Writing under the title-Invasion of judiciary: the dialectics, I had last week, examined issues arising from the sting operation by the DSS in which it arrested some judges on allegations of corruption. Reactions came in torrents and I consider it only fair to avail the public the benefit of some of these views.
The few highlighted below, capture in the main, the feelings of a majority of those who reacted. Now read on:
There is need for deeper reflection if indeed you want to consider the matter from a philosophical perspective. Some of us have been wondering why our courts have been running riot in passing conflicting judgments when certain individuals are involved. A less prompt approach would have led to a loss or destruction of evidence. There is nothing extraordinary about the NJC. I shudder to think you consider a corrupt and compromised judiciary as having no internal security implications. For me the dialectics of the situation is at work. – Ambrose Abanum.
With views such as that of Emeka, Nigeria will remain in perpetual darkness and oppression. The same NJC that is clamoring to be allowed to carry out its duties is corrupt. They attended to 232 cases out of 1800 received. And what are their outcomes –‘slap-wrist’ punishment, or compulsory retirement or refund. The outcome of the arrest proved the more how corrupt the judiciary is. A drastic situation requires a drastic solution. If such happened in China, most judges by now will have been executed and the rest will sit up –Kunle Orekoya.
With views such as that of Kunle Orekoya, Nigeria will be in a big problem. Fighting corruption must follow the extant laws and devoid of double standards. How many of our senior army officers implicated by the same EFCC in the same dispensation were apprehended in the new found Gestapo style of the DSS? We must not start something that is not sustainable. We must fight corruption but not replace it with tyranny or reign of terror that will even make matters worse. Orekoya must note this: In China and in other climes, many of those with sordid pasts hobnobbing with the present government under the guise of fake support and solidarity would have been in jail -Damian.
When courts sit at nights to give injunctions, what did NJC do? When two judges give conflicting pronouncements on the same issue, NJC kept mute. If the DSS breaks roof to get at them, so be it. Anonymous.
If the amounts as being said were actually found with them, it is then mind boggling. A drastic problem of corruption of this level needs a draconian approach such as the DSS people. Anonymous.
Interestingly, none of these views is against the fight against corruption. But while four would tolerate unconventional strategies, only one wants that fight to follow extant laws. The latter is worried that ad hoc measures cannot be sustained and therefore of limited value in the type of systemic and sustainable change that can permanently restore the integrity and credibility of the judiciary. He wonders what value there is in kick-starting a process that cannot be sustained.
The rest are worried by the level of corruption within the judiciary; the huge sums alleged to have been recovered from some of the judges and their effect on justice for the common man. For them, the DSS could as well break roofs, trample on peoples’ rights and become law unto itself and be justified as the end would have justified the means.
That is where we run into serious problems. Even then, this position is largely tainted for being propelled by the faulty assumption that the receipt of gratification by judges to influence the course of justice is all there is to judicial corruption. That is not so. It is also flawed by the presumption that once judges are arrested and humiliated in crude ways or even jailed, the nation would have had a handle to judicial corruption. This is far from the truth as the ramifications of judicial corruption are more complex than what we have been made to believe.
In its Global Corruption Report 2007, Transparency International (TI) made two classifications of judicial corruption: (a) political interference in judicial processes by either the executive or legislative branches of the government and (b) bribery. Those who subscribe to unconventional approaches, see judicial corruption only from the narrow and circumscribed prism of judges taking bribe from the public to influence the course of justice. That is why they would even want the DSS to go outside its powers to ‘catch the thief’ and deal with him even through mob justice. Unfortunately, that approach, even with its questionable success value, does not provide solution to all there is to judicial corruption.
We are even faced with a more dangerous and pernicious danger of judicial corruption arising from political interference in judicial processes either by the executive or the legislative arms of the government. The failure to factor this dimension into calculations while assessing the prospects of the DSS action in curing judicial corruption did incurable damage to supporters of that move.
The issue to ponder is how does the offensive by the DSS address judicial corruption arising from the meddlesomeness of the executive? It has practically no answer to it. And when it is considered that the same DSS is an agency of the executive, the whole contradiction become even more disconcerting.
Are we sure what has been termed sting operation, ostensibly to sanitize the judiciary, is not a ploy for executive interference in the affairs of that arm of the government? And of what value are the arrests when some of the judges are back at the bench handling cases before them?
Again, while one of the judges has attributed his travails to the rulings he gave against the DSS in cases before him, the other accused the AGF of vengeance for an issue years before his (AGF’s) appointment. Yet, some others have spoken of their refusal to be influenced in election cases before the Supreme Court as the real issue. We may wish to dismiss or rationalize on these allegations but they can only be ignored at a great risk to our democracy.
If we believe the allegations the DSS made against the judges even when prima facie evidence is yet to be established, we do not have any basis to dismiss the ones coming from the judges. It has boiled down to the words of the DSS, AGF and other government officials against those of the judges. That is how hopeless the situation has become. That is the major flaw of the DSS action. And its consequences could snowball unpleasant consequences for order and good governance.
Where does this scenario leave us? It reinforces the view that extant procedure for dealing with corruption within the judiciary can only be abridged with severe repercussions. That is why the NJC – a creation of the constitution with specific powers to discipline erring judicial officers should neither be trampled upon nor compromised. We are free to express reservations with the way that body handles issues before it. We are at liberty to criticize and lampoon the Judges and NJC for observed imperfections. But the solution does not lie in going outside the box to invent make-shift solutions of very effervescent value.
There is the temptation to view the development as the interplay of the social dynamics of history- involving the contradiction between thesis and anti-thesis that will give rise to synthesis (something beneficial to society). But I do not see such prospects because the action of the DSS does not command that force capable of unleashing fundamental changes of heuristic value. Again, the action is hugely flawed because it has nothing for judicial corruption arising from the interferences of the executive which ironically, the DSS works for. Incidentally, that is the worst form of judicial corruption our nation could face.
The solution lies in fundamental judicial reforms to address observed shortcomings. But if we think multi-faceted judicial reforms cannot provide the elixir, Marxian perspective that such institutions are part of the superstructure that serve the interest of the ruling class, may be a soothing balm. Does that lead us any where?
