THE Nigerian judiciary is often described as the last hope of the common man, blind and impartial to the cause of justice. But recent events in the land would seem to suggest that this description has, for many members of the Bar and the Bench, long outlived its usefulness. Nigerians have probably come to the realisation that there is nothing that places the judiciary on a higher moral pedestal than any section of the Nigerian society. There is much to be lamented about this as about the corruption that has eaten deep into the very fabric of the larger Nigerian society. The judiciary or more precisely, the Bench, may have since transformed into the haven of individuals disguised in judicial gowns.
This is going by revelations coming from investigations into the conduct of some key denizens of the so-called temple of justice. The temple of justice appears imperilled and grievously sullied by the conduct of some of its members in cahoots with others at the Bar and the larger society. This third arm of government now begs a new name to reflect its changing status. This is however would be for the Johnny-come-lately, those too slow to absorb the truth that has for long stared them in the face. The judiciary has always been as corrupt as if not more corrupt than recent events would imply. This is perhaps the view of an increasing section of the Nigerian population. The only reason many were slow to come to this fact was only because the judiciary is the (most) conservative arm of the Nigerian ruling class. Unlike the executive and legislative arms, the judiciary is not often seen and hardly heard. But even at that it seems to have its snout deeply steeped in the rot that has made the Nigerian state the pathetic case that it is. The foregoing is surely a very damning and perhaps harsh commentary on an arm of government that is no doubt the least resourced and the worst incentivised of the three arms of the Nigerian ruling establishment.
Our judges we’ve been told by those who should know work in the most inclement condition, most times with poor earning power, without electricity in their dinghy chambers and accorded relatively poor retirement benefits compared to their counterparts in the other arms of government. Many of this revered category of men and women are longsuffering and have accepted their fate with both dignity and equanimity, neither grumbling nor complaining. They’ve left the task of calling attention to the poor condition under which they operate to others, mostly concerned members of the Bar, their retired counterparts and others public-spirited persons who understand the temptation to which powerful but poorly rewarded persons such as judges, magistrates and other state judicial officers are exposed to. While members of the executive enjoy lavish state benefits and legislators could freely legislate to set up for themselves very generous allowances, judicial officers are the official orphans abandoned to look out for themselves. It is the loophole left by societal neglect of judicial officers that some members of the public including lawyers who appear before some of these judges are now exploiting to devious ends.
The case brought by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission against two senior members of the bar, Rickey Tarfa and Joseph Nwobike, are very suggestive of the kind of improper alliance that has been established between certain members of the Bar and the Bench. The latter category of persons appear to have found an informal way to address the poor working, living and retirement condition of judges, by electing to provide them generous ‘donations’ through which the judges could set up their own egg nests to cushion them through the hard surface of the bench. If the EFCC is to be believed – and there is no reason why they shouldn’t be believed given the nature of evidence they are offering which include proofs of fund transfers from the accused person’s accounts to the accounts of known judges and call logs- then there is a lot to worry about the activities of most of these so-called senior lawyers who go around perverting the course of justice while pretending to be persons of repute and honour. They often run with the hare and hunt with the hound. They are the same people who in one breath talk about fighting corruption while in another breath defend barefaced cases of corruption. The EFCC in its claim against Tarfa has been able to trace payments from the accounts of Mr. Tarfa to the accounts of a number of judges in the last three years.
In an earlier case in which the EFCC accused Mr. Tarfa of attempts to obstruct the course of justice, the lawyer tried to bluff his way through by slamming a multi-million naira case on the anti-corruption body. To show it was out to intimidate the EFCC and by extension anyone alive to their tricks, Tarfa appeared in court with scores of lawyers, mostly senior advocates like him. This was an unseemly show of power that did not prove Tarfa’s innocence, and the lawyers who participated in the charade ought to be ashamed of themselves. Ricky Tarfa is not the only lawyer around, it thus leaves one wondering why he should be the one against whom this kind of accusation has been made. It is hardly a point for debate that many of those who went to defend him in his now-abandoned suit against the EFCC are probably in this same game Mr. Tarfa has been accused of playing. Instead of trying to intimidate everyone they should first try to clear their ‘learned colleague’s name in a way that confirms his innocence. The company these lawyers keep open them to suspicion. Lawyers have no more business introducing judges to relations of person’s with cases in the judges’ courts than they have attending a book launch that is a secret rendezvous for such meetings.
But that is what the Civil Society Network Against Corruption, a pressure group, says Ricky Tarfa has done when he facilitated a meeting between Chief Mike Igbinedion and Justice Ibrahim Auta of the Federal High Court before whom a son of the chief had a case. Chief Igbinedion allegedly donated N8 Million for the launch of the judge’s book. What was the purpose of this kind of donation as were others allegedly facilitated by Tarfa on behalf of others or made by him to judges before whom he or others had cases? Is it not important that Mr. Tarfa clears his name on these allegations before he goes around trying to scare people into silence? What manner of lawyers are these who stoke the flame of corruption in the name of fighting it?
VANGUARD
END
Be the first to comment