By Niran Adedokun

As Nigeria marches on in its bid for democratic maturity, politicians and their spokespersons must do everything to not desecrate the judiciary.

Sometimes, citizens, out of passion, take a dig at the courts and their judges, but politicians, committed to the country and the growth of democracy, must do their best to preserve the dignity of the courts, no matter what.

So, last Friday, certified true copies of the judgment delivered by the Presidential Election Petition Court on the February 25, 2023, elections, two days earlier, went viral with the watermark of the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team.

Immediate reactions on social media were caustic and perhaps understandably so. Social media is a free marketplace of ideas where contributors hardly filter their comments. The judgment under discussion hit Nigerians differently depending on their affiliation within the political spectrum. It is, therefore, human for people to jump at every opportunity to justify their perception of foul play. Many commentators suggested that the document was evidence of connivance between the PEPC and Tinubu’s legal team. There were, in fact, suggestions that the team wrote the judgment and handed it over to the court, which then delivered a fait accompli two days earlier.

In the estimation of these people, the release of the watermarked document is what theatre practitioners would describe as deus ex machina or the intervention of the gods! In other words, Tinubu’s legal team unwittingly released this document because the Divine wanted to expose their dalliance with the court. But could that happen in the array of lawyers constituting the team?

However, emotions sometimes get the better of people, so social media reactions are perhaps plausible. But not so for politicians and their associates, who should be more cautious and loyal to preserving democratic institutions far more than their ambitions.

For this reason, last Saturday’s press statement by the Special Assistant on Public Communications to the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the February 25 elections, Phrank Shaibu, was ill-advised.

He wrote: “After causing a needless delay in availing the PDP presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and his legal team certified true copy of its judgment, the PEPC must explain to Nigerians and the world ambiguities around why copies of the judgment bear the header of the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team…”

Although he denounced any intention of stirring controversy, he insinuated that the watermark on the document suggested that Tinubu’s team “provided clerical services to the PEPC” and that the “court must explain!”

Shaibu’s statement sounded no more than the mischief that politicians make during campaigns. It undermines the judiciary’s place in the pyramid of the machinery of governance and leaves a sour taste in the mouth. The behaviour is not peculiar to Shaibu, though. In reaction to the judgment, the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace, Festus Keyamo, said it was time for some people “to have some sense…” How does a public servant not measure his comments about other Nigerians, even if they are members of the so-called opposition? But I digress.

With his position, Shaibu, rather than add fuel to the already burning fire, should know enough to explain to others that the watermarked document could not amount to anyone writing the judgment. Even if the Justices of the Appeal Court were so lazy and compromised as to let a party’s lawyers write judgments for them, this CTC did not come from the chambers of any judge but the registry of the court, which is populated by a different set of personnel. Assuming that the judgment was written for the panel, is it possible that no one in the registry understood that the watermark would give them away? More importantly, did he consult with the legal team of his principal to find out what truly happened at the court registry before going to town to ask the court for explanations?

Tinubu’s team, however, contradicted Shaibu. In a statement by Babatunde Ogala (SAN), it claimed the Atiku team got the first CTC. Atiku’s spokesperson could have confirmed this and even the truth of the watermark by reaching out to the other party instead of joining the public fray and calling out the court. At worst, he could have asked Atiku’s lawyers, professional colleagues and possibly friends with Tinubu’s team to ask questions about the CTC. The failure to do this and make a public spectacle of the matter is a disservice to Nigeria’s democratic growth. Nigerian politicians must understand that the country is greater than anyone and their ambitions. Politicians do not always have to win; when they lose, they must respect the intervening democratic processes and institutions.

None of this means that the PEPC, or any court, is beyond error. Being human, jurists are susceptible to errors, which may be compromises or genuine mistakes due to a shortage of knowledge or sheer oversight. The framers of the constitution understood this. Hence, they factored in these frailties and, in line with democratic ideals, provided a jurisprudence of superior ladders. Therefore, this PEPC is not final.

Fortunately, while disagreeing with the judgment, Atiku and his Labour Party counterpart, Mr Peter Obi, showed respect for the court. Their spokespersons must also not do anything to denigrate the judiciary, which is the final hope of everyone in a democracy.

That is not to say that everything is perfect. Things do not have to be if there are processes towards putting them right and serving justice ultimately. Democracy could be a long and arduous journey, and we can only advance when we believe in and support our institutions. This is more so for the judiciary, whose perception says a lot about public confidence (domestic and international) in the country. To ridicule our cuts is like cutting our national nose to spite our face.

For the PEPC, this is not one of those occasions when silence is golden. Even though we describe legislators as lawmakers, the ultimate lawmakers are the judiciary, whose interpretation of the law becomes the law. As the American jurist and legal scholar, Oliver Holmes Jr, said to a group of lawyers and judges at an event in 1897: “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.” All the decisions of the courts enrich our jurisprudence and democracy. The court is the law!

In the face of questions on the integrity of the court vis-à-vis this weighty allegation of favouritism for a litigating party, the court should step out, push the facts to the public, and preserve the court’s integrity. It is the minimum respect that they can pay to the people whom they serve and their unusual calling.

The conduct of politicians is, however, the most crucial factor in Nigeria’s democratic growth. Many compatriots now worry over the courts’ increasing influence in determining the winners of elections. A lot of this is due to the “win at all costs” disposition of many politicians, which derives from the mercantile motivation of many players.

Even when only one-third of registered voters turn up on election day, some politicians will bribe officials and disrupt the process to get ahead of their competitors.

They will then go to court, depending on various technicalities that don’t necessarily reflect the people’s will. Consider a country like India, where the electoral process and umpires are insulated from partisan influence. In the 2019 elections, about 67 per cent of the 912 million registered voters turned up. Ascension to power went on smoothly as everyone showed respect for the people’s will and respect for the process and its integrity. Nigeria must strive to get here, and everyone is responsible, whether in the ruling or opposition parties. Political actors must allow democracy to “breathe.” They must stop the habit of staining democratic institutions in a bid to advance personal interests.

@niranadedokun

In this article