Judicial Integrity and the Perils of Political Blackmail

Judicial Integrity and the Perils of Political Blackmail:

We must put a stop to this foolish campaign of blackmail and calumny against judges in this country, especially in cases of a political nature. Otherwise, we should establish a constitutional court to handle this category of cases that often lead our people into a frenzy of ecstasy, emotional tantrums, and sentimental orchestra—culminating in exposing judges to unnecessary blackmail.

When judgments are passed, without people having the benefit of reading the full version, they rely only on snippets or sensational headlines and begin to castigate the judge if the decision does not align with their political taste. The brouhaha and hullabaloo, the hurly-burly, are needless. As Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth: “Then begins a confusion, now is the time of the hurly-burly, when the battle’s lost and won.” This timeless line captures the needless uproar that follows judicial pronouncements in our political space.

The judge in question evaluated the affidavit evidence before him, including the admission gleaned from the affidavit filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which confirmed that the Peace Movement Party filed its logo before the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC) did. He rightly dismissed the argument by the NDC that the court was functus officio, holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear and determine an application to set aside the previous judgment. This was because NDC failed to serve its case on the Peace Movement Party and INEC, thereby excluding crucial parties whose right to fair hearing was infringed upon.

When a party is dissatisfied with the judgment of a trial court, the logical and procedural step is to file a notice of appeal and pursue it to its conclusion. It is not open to such a party to resort to social media campaigns to win the sympathy of gullible netizens who know little about the mechanics of the law. Judges are not infallible; they are human beings, prone to errors. But the remedy for perceived judicial error lies in the appellate process, not in orchestrated campaigns of calumny.

Conclusion:
The judiciary must be shielded from undue pressure and blackmail. Citizens must learn to respect judicial processes, seek redress through proper legal channels, and resist the temptation of mob-driven sentiment. Only then can the sanctity of justice be preserved, and the “hurly-burly” of political theatrics be silenced in favor of reason and law.