Judicial corruption and elite widespread dissent
Friday Musings with Ayo Olukotun, ayo_olukotun@yahoo.com, 07055841236
Opinion is sharply divided, even among
senior lawyers, about the legitimacy, propriety, legality and decorum of
last week’s raid by the Department of State Services on the official
quarters of judges around the country, and the subsequent arrest of the
judges. Monitoring the controversy, it is helpful to narrow the heated
debate down to disagreement over the method, Gestapo-style, some have
called it, of apprehending the judges, not the least because the
“operation” in Port Harcourt, for instance, took place around 1am on
Saturday.
The DSS maintains that, what it
erroneously called a “sting operation” – a sting operation involves the
use of decoys or fake identities to obtain evidence – is justified by
the recovery of huge amounts in foreign and local currencies from the
home of the judges. In other words, the end, “evidence”, with which to
prosecute the judges, who were subsequently released on bail, justifies
the unorthodox and somewhat alarming means used to procure the
“evidence”. On one side of the divide are those like Prof. Itse Sagay
(SAN) and Femi Falana (SAN) who insist that the travails of the judges
and by extension, the judiciary, were brought on by their failure to
carry out internal cleansing of corrupt judges.
In collusion with blue chip senior
lawyers, the judiciary or at least a growing number of judges have waxed
fat on bribes offered by those who will like to procure election
verdicts in their favour. This apart, it is argued that the National
Judicial Council, which ought to discipline judges, would appear to have
been less than vigilant. As Falana expressed it: “Having failed to take
advantage of the relevant statutory disciplinary bodies to purge the
Bar and the Bench of corrupt elements, the members of the legal
profession have themselves to blame for the harrassment of judges by
security forces”. Sagay insists that the Nigerian Bar Association, which
is currently on the offensive against government action, should bury
its head in shame, having colluded with corrupt judges to prevent
cleansing of the Bench. Sagay went on to say that the NJC can only deal
with “normal situations” ; what we have on our hands however, is a case
of entrenched corruption, not amenable to the powers and purview of the
NJC.
Well said, Sir, but if pushed to its
logical conclusion, we may well be calling for dictatorship in one form
or another. Indeed, most dictatorships, including the several cycles of
military rule in Nigeria, have legitimated themselves by counterposing
to the prevailing rottenness, an advertised higher moral order. In the
end, as we know, the promised moral order never materialises, as state
and society descend into a cesspit of corruption, worse than the one
that was overthrown.
Critics of the raid, on the other hand,
support the anti-corruption agenda of the Buhari government, in respect
of the corrupt judges, but insist that decent methods must be employed,
to avoid what this columnist once described as the “corruption of
anti-corruption”. On this side of the divide, is Emeritus Professor of
Journalism, Olatunji Dare, who on Tuesday, wrote that, “A comprehensive
purge of the judiciary was surely indicated. But not with the tactics
the DSS employed lately”. Dare went on to liken the raid, to “working a
slippery slope along which only a dangerous descent is guaranteed”. The
point of view of this columnist is closer to the critics of the raid, at
the same time, as I would uphold the urgency of cleansing the
Judiciary.
Let us bear in mind that the Nigerian
state does not, to borrow a term popularised by the late Greek academic,
Nicos Poulantzas, have “relative autonomy” from factions of the
political class. That is another way of saying that state institutions
are highly politicised and immature, and can be sent on missions, even
of vengeance by political warlords. Recall for example, that under the
President Goodluck Jonathan administration, the DSS carried out infamous
acts, as the raid on one of the Lagos offices of the All Progressives
Congress. That wanton act was justified on the grounds of national
security. Under the current administration of President Muhammadu
Buhari, controversy has trailed such actions as the invasion by the DSS
of the Presidential Lodge of the Akwa Ibom State House. That implies
that political partisanship and arbitrariness can easily be passed off
as part of the fight against corruption, in a polity where the rule of
strong men rather than the rule of law prevails. The confrontation in
Port Harcourt between the Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, and the
state security operatives, in the course of the recent raid, opens a
line of enquiry, if we take into account, the long running conflict
between the Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi, and Wike
himself. As known, the most partisan actions can be clothed in a garb of
high purpose.
But let us go on to weightier matters,
by asking the question: Who corrupted the judges? Can the judiciary,
lightening raids apart, be cleansed outside of a thorough going
anti-corruption programme that addresses the bribe giver and the bribe
taker? That is to say that, short of an even-handed and non-partisan
anti-corruption war, trying to sanitise the judiciary may simply be a
waste of time as it will yield little result. Furthermore, can we
explain judicial corruption in relation to election matters especially,
without taking into account the conditions of service of judges and
distressing work environment, which predispose them to moral perfidy?
Another way of looking at the issue is to ask why there is such an
obscene gap between political office holders and the professional class.
For the avoidance of doubt, and as The PUNCH editorial
affirmed on October 12, corrupt judges should be brought to book
speedily, as it is the practice around the globe. Judges are not immune
from obeying the law, or for that matter from prosecution. They should
however, in institutional terms, be protected from the vulgarity of
demeaning treatment, that exposes the institution to public ridicule and
contempt. All the more so, as such actions evoke tragic chapters in our
national history when institutions of state and the civil society were
brutalised, repressed and hounded.
If we are serious about tackling
judicial corruption, as indeed all forms of political corruption, what
are required, include, moral purpose of a leadership that is not
weakened by partisanship and national ownership of the reform agenda.
These are not enough, there must be constant dialogue among stakeholders
in the justice sector, in order to reassure those concerned that the
reforms are not threats but quality assurance and capacity building
initiatives. Such dialogues, will necessarily include ways of
strengthening and giving more teeth to the NJC, so that it can bite and
be more effective. That apart, within the context of building a National
Integrity System, benchmarks should be set, using an incremental
approach that monitors compliance and progress.
As Transparency International has
repeatedly advocated, digitisation, as well as automation, in which
judgments can be electronically recorded and reviewed, can help to
minimise judicial abuses. Finally, the civil society should be mobilised
for buy-in support into efforts to minimise and sanction corruption
among our judges. That is a different ball game from the recent dodgy
methods, whose negative reverberations may outweigh their limited gains.
No comments: