The Judiciary is the last hope of the masses and in a state where the democratic ideal have not been well grounded, the Judiciary plays bigger roles than just being an arm of the government. That is why it should never be tampered with. Once the judiciary gives verdict, it should be respected and other legal means should be followed if the parties involved are aggrieved.
That has always played out in the history of Nigeria’s election and such step should not be jettisoned for whatsoever reasons, else the country’s democracy would be further threatened. If the Supreme court had decided to reverse its judgments in Bayelsa and Imo states respectively, then it has made itself prone to some sort of ‘abuse’. The reason is not far-fetched. Many other cases would spur up in the future and the Supreme court would always make two final judgments- One, the ‘original’ verdict and two, the review judgment.
Among the biggest threat to a country’s judiciary is political intrigues. Chief Judges are tested more during the political atmosphere and whatever decision they take could make or mar the progress of the country. Many might believe the Judiciary erred with its first verdicts in both Imo and Bayelsa states, the apex court should however not be subjected to ridicule. Playing to the whims and caprices of Politicians would bring nothing short of such ridicule to the Judiciary.
Without doubt, the Supreme Court is capable of making mistakes but a look into any allege ‘mistake’ it made on the Imo and Bayelsa verdicts would make future review a ‘free-for-all’ endeavour. Even when its decision are arrived at based on merit, many would still seek a review. The Judiciary should be protected and not subjected to being a pendulum in the hands of Politicians.
The Judiciary made a tough call in deciding to stick to its earlier verdicts in Imo and Bayelsa states amidst pressure from different quarters and should be lauded for such ‘fearless’ stance. Bayelsa and Imo review applications are tests for the Supreme Court which, I believe, they passed. Such might not augur well for the voters but they are some of the pangs of democracy. The good side is that, after pain comes gain. Hopefully, future verdicts wouldn’t be this controversial. What do you think?
