Mounting Undue Pressure on the Judiciary

 As the Nigerian judiciary prepares to deliver judgment on the 2023 presidential election, Wale Igbintade writes that at no time in the history of Nigeria has there been intense pressure on the third arm of government as now

As Nigerians eagerly await the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPT), recent actions by the federal government have sought to address the mounting pressure on the judiciary. Last week, the government took the step of dissolving the Secretariat of the Advertising Standard Panel (ASP), citing its approval of billboards with the title: ‘All Eyes on The Judiciary,’ which the government considered as an act of blackmail against the judiciary.

Abuja residents woke up last Tuesday to see these billboards, prominently displayed on major roads with the striking title: ‘#All Eyes on The Judiciary.’ The advertisements, which were put up as the presidential election tribunal prepares to deliver its verdict on the petitions challenging the victory of President Bola Tinubu in the general election, was sponsored by a group known as the Diaspora’s for Good Governance.

Their purpose was clear – to exert pressure on the esteemed judges of the panel, with a view to ensuring that they do not compromise the integrity of the case at hand.

The ASP is the Statutory Panel under the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) charged with the duty of ensuring that advertisements conform to the prevailing laws of the federation as well as the code of advertising ethics of the advertising profession.

A statement by the Director-General of the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) Dr. Olalekan Fadolapo, confirmed the dissolution of the panel. He said the council also suspended its Director and Deputy Director in charge of regulations to allow investigations into the issue. He also ordered the removal of billboards.

It said: “The Advertising Standards Panel of the Council also erred in the approval of one of the concepts as the advertisement failed to vet guidelines on the following grounds: The cause forming the central theme of the campaign in the advertisement is a matter pending before the Presidential Election Petition Court. Hence, it’s jus pendis.

“A matter being jus pendis and awaiting judicial pronouncement is, by virtue of the Nigerian legal system, precluded from being a subject of public statement, debate, discussion, advertisement, etc.

“The advertisement is controversial and capable of instigating public unrest and breach of public peace. The advertisement is considered blackmail against the Nigerian Judiciary, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, and particularly the Honourable Justices of the Tribunal who are expected to discharge their judicial functions without fear or favour over a matter that is currently jus pendis.”

 The ARCON DG said the Council would set up a committee to investigate the circumstances leading to the “erroneous approval” of one of the concepts of the advert and the breach of the vetting guidelines.  

Before the emergence of billboards in Abuja and some cities across the country, some people suspected to be the supporters of some presidential candidates in the last general election had limited themselves to social media where they have been drawing the attention of the judiciary and judges handling petitions filed by aggrieved political parties and their presidential candidates in the February 25 presidential election to ensure justice in the petitions.

However, as the billboard were being pulled down and the advertising body dissolved, Abuja residents adopted a new method of passing the #All-Eyes-on-The-Judiciary message across. On major roads in the city, the residents stood waving flags with the same inscription: #All-Eyes-on-The-Judiciary.

Two days after, another billboards with the inscription “Dear Nigerians… 25% in FCT is a Must… #All-Eyes-on-The-Judiciary.’ surfaced on major roads and streets in the city.

There is also the photo of bats with the inscription: ‘#All-Eyes-on-The-Judiciary,’ all made to communicate the message for which was ordered to be pulled down.

 In Nigeria’s history, the judiciary has never been faced with mounting pressure as it is facing currently. Since after the general election when the battle for the validity of the results of the elections shifted to the various Election Petitions Tribunals, many Nigerians have turned their focus on the judiciary, insisting that it should deliver substantial justice without fear and favour.

When the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) introduced the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), a technology that would drastically reduce electoral malpractices, Nigerians had thought election results would be more credible and less prone to legal challenges. But this was not the case.

 Opposition parties alleged that the same INEC in their estimation flagrantly and willfully refused to use BVAS or follow its rules and regulations in the presidential and governorship elections. This made the several results it announced controversial and the subjects of litigation.

 With the results of the 2023 general election declared and the aggrieved parties asked to go to court, the only option left before many Nigerians was to be anxious.

