A cross section of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, have kicked against sweeping allegations of fraud and corruption against judges and the judiciary over some controversial decisions entered by few judges in political cases.
They warned those involved to desist in the interest of the country and its citizens.
According to them, tarnishing the image of the nation’s judiciary could lead to anarchy.
Among the Senior Advocates who expressed their displeasure are Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, a former Abia State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Professor Awa Kalu, SAN, rights activist, Mr Kunle Adegoke, SAN, and constitutional lawyer, Dr Olukayode Ajulo, SAN.
The senior lawyers, who disagreed with their colleagues, said they ought to know that portraying the judiciary as a failed institution amounted to endorsing anarchy to terminate the Nigeria project.
According to them, while it is not in doubt that few judges across levels of court lately gave certain controversial judgments in some political cases, demonizing the entire judiciary because of the few errors was unfair to the majority of upright judges faithfully discharging their duties.
They added that it also has the capacity to undermine the legitimacy of the third arm of government which thrives on public perception.
The lawyers had separately said while it is understandable that politicians would eulogize the judiciary each time its verdicts were in their favour and would not stop at anything to set the institution ablaze when its judgments are against them, it is disturbing that lawyers who understand procedure would join the fray and most times sponsor the denigration war against the judiciary.
They spoke at separate interviews with DAILY POST correspondent, counselling their colleagues on how to handle situations where wrong judgments were entered in cases.
A Lagos-based lawyer, Mr Kunle Adegoke, SAN, said, “Yes, we have few elements in the judiciary that are bad. We cannot shy away from that. It is, however, easier to notice the negative side of any person or any system.
“The positive aspect hardly registers sufficiently to the good measure of appreciation by the populace.
“And when in a system, a few bad elements commit some atrocities, the tendency is for the people to register a negative perception against such a system.
“In the judiciary today, I still believe as a practitioner that we have a majority of judges that are quite upright.
“Those ones are doing creditably well. It will now be a form of injustice to rubbish the entire judiciary because of the negative activities of a few of the judges that are perpetrating atrocities.
“Besides, when you look at the judicial system in Nigeria and the Nigerian populace, the tendency is for some people to want to blame every other person except themselves for their own failure.
“There are many cases that I believe have been rightly decided yet generating controversy and attracting negative comments both in the conventional and social media.”
“And until you read some of those judgments, that is when you will see that many of such cases are naturally bound to fail as a result of the way they were presented to the judiciary or the inherent failure in the facts presented to the court and the inability of such cases to meet the requirements of the law.
“It is therefore my position that a few wrong judgments here and there cannot and should not lead to a total damnation of the judicial system.
“In fact, the wrongs committed by such judges would be less in severity when compared to the negative campaign against the entire judiciary.
“Many people forget that when you mount a general campaign against the judiciary for its damnation, you are not only sending wrong signals to the rest of the world about your country, you are equally condemning the internal survival of the country itself,” he said.
Similarly, Professor Awa Kalu, SAN, also said: “the lawyers who are making frantic efforts to denigrate the judiciary forget the African proverb: ‘there is nobody who will say his mothers soup is not sweet’.
“You cannot wake up and say, ‘oh, my mother’s soup is not sweet’. If your mother’s soup is not sweet, which one is sweeter? I will advise such lawyers to be very careful.
“That is the best way I can put it, in any event, it takes two to tangle. There is no judge who will go directly to politicians to negotiate for hanky-panky business.
“Most of the time, it is the lawyers who act as the conduit. That is the blunt truth. There is no way we can run away from it.
“My take is very simple on this matter. You cannot dismiss the judiciary because it is a very vast arm of government. You can’t dismiss it,” he said.
Another constitutional lawyer based in Abuja, Dr Kayode Ajulo, SAN, who agreed with his colleagues, said: “I don’t think we need to deceive ourselves. Criticism of the judiciary, low perception of the judiciary is universal. That is one.
“However, in Nigeria, it is only rife during elections. You will notice that by February, only a few of such cases will happen. And the reason for this is not far-fetched.
“The lawyer handling such a controversial matter will never come to tell his client that, ‘look I am the one that made a mistake’.
“Again, I will still insist that the case of Maina vs Lawal shows how people perceive issues.
“In that case, what is in the record of the court is different from what is in the public space. Nigerians were simply misled in that case,” he said.
Also contributing, former NBA leader and popular silk, Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, said: “Most of the discussions on the pages of newspapers are fact-free and law-free.
“I know that some funny things have happened. But I still maintain that most of those who are discussing the judiciary don’t even know what the law is.
“There is an adage that says one finger can pick oil and spoil the rest of the fingers. I don’t think it is right for them to destroy the judiciary,” he said, adding that even where one feels strongly that justice has not been done in a case, the concerned lawyer should not tarnish the image of the judiciary.
“I have been a victim as a lawyer. And my attitude is to write a book on it, exposing all the wrongs that were done against my client. Not to say the judiciary is no longer good.
“After all, I did a presidential election petition where we scored 4-3. Even though four did not agree with us, were the three other justices not members of the judiciary?
“In another, we scored 4-1. I again ask that even though four justices went against us, is the fifth judge who dissented not part of the judiciary?
“So, what should happen is that the academics should take time to look at some of these judgments and point out the faults in them. This is it,” he advised.
Adegoke, SAN, who agreed with Ahamba, SAN, also said that while all lawyers may not have time to write a book to document issues in order to contribute to the development of the legal jurisprudence, such judgment could be analyzed in academic journals.
His words: “In my own view, when the Supreme Court is wrong, for instance, the next thing for you to do is to critique that judgment and publish it in law journals.
“That is how you contribute to the jurisprudence of law instead of going to the pages of newspapers or television to be condemning and lambasting the judges.
“When you destroy the judges, you are destroying the judicial system”, he said.
