanding of the role of the judiciary in a democracy. To reverse the situation, the government must promote and defend the financial autonomy granted the judiciary, inspire reforms in the judiciary in accordance with the law, and fight graft and other forms of crookedness in the judiciary sensibly and lawfully. With high political stakes, however, this type of altruism may not be readily found.