Justice Saulawa and reward for integrity
In an article I published in Verity News online titled “Judges on a Scale,” I narrated my experiences in the Dutsin-Ma Magistrate Court presided over by the now-retired Justice of the Supreme Court (JSC), Justice Ibrahim Musa Saulawa. I’m happy that my views about him in the article, which was published in 2023, have been vindicated by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, in her speech at a recent special valedictory court session held to mark his retirement from the court. She said:
“We celebrate a judicial career that has spanned more than four decades and has traversed virtually every level of the Nigerian Judiciary. We celebrate, too, the values that have characterised that journey and the example which his years of service have provided to generations of judicial officers and members of the legal profession.”
I was a regular at the magistrate court in the early 1980s, and many people attending the court sessions believed that he would not go far as a judge because of his uncompromising attitude towards justice. The lesson from his career is that, as stated in the Qur’an, whoever relies on Allah, Allah is enough for him.
Below is an improved version of the article. Happy reading!
I am neither a learned lawyer nor a student of law, but because law, lawyers and judges are about society, we should all be interested in what they do. Oliver Wendell Holmes argued: “The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race. The practice of it in spite of popular jest, tends to make good citizens and good men”.
In view of the above, there appears to be wisdom in the statement of George Alger that “it would be a hardy and very foolish man who would assert that criticism of the court should not be indulged in by laymen”.
The question is: why should the executive and parliament be subjected to criticism in a presidential system of government but the third arm, the judiciary, should be protected from criticism? The answer is obvious: the integrity of the judiciary and judges must be protected. But are the other arms (executive and parliament) so much less important that their integrity should not be protected? Will the judiciary not die internally if it is protected from criticisms and radical reforms?
The above questions are important because, as Winston Churchill said, “criticism may not be agreeable but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things”.
I developed an interest in the judiciary in the early 1980s. Any time I was on holiday as a university student, I spent my time attending magistrate court sessions in my native DutsinMa, Katsina State. The magistrate earned our respect and admiration for his incorruptibility. We were witnesses to the inconveniences and challenges he faced with his old car. He is Justice Ibrahim Saulawa. Interestingly, reaching the apogee of his career is one of his rewards for standing for justice as Allah commands.
Apart from the serious court sessions, we also enjoyed some free laughter and did not have to buy Reader’s Digest. Let me share two interesting incidents with you. An old man appeared before the magistrate for bailing someone who had absconded. The judge ruled that the man was to be detained until he produced the culprit. When the interpreter told him in Hausa, he sharply replied: “Ka gaya mashi ba ta yiwuwa. Gobe sallah kuma nine limamin…”. Translated into English, he said, “Tell him that it is not possible. Tomorrow is sallah day and I am the Imam of… (name of the village withheld)”.
For the first time in my life, I saw a defendant overruling a judge in his court.
There was also a day when the judge directed an accused to produce his witnesses. Just after the directive, someone walked into the courtroom and the accused pointed at him saying: “Here is one of them”. The man agreed to testify, and after the testimony, the translator said to him in Hausa: “Alkali ya ce a gaya maka kana iya zuwa ka zauna” (the judge said you can go and sit down). Still looking surprised at how he was “roped in”, he replied, “In zauna ko dai in tafi gida? Daga shigowa kun haddasa mani matsala cewa in bada sheda.
Idan na zauna ai daure ni za ku yi.” (Should I sit down or go home? Just as I was walking in, you created a problem for me by asking me to testify. If I sit down, you will jail me). And he quickly walked out.
My attendance at the court sessions made me appreciate credible judges and, therefore, feel bad about blanket rubbishing of judges. However, the six-part series by Mike Ozokome (SAN) from March 19, 2023 to April 23, 2023 published on the back page of The New Telegraph raised my hope that the sacrifices of the incorruptible judges will not be in vain. I read all the series other than number 3, which I could not trace in the online edition of the paper.
Trust Ozokome for a comprehensive presentation. The title of the series is: “Critiquing Judges, Judgements: The Dividing Line”. He really educated me. In fact, all the quotations I used here are from his presentation. He summarised his position as follows:
“Let me state right from the onset and within the confines of this abstract, my humble position in this rather lengthy dissertation. I believe judicial opinions and judgements can be scrutinised, criticised, and critique after delivery thereof. This is scholarship which open up new jurisprudential vistas. Critiquing helps deepen and widen the democratic space because court decisions affect the entire society. I do not however subscribe to piercing the veil of the judgements themselves to attack the judges, who delivered the said judgements by questioning their motives, integrity, intellect, assumed political or other filial leanings, or backgrounds for such judicial decisions”.
However, much as no responsible citizen will justify corruption, corruption in the judiciary is a reflection of the general rot in Nigeria. If some judges are to be stoned for corruption, who will cast the first stone? Bankers? Journalists? Politicians? Soldiers? Industrialists? Religious leaders? Civil servants? Police? Or market women who have excelled in bribing tax officials?
Enough of the hypocrisy. Corruption is corruption and Nigerians are the beneficiaries of corruption in the judiciary. Most of them complain only when it goes against their interest. But the basic question Nigerians should ask is: Who will guard the guards?
I agree with Ozokome and do hope that the concerned institutions will act on his incisive and practical arguments. Without the many incorruptible judges in Nigeria, the country would be filled with people who, whenever they pass, the devil would bow and say: “Morning, Sir”.
Dikko wrote from Abuja
to like, bookmark, and comment.
Comments
Join the conversation:
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.