This development has performed out openly in a number of current instances, essentially the most notable being:
1. The case of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the Rivers State Home of Meeting, the place events to the dispute have provided conflicting interpretations of the Supreme Court docket’s ruling, notably in relation to the standing and validity of the Meeting’s actions post-defection, in addition to the Governor’s compliance with purported agreements.
2. The PDP management tussle involving Mr. Samuel Anyanwu and Mr. Okorie Okoye, during which the Supreme Court docket’s pronouncement was supposed to finish the interior wrangling. But, either side claimed victory, creating additional ambiguity and exacerbating the battle throughout the celebration.
3. The Labour Party’s management disaster, particularly regarding the legitimacy and tenure of the celebration chairman. Regardless of a transparent judicial pronouncement, the contending factions have continued to carry opposing positions, undermining the authority of the court docket’s resolution.
In all these issues, the Supreme Court docket, as the ultimate arbiter of justice in Nigeria, has made pronouncements that should carry finality to the disputes. But, events have manipulated these judgements to swimsuit their egocentric agendas, resulting in public confusion and a deepening of the very conflicts the court docket sought to resolve.
This growth is harmful for a number of compelling causes:
1. It undermines the finality of the Supreme Court docket. If judgements of the apex court docket are topic to a number of interpretations by events, it threatens the very basis of our judicial system. The authority and integrity of the judiciary are eroded when events deal with closing court docket selections as mere opinions slightly than binding mandates.
2. It perpetuates countless litigation and battle. If there isn’t any widespread understanding and acceptance of a closing judgement, then there will be no finish to disputes. The essence of judicial decision is defeated when events act opposite to the spirit and letter of a ruling.
3. It erodes public confidence within the judicial course of. When the general public sees that court docket selections don’t carry decision or certainty, they might start to query the relevance of the courts. This undermines the rule of legislation and fosters a tradition of lawlessness and disrespect for judicial authority.
To arrest this rising menace, I suggest the next pressing measures:
1. The Supreme Court docket should make its judgements extra express and unambiguous. The place vital, the court docket ought to present clear consequential orders to remove room for manipulation and mischief by litigants or their authorized representatives.
2. Authorized practitioners should uphold the very best requirements {of professional} ethics. Legal professionals ought to advise their shoppers actually and responsibly, even when the court docket’s resolution is unfavourable. It’s unprofessional and harmful for legal professionals to grow to be retailers of confusion by spinning judgements to favour their shoppers’ wishes slightly than the reality.
3. Contempt proceedings have to be actively pursued towards defaulters. Events who willfully misread or defy court docket judgements have to be held accountable. The courts shouldn’t hesitate to invoke their contempt powers to punish such conduct, which seeks to carry the judiciary into disrepute.
My conclusion is that the judiciary stays the final hope of the widespread man. If the sanctity of its selections will not be preserved and enforced, the very cloth of our democratic governance can be in danger. All stakeholders – legal professionals, litigants, political actors, and the media should play their half in respecting and upholding the finality and authority of the Supreme Court docket. That is the one approach to make sure peace, order, and the continued relevance of the judicial establishment in our democratic experiment.
Dr Monday O. Ubani SAN.
