Impartial Judiciary: Key to Sustaining Democracy in Africa
By Thompson Ayodele

Once again, Nigeria is on the eyes of the world’s political microscope.
The April 21, 2007 presidential election has been decided at the Court of
Appeal which serves as the court of first instance for disputes arising
from the election. The Appeal Court decision to uphold presidential in
favour of the incumbent is one of the series of legal fireworks towards
the peaceful resolution of last year’s presidential election.
 
Since the conclusion of last year general election, virtually all the
states of the federation have had one election or the other upturned. The
legislators at both state and national assembly have not been spared in
the series of reversals of election results. At the National Assembly
alone, not less than 40 members have had their elections upturned. Last
week, the senate president electoral victory was reversed with the
tribunal calling for fresh elections in the two disputed local
governments.
 
In the history of Nigeria, the 2007 election was one that has generated
series of court cases at all levels. What is unique is that candidates and
many Nigerians have placed the strengthening of democracy in Nigeria at
the doorstep of the judiciary. However, before the commencement of hearing
at various election tribunals, the general feelings were that the courts
might not be bold enough to overturn electoral victories of some
candidates.
 
The 2007 election was largely seen as a greatest threat to the growth of
democracy in Nigeria. Though no perfect election in the world today, the
election was largely characterized by ballot boxes stuffing and seizure,
disenfranchisement of the eligible voters, votes allocation and other
irregularities.
 
Many state governors electoral victories are not spared. At present, there
would be a re- run of gubernatorial election in two states, after the
incumbents lost their appeals. Moreover, decisions in other cases across
the country are being awaited. The implication of victories being recorded
at electoral tribunals by aggrieved candidates is that the judiciary is
truly independent, can settle disputes between the oppressors and
oppressed and has become the last hope of the common man. Moreover,
election riggers would have to consider sustaining the outcome of such
efforts when the courts are ready to upturn electoral victories that are
questionable.
 
The petitioners in the presidential election, Mohammad Buhari of ANPP and
Atiku Abubakar of AC have both accepted the ruling of Appeal Court. Both
have also indicated that the final arbiter would be the Supreme Court,
which has recently handed down landmark decisions.
 
What could be deduced from the foregoing is that the judiciary has a
greater role to play in strengthening democracy whether in Nigeria or any
part of Africa. The judiciary must not be seen being in the pocket of the
president. Should this be inferred, aggrieved candidates would be
unwilling to seek redress in courts. Rather, they would encourage violence
and destruction of property. This has been the case in many parts of
Africa.
 
Recently in Kenya, Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) leaders would prefer
calling his supporters for street protests rather than seeking redress in
court. The party leaders were reported to have said that cockroach would
never get justice in the gathering of fowls, an apparent reference to the
fact that the judiciary in Kenya would always rule in favour of Kibaki and
his cronies. Therefore seeking redress in court is a sheer waste of time.
 
The advantage of a truly independent judiciary is of threefold: First,
aggrieved individual would be sure of getting justice. Secondly, it would
prevent people from taking laws into their hands. Thirdly, creditors and
debtors would be able to settle their disputes amicably.
 
The rule of law is the invisible hand that nurtures and strengthens
democracy. Where it is not respected and judiciary is seen as partisan,
what would be achieved is a complete different brand of democracy.
Obviously, only an impartial and fearless judicial system would help in
building and creating the path towards building an unadulterated democracy
in Africa.
 
Whatever might be outcome of the verdict at the Supreme Court, both
petitioners; Mohammad Buhari and Atiku Abubakar of ANPP and AC
respectively must be commended for preferring this alternative. Street
protests achieve nothing but killings and wanton destruction of property.
 
In 1993, opposition in Nigeria chose street protests option and it led to
killings and full-blown military rule, headed by the late General Abacha.
In 2000, the Ivorians chose this option and their country was destroyed
with many people hacked to death. In 2007, Kenyans embarked on street
protests, the impacts are felt across the length and breath of
Kenya-violence and ethnic cleansing which claimed more than 1,000 lives
and 700,000 internally displaced people.
 
*Thompson (thompson@ippanigeria.org) is the Executive Director of
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, a think-tank based in Lagos
 
 

...More