Special to USAfrica magazine (Houston) and USAfricaonline.com, the first African-owned, US-based newspaper published on the Internet.
Agbedo is a Professor of Linguistics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and contributing analyst to USAfrica
The cruel realities of this farce called life tend to dawn on human beings perhaps only at the point of bowing out of a system. History has shown that there is a peculiar clarity that often accompanies the twilight of a tenure. As officer holders prepare to bow out, they frequently confront the realities that eluded them during their active years. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the recent reflections of Chief Justice Olukayode Ariwoola on the inadequacies of Nigeria’s judicial system during the 2023 elections. The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) observed at the opening of a two-day workshop for judges on the review of the 2023 election petition tribunals/court and appeals in Abuja that the 2023 general elections opened a new vista in the adjudication of political matters and threw up things for the judiciary to review. In his words, “…the adjudication on the 2023 election petitions came with varied challenges that have to be critically assessed and reviewed in order to forge a much better way forward. In those areas we have done well, we can literally eulogise ourselves and strive to improve on them…. “As for those areas where our inadequacies are manifestly obvious, we have to properly address them and bring on board new methods and approaches that would whet our appetite for success. We must intensify efforts in engaging in those activities that will earn us more accolades than vilifications…”
In his speech, Justice Ariwoola clearly acknowledged ‘inadequacies in 2023 elections rulings,’ the urgency of addressing them, and his “desire to bequeath a robust and prosperous judiciary that will be the pride of not only Nigerians but the African continent.” No doubt, the 2023 elections presented numerous challenges that tested the robustness of our judicial system. The volume of election-related litigations, the pressure on judicial officers, conflicting judgments, reckless use of ex-parte orders, and the intense public scrutiny highlighted several inadequacies. The retiring CJN alluded to these challenges in his address. “We have been treated to an unpalatable cocktail of misleading and conflicting judgments as well as frivolous interlocutory orders emanating from courts of coordinate jurisdiction, which attempt to make a mockery of our judicial system. This is largely an embarrassment to our jurisprudence, and we will not take it lying low.
Punitive measures must be taken against such erring judges.” Justice Ariwoola’s seeming belated acknowledgment of the systemic failures that perennially dog his primary constituency underscores the broader truth about human nature and leadership – profound realisations often emerge only at the point of departure. His cognizance of judicial shortcomings, just as he prepares to leave office, is a striking example of this dynamic. Almost throughout his tenure, the judiciary faced intense public scrutiny and outright condemnation, particularly in adjudicating the numerous disputes that arose from the 2023 elections. Court judgments that came as a rude shock to many discerning Nigerians are legion: the Ahmed Lawan-Bachir Machina case in favour of Lawan, which was criticised by Justice Dattijo Muhammad of the supreme court on his valedictory day; the sacking of Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf by the Kano state governorship election petition tribunal and the Court of Appeal; the sacking of Governor Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau state by the Court of Appeal, the PDP federal and state lawmakers. Such was the regularity and increasing normalization of ridiculous court judgments that not only drew the ire of critical observers but also provoked the ‘all-eyes-on-the-judiciary’ hashtag, emblematic of the public’s heightened scrutiny and demand for accountability that encapsulated the public’s exasperation with ridiculous excesses of some ‘cash-n-carry’ judges. The “All Eyes on the Judiciary” hashtag emerged as a powerful symbol of public vigilance and concern over the judiciary’s role in upholding democratic principles during the electoral process.
It reflected widespread dissatisfaction with delays, inconsistencies, and perceived biases in judicial rulings, particularly in the context of election-related disputes. This digital movement amplified calls for greater transparency, accountability, and reform within the judiciary. Chief Justice Ariwoola’s statements acknowledging the judiciary’s inadequacies during the 2023 elections resonate deeply with the sentiments expressed through the “All Eyes on the Judiciary” hashtag. His recognition of such systemic failings aligns with the public’s concerns. Now, as he reflects on these challenges that pose potent threat to the integrity of the judicial arm of government, Justice Ariwoola admits to the judiciary’s inadequacies in handling the situation effectively. However, the timing of his realization—at the twilight of his career—raises questions about why these issues were not addressed earlier. This late-in-the-day epiphany raises an important question: why do such realizations often come at the end rather than at the beginning or during the course of leadership?
