Mr. Jiti Ogunye, a human‑rights lawyer, shared his thoughts with Ayo Olasupo on the Supreme Court’s recent statement and on the evolving litigation between the Federal Government and several states over the new naira notes. The Court condemned the criticism it has faced, particularly in the cases involving Godswill Akpabio and Senator Ahmad Lawan. Some observers argue that criticizing judicial decisions is permissible because judges are not deities. Ogunye’s position is that all judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, are open to review and criticism. Lawyers and laypeople alike may comment, debate, and form opinions on court rulings; however, public discourse does not alter the legal effect of a judgment. Courts should not be swayed by public sentiment, as their decisions are made independently of adulation, endorsement, or condemnation.
Ogunye emphasized that while the judiciary, as the third arm of government, is not immune to criticism, such criticism must remain respectful. Personal attacks, ridicule, or unfounded allegations of corruption undermine democratic institutions and can lead to anarchy if the judiciary is unjustly demonized. The judiciary’s role is to interpret and safeguard the law; weakening it would erode the last hope for citizens seeking justice. Consequently, courts exercise contempt powers sparingly, recognizing that imprisoning a critic would merely shift the appeal to another court, thereby compromising the judiciary’s role as a guardian of democracy.
Regarding the Supreme Court’s occasional statements on public matters, Ogunye believes they are inappropriate, as they may appear to target members of the public, especially opinion writers. In the age of social media, everyone feels entitled to comment on judgments, but substantive criticism should come from those knowledgeable about law and procedure. For example, recent criticism of a judgment concerned the improper use of civil procedure: a party seeking a declaration of land ownership must pursue a trial, not merely file an affidavit, to allow the judge to assess witness credibility. Similarly, fraud allegations require a trial where evidence can be examined; using an originating summons for such claims is procedurally flawed and likely to be struck out.
When asked how to reconcile contradictions between lower‑court decisions and Supreme Court rulings—such as the overturning of judgments in the Lawan case—Ogunye explained the three‑tiered court system established by the Constitution: High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. The right of appeal allows parties to exhaust all levels, and outcomes may vary at each stage. The Supreme Court typically reviews legal principles rather than factual findings, but it retains the authority to depart from lower‑court decisions when necessary to deliver justice.
On the broader issue of respect for the judiciary, Ogunye noted that judges must be upright, corruption‑free, and adhere to their code of conduct. While lawyers and commentators have the right to free speech, criticism should be constructive and evidence‑based, not merely accusatory. Perceived political undertones in Supreme Court judgments—such as those involving the Imo State governorship, Akpabio, and Lawan—underscore the need for the courts to avoid being overwhelmed by political cases. He advocated for free and fair elections, arguing that fewer politically charged disputes would reduce pressure on the judiciary and preserve its integrity.
Regarding the Central Bank of Nigeria’s deadline for swapping old naira notes, Ogunye described the executive’s stance as “rascality.” He expects the CBN to extend the deadline despite concerns that a longer period might facilitate vote‑buying. He likened executive defiance of court orders to “executive rascality,” a term lawyers use when a higher court’s decision is ignored. With the Supreme Court adjourned until 22 February and the CBN declaring the old notes invalid, Ogunye warned that continued non‑compliance by banks and filling stations threatens public order. State governments have declared it illegal to reject old notes, emphasizing the duty to protect lives and property. He cautioned that such actions constitute undemocratic destabilisation and civil disobedience, ultimately harming democratic governance. In his view, the controversy has transcended a monetary issue, reflecting deeper problems of arrogance, rigidity, and the misuse of power by the executive.
Comments are closed for this story.