 Supporters of some of the candidates want the Nigerian courts to brave it out, like the Supreme Court of Kenya and annul the election if it is indeed found to be deeply flawed or fraudulent as alleged by the candidates who lost the election.

While the Supreme Court had on many occasions annulled several governorship elections, it has never tampered with the outcome of a presidential election, whether in the Second Republic or the current dispensation since 1999. This raised questions as to whether the irregularities that led to cancellations of governorship elections were not present on a larger scale in the presidential elections.

With some controversial judgements by the Supreme Court such as the judgement that affirmed former Senate President, Dr. Ahmad Lawan, as the valid candidate for his senatorial district and a previous judgement that declared a governorship candidate who came fourth in the governorship election as the winner, the question on the lips of many Nigerians believe that shocks await them  from the third arm of government on the issue of the various election petitions.

While the pressure by the partisan supporters of some presidential candidates was frontal, others from some eminent Nigerians were subtle. For instance, in his last Easter message, the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto, Matthew Kukah, reminded the judges handling election petitions that the future of the country depends on how they arrive at their much-awaited judgement.

 He added that Nigerians are saddened that the judges’ sacred temples have been invaded by the political class leaving the toxic fumes that now threaten their reputation as the last hope for all citizens.

The renowned clergy said it was sad that their hard-earned reputation is undergoing very severe stress and pressure from those who want justice on their own terms.

 “Nigerians are looking up to you to reclaim their trust in you as the interpreters of the spirit of our laws. The future of our country is in your hands. You have only your conscience and your God to answer to when you listen to the claims and counterclaims of Nigerian lawyers and have to decide the future of our country.

 “We pray that God gives you the wisdom to see what is right and the strength of character and conscience to stand by the truth. You have no obligation to please anyone. Our future depends on how you arrive at your much-awaited judgement,” he said.

 Also, a public affairs analyst, Olu Fasan, implored the court not to use technicality in subverting the will of the people. He specifically urged the Supreme Court not to treat politicians as if they are fungible or substitutable, but to annul the election and order a rerun for there to be direct electoral links between the governed and those governing them. He urged the apex court to be brave like the Supreme Court of Kenya, which can annul the election if it is deeply flawed or fraudulent.

A lawyer, Eragbai Ifidon, wondered why the government was afraid, asking if they were not the one that asked the aggrieved political parties to go to court.

“Are we now in a military regime? What are they afraid of? Well, the guilty are always afraid,” he claimed.

However, Inibehe Effiong, a human rights lawyer, said the removal of the billboards in Abuja was a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

 “There is nothing inciting in this message and no one should be targeted for that,” he posted on X (formerly Twitter.) The law allows the courts to be amenable to criticisms and scrutiny,” he said.

Also weighing in on the issue, the  founder of Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc and Anap Foundation, Atedo Peterside, has said the #All Eyes on the Judiciary slogan on billboards across the country is far from being offensive. In a tweet on Friday, Peterside said the slogan should not have been offensive to a right-thinking person.

“For the record, methinks #AllEyesOnTheJudiciary is a neutral slogan that should ordinarily not offend a right-thinking and sincere person in a civilised society. I can understand someone rejecting a negative slogan like ‘let us turn our noses up at the judiciary.’’’

However, a ministerial nominee who spoke to THISDAY in confidence slammed the supporters of the candidates who lost the election for threatening to create a hall of shame for judges that undermine the tenets of the judiciary and come up with ridiculous judgments on election petitions.

 He warned that any attempt to ‘intimidate’ the Nigerian judiciary would be an invitation to crisis.

“Any attempt to destroy the judiciary as these characters are bent on doing, is an invitation to another Sudan. Just as they often issue the empty boast that they are a different movement and the judiciary should not mess with them, they will soon realise that the judiciary is also a different kind of institution with which they cannot mess with,” the ministerial nominee wrote.

With the alleged failure of the INEC to make the elections credible, free, fair, transparent and therefore acceptable to all the stakeholders, the judiciary is now under immense pressure.