It has been observed that this phenomenon – where the ‘clog is yanked off the eyes’ of judicial officers as they reach the exit door – not only follows a traditional pattern but also highlights a painful truth about the nature of leadership and accountability within the judicial system. Historically, it has been all too common for leaders within the judiciary to remain insulated from public sentiment. During their tenure, they often prioritize maintaining the institution’s image and authority over addressing its deep-rooted flaws. This tendency to turn a deaf ear to public concerns not only delays necessary reforms but also exacerbates the problems within the judicial system. Justice Ariwoola’s epiphany coming at the close of his tenure, follows the all-too-common pattern of judicial leaders expressing deep regret about systemic failures only as they prepare to leave office.
His perspective rather than being an isolated instance, follows the well-worn track of exit epiphanies, which characteristically raise critical questions about the accountability and effectiveness of Nigeria’s judicial system. Justice Ariwoola’s reflections mirror those of his predecessors, who have often expressed regret and highlighted systemic flaws in the judiciary only as they prepare to step down. This pattern suggests a reluctance or inability to confront these issues head-on during their active tenure, resulting in a cycle of deferred accountability and reform. During his valedictory speech on his day of retirement from the bench, Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad followed the trajectory of judicial epiphanies at the exit door. He began by accusing the current CJN Justice Ariwoola, of abusing the powers of his office, adding that the judiciary, as presently structured, gave so much powers to the CJN who he said usually takes decisions without consulting other justices.
He alleged that the refusal to fill the vacant slot of South East on the apex court bench, was deliberate, blaming it on “absolute powers vested in the office of the CJN”. He condemned the “unjust and embarrassing salary difference between the justices and the Chief Registrar,” among other systemic issues on the basis of which he crowned his diatribe with the clincher: “My lords, distinguished invitees, ladies, and gentlemen, it is obvious that the judiciary I am exiting from is far from the one I voluntarily joined and desired to serve and be identified with.
The institution has become something else…”It would have been difficult if not impossible to controvert Justice Muhammad’ sweeping swipe at the judiciary given that even the CJN had himself described the retiring Supreme Court Justice in superlative terms as a “quintessential Judicial icon with dazzling qualities and alluring stature;” one “judicial officer that could be blunt, even to a fault; and is never known to be afraid to say things the way they are; and also never shies away from calling a spade by its name, irrespective of whose ox is gored.” Justice Dattijo’s critique came at a time when the Nigerian judiciary was under intense scrutiny. His remarks that the judiciary has become “something else” reflected a deep-seated concern about the direction in which the institution was heading.
This blunt assessment was not just a passing remark; it was a serious indictment from someone who has been at the heart of the judiciary and has witnessed its inner workings firsthand. CJN Ariwoola’s praise for Justice Dattijo amplified the impact of Dattijo’s critique. By describing him as a judicial icon known for his honesty and fearlessness, Ariwoola indirectly validated Dattijo’s observations. Such an endorsement suggested that Dattijo’s views were not those of a disgruntled retiree but of a respected figure whose opinions merited serious consideration. Altogether, Dattijo’s and Ariwoola’s comments point to several persistent issues within the judiciary – corruption, political influence, inefficiency, lack of reforms. The presence of corruption among judges undermines public confidence and the rule of law. Bribery and unethical behavior are critical problems that need urgent attention. The judiciary’s independence is often compromised by political pressures, leading to biased rulings and a loss of credibility. Slow judicial processes and delayed rulings frustrate the public and impede the delivery of justice. Opacity in judicial decisions and processes fosters mistrust and diminishes accountability. And lately, nepotism and favouritism have crept into the sacred temple of justice, threatening to rubbish its image irredeemably.
