As Nigeria celebrates Democracy Day today, it is yet another time to look at its democratic history. May 29, 1999, was the beginning of a new chapter in Nigeria, the fourth republic as it is often called. President Olusegun Obasanjo was elected president after a peaceful handover from Nigeria’s military government to a democratic one. But, the damage done by military rule in Nigeria continues to eat into the very fabric of the society itself and would take an enormous amount of work and dedication to be undone. The first and perhaps most important “fabric” is the judiciary.
In Francis Fukuyama’s book “Origins of Political Order”, he talked about 3 institutions that are necessary for a modern democracy: the State, the Rule of Law and Accountable institutions Parliament, Judiciary). These 3 institutions must work in tandem for a country to be called a successful democracy. Even though Nigeria’s military has ruled for much of the nation’s history, it has been able to centralise power in Abuja, the nation’s capital, most times enforcing compliance from its citizens through the army.
The ineffectiveness of the Rule of Law in Nigeria is arguably a moot case. The Nigerian Military contributed to this culture. After the first military coup in 1966, the suspension of the constitution, formation of “Supreme Military Councils,” promulgation of various decrees in place of constitution, gross human right violations were common sights in Nigeria’s military era. The animosity between an ordinary citizen and a Nigerian soldier increased. The term “bloody civilian” was coined during this period.
The forced Unification decree of 1966 was a pre-cursor to the Nigerian civil war, a forced unification that still sends ripples till today. The Nigerian military rule involved sham trials of accused people, intimidation of people accused of corruption and anyone they deemed guilty of anything. This was usually done without recourse to the constitution which, as earlier stated, had been suspended. The military was not held accountable by institutions like the parliament or the judiciary. The judiciary was wary of taking cases that involved the military. Probably why recent rumours of a military coup in Nigeria generated some fear among legal practitioners and the judiciary as a whole.
When President Olusegun Obasanjo was elected president in 1999, himself a former military leader promised to fight corruption, one of Nigeria’s Achilles heel since independence. He created the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in 2005 and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC ); two bodies charged with the purpose of rooting out corruption and graft, both in the public and private sector. After declaring an “end to business as usual” regarding corruption, during his inaugural speech, Obasanjo then proceeded to use the EFCC in Nigerian politics, arresting about 135 potential candidates in his party, tagging them as “unfit for office” because of outstanding corruption cases against them. The cases were not judged before a court of law but before a hurriedly assembled “presidential panel” (like the military panels) that went on to indict 35 of them, including Atiku Abubakar, Obasanjo’s former deputy and rival in the next election. Obasanjo set a precedence that others have seemingly followed.
Buhari came in with the same lofty goals in 2015, to fight corruption. He called for the cooperation of the Nigerian judiciary, made some arrests with Nigeria’s State Services and charged many of the “corrupt” people to court. However, it later looked like he expected the court and its judges to bow to his every whim. President Buhari’s statement, “the Judiciary is my main headache” has been one of the most damning attacks made by a President of Nigeria on another arm of government, especially since he is the president of Nigeria. Though the Nigerian judiciary has been accused of being corrupt, all its members cannot be painted with the same brush, and surely the president should not be pointing out that the judiciary is corrupt without any evidence.
It may also be that the president expects judges to rule in his favour simply because he thinks his word is “law” even when the lawyers EFCC had hired to stand in court were reportedly not up to the task, while the lawyers of the accused persons were winning. The subsequent arrest of many judges in one fell swoop by men of the DSS last year had been seen in different quarters as a retaliation from the government. His days in the military might have excused such behaviour but not in a democracy. Subsequent arbitrary detainments of Dasuki and Zakzaky despite orders for their release from the courts have turned our fragile democracy into one of a dictatorship.
One might argue that the Nigerian State itself needs a reform, but in a country where the other institution that could call it to order, i.e. the parliament, hasn’t due to its own self-interest, it actually lies on the electorate. Nigerians should demand more independent institutions in government, free from interference, and backed by the constitution. A constitution that supports land grabbing, in the case of Otodo Gbame in Lagos, could probably do with a lot of reforms too. Reforms that reflect the time we live in, when human rights are a big deal.
Looking at Nigeria’s military era and democracy now, the human rights violation are still as rampant. Despite the incessant abuse and rape of democracy in Nigeria over the years, the Nigerian masses are still hopeful that true democracy would stand firm in the nearest future. They still dream of a Nigeria where their voices would truly be heard, a Nigeria where every man would be equal before the law, irrespective of their cultural, social or political backgrounds. The Judiciary is a major part of these hopes and dreams; the confidence it would truly take for a citizen to stand up for his rights is enshrouded in the apparatus of government set up to back him.
Would Nigeria’s dreams of being a truly democratic nation ever come to pass? Only time and Nigerians will tell.
