Since the heat-up of anti-corruption war, apart from the anti-graft agencies which have the statutory functions of arresting, investigating and prosecuting corruption cases, judiciary is said to be the last arbiter as the bulk of corruption cases end in courts. It was therefore a contentious issue at a forum in Lagos that for the anti-corruption war to succeed, the judiciary should play its role according to rule of law. Senior Correspondent ONYEWUCHI OJINNAKA reports.
“The institutional role of interpretation of the law and resolution of conflicts by the judiciary in a democratic system as ours, and indeed, across the globe, places the judiciary on a special pedestal to resort to the option of the tool of social engineering in its justice delivery”
This was the view of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Godwin Obla at a forum held in Lagos recently where the role of judiciary as an institution in the anti-corruption fight was discussed.
Dissecting the three arms of government, Obla averred that the judiciary possesses judicial powers which requires the power to interpret the laws and administer justice, adding that the judiciary exercises these powers through the instrumentality of the court system.
He submitted that to ensure that the powerful arms of government (executive and legislature) do not become laws onto themselves, there became the need for power to check power. “In legal circle, it is called the doctrine of checks and balances” he said.
It was noted that with the said doctrine, the relevance of the institution of the judiciary is underscored by the special power which judicial review vested in it to check the other arms of government.
Logically, Obla submitted that the doctrine of checks and balances are effective tool in the fight against corruption. He posits that by the very existence of the judiciary, it was built to fight corruption, adding that the judiciary do it by upholding the Rule of Law.
In his submission on the rule of law, Obla quoted one Chukwunife Ogbuagor who once said “Judicial control appears to be most effective means of imposing and enforcing the demands of the rule of law; and once this power is not properly exercised, corruption becomes a necessary consequence”.
Also in the words of Dahiru Musdapher CJN (as he then was) “when the Rule of Law is weak, corruption will remain a nagging problem”
Obla described the role of the judiciary in the fight against corruption as very significant because it is fundamentally vested by the grundnorm; the constitution to receive all cases referred to it for adjudication.
“This invariably presupposes that all allegations of corruption against persons or authorities are referred to the court to administer justice” Obla held.
It was further held that in the exercise of this noble role of justice delivery, the judiciary, through the agency of courts, determine the culpability or otherwise of a person accused of allegation of corruption.
Naturally and constitutionally, the judiciary is expected to perform its function impartially and independently. It should not be coloured or influenced by any religious, political or group affiliation, neither will it be subject to the influence of the other organs of government.
The Learned Silk posited that “for effective justice delivery, the judiciary cannot afford to remain impervious, soulless and magisterial in preference only to the letter of the law”
According to Obla, in the course of justice delivery, it must necessarily connect with the spirit of the people. The prevailing values and norms of the people must be invested into the interpretation of the law for effective justice delivery.
“In this wise, the judiciary has the capacity to interpret the anti-corruption laws in the light of social facts, reflecting the prevailing values of the people” he submitted.
TheNiche gathered that as a common law jurisdiction which Nigeria is, and like other common law countries, the adjudicatory system supports case law or what is sometime referred as “Judge-made law”, whereby in its decision making functions, new principles of law are formulated.
The aggregate of these principles formulated by the courts in its decision making function is referred as the case law.
It was argued that the interpretation given by the judges to the words of the statutes go a long way to influencing the effectiveness or otherwise of the objective of justice delivery.
It was therefore established that given the right atmosphere and orientation, the judiciary stands at a vantage position to leverage on the exclusive capacity to interpret and deploy the law as a tool or mechanism of social control.
Also speaking at the forum, the Acting Chairman of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ibrahim Mustapha Magu described judiciary as one of the pedestals on which the anti-graft war is resting upon, adding that the criminal justice system in our jurisprudence is effective and robust enough to help in the corruption war.
“Today, in Nigeria, the judiciary determines, to a large extent, the direction and destiny of the anti-graft war” Magu said.
He pointed out that judiciary is pivotal to the success or otherwise of every anti-graft initiative and the issues involved in the workings of the judiciary in respect of anti-graft war are the issue of questionable bail administration; delay in the trial of high-profile corruption cases; the judicial technology of ‘de novo’- starting case afresh; corruption in the bench and non-compliance with or ineffectiveness of the new Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA)
Specifically on the issue of questionable bail administration, Magu agreed that although, bail is discretionary but the discretion of judges should always ensure that trial is not frustrated by every suspect in a corruption-related case.
“The discretion of judges is often needed in some cases where a suspect ought to be denied bail but many judges even when presented with unassailable proof that the suspect may jump bail, are always insisting that bail cannot be denied such a suspect”
“The effect of this is that anti-graft agencies are put in difficult situations to ensure that such a suspect does not jump bail” he claimed.
On delay in trial of high profile cases, Magu explained that it is a major migraine in the resolution of many graft related cases, stressing that it is not a helpful situation. He challenged the court to ensure that resort to unnecessary technicalities by counsels are avoided and totally disallowed.
He submitted that the issue of de novo, stay of proceedings, trial within trial, lengthy adjournments and even lengthy vacations by judges are handicaps in the judiciary system and therefore should be addressed if the judiciary should play its pivotal role well, especially in the adjudication of corruption cases.
Similarly, “the bench should boast of judges who are courageous enough to dispense justice fearlessly under the rule of law” Magu stressed.