Nonetheless, the nagging question remains: why have judicial epiphanies remained postponed till the end of tenure? Why do the cruel realities of this farce called LIFE, dawn on office holders only at the twilight of their tenure? This pattern, where some leaders suddenly recognize and lament deep-seated problems as they exit, highlights a troubling disconnect between their responsibilities and their actions while in power. It exposes the cruel irony of leadership—a farce where true accountability and self-awareness emerge too late to effect meaningful change. Justice Ariwoola’s acknowledgments of the judiciary’s flaws, especially regarding the adjudications of the 2023 elections, follow a well-worn script. Some office holders, upon nearing the end of their tenure, often publicly recognize issues they either ignored or were complicit in during their time in power. This belated epiphany raises several critical questions about their motivations and the systemic failures that allow such patterns to persist.
This phenomenon is not unique to Justices Dattijo, Ariwoola or the judiciary. A former Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General Salihu Ibrahim, described the Nigerian armed forces as “an army of anything goes’ during a regimental dinner held in his honour to mark his retirement in 1993. It is a recurring theme across various levels of government and institutions. The reasons for this tradition of belated epiphany are not far-fetched. Throughout their tenure, many leaders exhibit denial or complacency regarding the systemic issues within their purview. The pressures to maintain a facade of effectiveness and success often outweigh the drive for transparency and accountability. Office holders may avoid addressing controversial issues to preserve their political capital and avoid conflicts during their tenure. These problems are then left for successors or acknowledged only when the leaders are leaving office. As they approach retirement, leaders often become more concerned with their legacy.
They may feel a late urge to speak out against systemic issues to be remembered as having recognised and criticised these problems, even if they did little to address them while in power. As they approach retirement, leaders often become more concerned with their legacy. They may feel a late urge to speak out against systemic issues to be remembered as having recognised and criticised these problems, even if they did little to address them while in power. For instance, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, as the Chief Justice of Nigeria, has made it clear that the judiciary should not be swayed by public opinion. He reiterated his position during the Appeal Court Workshop when he cautioned judicial officers against succumbing to public opinions, emotions, or sentiments in the discharge of their duties. This stance, while underscoring the importance of judicial independence, also raises important questions about the role of public opinion as a crucial feedback mechanism in ensuring accountability and trust in the judicial system. His rejection of public opinion and its potential for providing insights into perceived fairness, equity, and effectiveness of the justice system is taken to be rooted in a fundamental principle: the independence of the judiciary. However, while judicial independence is paramount, the judiciary operates within a society that expects transparency, accountability, and fairness.
Public perception matters because it influences the legitimacy and credibility of the judiciary and ignoring it, according to Jibrin Okutepa, SAN” risks undermining the very foundation of the justice system…create a perception that the justice system is out of touch with the people it serves and that the justice system is not responsive to the needs and concerns of the people, particularly in electoral jurisprudence…can influence judicial decision-making, leading to a disconnect between legal precedents and social values…” Perhaps, as the CJN inches towards bracing the tape after decades of a successful career, the urge to follow the twilight confession trajectory may predispose him to appreciate the need to shift ground and strike a balance between maintaining judicial independence and ensuring that the judiciary remains responsive and accountable to the society it serves.
Surely, Justice Ariwoola’s reflections on the judiciary’s handling of the 2023 elections represent a concerning example. The judiciary’s challenges are well-known and have long been sources of public frustration. Yet, these issues are often acknowledged by outgoing officials, leaving their successors to grapple with the same systemic problems. To break this cycle of twilight confessions, sweeping systemic changes are required. Institutions must be designed to hold leaders accountable throughout their tenure, not just at the end. Regular audits, transparent processes, and active oversight can help ensure leaders address issues proactively. True leadership requires the courage to confront uncomfortable truths and make difficult decisions, even at the risk of political fallout. Leaders must prioritize long-term institutional health over short-term gains. Continuous engagement with the public and other stakeholders can help keep leaders accountable and responsive to the issues at hand. Open forums, regular reporting, and public feedback mechanisms are essential. A cultural shift within institutions is necessary to prioritize integrity, transparency, and accountability. This involves changing attitudes and behaviors at all levels, from junior staff to top leaders. As Justice Olukayode Ariwoola prepares to step down in August as Nigeria’s Chief Justice, his reflections on the judiciary’s handling of the 2023 elections have cast a spotlight on systemic inadequacies. These belated admissions underscore a troubling pattern: leaders often ignore public opinion and pressing issues until their tenure is almost over. This raises a critical question about Justice Ariwoola’s likely successor: will they continue to block their ears to public opinion and maintain the status quo until the inevitable exit hour arrives?
