By Pat Onuoha
The February 25th general elections have come and gone, but the aftershock continues to reverberate the entire Nigerian political landscape. Many Nigerians feel and express disappointment over the outcome of the whole exercise, and understandably so. To them, it is a case of dashed hopes resulting from years of frustration, economic hardship, insecurity, unfulfilled promises and yet, flagrant display of stolen wealth by the political elite. The result was and still is, a yearning for change. For the record, as an advocate for social justice, let me state from the onset that I align with this group.
Fact is, the 2023 elections, which offered Nigerians the best opportunity to get it right democratically, was tragically, albeit it, typically bungled, turning the promise of a glorious celebration of democratic ethos, into a funeral dirge. Yet, others have continued to stomp their chests, expressing happiness over the outcome and looking forward to the ascension of their pay master- the Jagaban. To the former therefore, their only hope seems to lie in the judiciary. And there lies the dilemma.
In an ideal situation, the judiciary, as the last bastion of hope for the common man, will be expected to demonstrate fairness, be firm, consider what appears to be an overwhelming preponderance of credible evidence and deliver a judgement that meets the expectations of millions who voted for a new Nigeria. But the situation is far from ideal and according to Ikechukwu Amaechi, citing Dr. Amuta in an article in TheNiche, “If a verdict in a political matter serves the end of justice, but is likely to produce dangerous political consequences, every Supreme Court whether in Washington or Abuja will rule on the side of order and political expediency…”
In deed, the argument has always been that it is better to deliver a judgement that maintains the status quo of law and order instead of one that will overturn the polity, and send the society into a tumultuous state of anarchy from which the nation might not recover. And there seems to be some sense in this logic, one might say. You must have a nation before you have a right or wrong, good or bad judgements, and heroic judges or even a Supreme Court, including one desirous of living up to its billings as the conscience of the nation.
Think of it this way, it might be deemed wiser to save the nation so that even the just man who loses a case today, has a country in which to try his luck the next time. And so, there needs to be a “next time” before a Supreme Court is applauded as heroic. The Supreme Court verdict on the Emeka Ihedioha governorship election in Imo State is not lost to Nigerians. In that January 2020 shocking verdict in which #4 became #1, the Supreme Court did not pander to populist appeal, nor were they swayed by the desire to leave a legacy despite national and international pressure. They did what they did and “damned the consequences “.
I know there are those who advocate for the creation of an interim government as an interventionist approach. While that is a veritable option, it’s realization is contingent upon the voiding of an election and declaration of a vacuum. It is hard to suggest that in the circumstance, an outgoing president, who only recently, referred to BAT as his incoming successor, coupled with the humongous amount of preparations, including invitations to about 60 heads of states and governments, will allow the emergence of an ING. In any case, that’s a discussion for another day.
In light of the foregoing, it is only fair to conclude that the fate and hopes of the citizenry may yet not be realized by the apex court. Even so, Dr. Amuta surmised that when considerations for law, order and political expediency Trump social justice, the pyrrhic victory will not guarantee stability whether in the short or long run. That might well be the solace of the despondent Nigerian electorate who have been stripped of their right to freely choose their leader.
Onuoha, PhD Public Policy and Administration.