The incoming Chief Justice has a unique opportunity to break this cycle. Instead of succumbing to the traditional inertia, they can choose to engage actively with public opinion and address the judiciary’s shortcomings head-on. This requires a commitment to several key principles including active listening, transparency, proactive reforms, and public engagement. While the path to reform is fraught with challenges, including resistance from within the judiciary, it is not insurmountable. Leadership that is determined to prioritize integrity and accountability can drive meaningful change. This will involve overcoming internal resistance, which often stems from a desire to maintain the status quo and protect established interests. As Nigeria awaits the appointment of Justice Ariwoola’s successor, there is a palpable sense of urgency for change. The public’s expectations are clear: they want a judiciary that listens, responds, and reforms. Justice Ariwoola’s reflections serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of ignoring public opinion and delaying necessary reforms. The incoming Chief Justice has the opportunity to break this cycle and set a new standard for judicial leadership – one that is attuned to the needs and expectations of the people it serves.
By embracing transparency, accountability, and proactive reform, the incoming Chief Justice can ensure that their tenure is marked by progress and restored public trust, rather than inevitable realizations at the exit door. Justice Olukayode Ariwoola’s late-stage reflections on the judiciary’s handling of the 2023 elections serve as a cautionary tale, highlighting the pitfalls of delayed accountability and reform. The Nigerian public, weary of customary epiphanies that come too late, demands proactive leadership from the incoming Chief Justice. The Nigerian public has grown disillusioned with leaders who only acknowledge systemic problems when they are on the cusp of leaving office. Justice Ariwoola’s reflections, while commendable, have come at the twilight of his tenure, raising questions about why these issues were not addressed sooner. The incoming Chief Justice must learn from these mistakes and commit to a different approach – one that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and proactive reform from the outset.
As the torch is set to pass to a new leader of the judicial arm of government, several guiding principles should inform their approach. The incoming Chief Justice must take immediate action to address known inadequacies within the judiciary. This requires a willingness to confront difficult truths and implement meaningful reforms without delay. Transparency should be the cornerstone of the new Chief Justice’s leadership. They must be open about the challenges facing the judiciary and accountable for their decisions and actions. Engaging with the Nigerian public is essential for building trust and confidence in the judiciary. The CJN-to-be should actively seek feedback and input from citizens, legal professionals, and civil society organizations. True leadership requires a commitment to continuous improvement. The incoming Chief Justice must prioritise reform efforts aimed at addressing systemic flaws and enhancing the effectiveness and integrity of the judiciary. The Nigerian public is no longer willing to accept belated epiphanies from its leaders. The incoming Chief Justice must heed this advice and take proactive steps to address the judiciary’s challenges from day one. By embracing transparency, accountability, and a commitment to reform, they can restore public trust and confidence in the judiciary’s ability to uphold the rule of law and deliver justice for all Nigerians. Anything less would be a disservice to the ideals of democracy and the aspirations of the Nigerian people.
In conclusion, the cruel realities of this farce called life often seem to dawn on office holders only at the twilight of their tenure, as exemplified by Justice Olukayode Ariwoola’s recent reflections. To move beyond this pattern, systemic reforms and a cultural shift toward proactive, courageous leadership are essential. By holding leaders accountable throughout their tenure and fostering a culture of transparency and integrity, Nigeria can ensure that acknowledgments of systemic issues are made in time to effect meaningful change, rather than as parting regrets.
