ABSTRACT
Judicial accountability is an oft-neglected theme in transitional societies. This book is an attempt to generate scholarly interest in what has been a relatively neglected aspect of transitional justice theory and state practice. In the field of transitional justice, not much attention has been directed at institutional accounting for judicial governance in the period of social upheaval. Yet, it is recognized that the judicial function plays a central role in reinstitution of the rule of law. Despite a general consensus that the judiciary plays an important role in contemporary governance, accountability for the judicial role in formerly authoritarian societies remains largely elided and underresearched. I argue that the role of the judiciary in transitional societies is of a nature that cannot and should not be ignored. My book contends that the purview of transitional justice mechanisms should, as a matter of policy, be extended to scrutiny of the judicial role in the past. I analyze the relevance of incorporating accountability for the judicial role in governance during an authoritarian period into transitional justice processes. I examine the judicial role in the transition experiences of post-authoritarian
and post-conflict polities in Latin America, Asia, Central and East Europe, and Africa (with an extensive focus on Nigeria). The comparative analysis demonstrates the significance of the judicial role in past, current and future governance. I argue that the nature of that role commends the need for judicial accountability in the process of transition as a necessary measure for securing comprehensive accountability for the past, facilitating institutional reform and transformation as part of the process of political change. There are currently various approaches to achieving institutional reform
of the judiciary in post-authoritarian and post-conflict states. However, the judicial reform agenda, as currently configured, remains incapable of delivering on the expectations of institutional reconstruction due to the neglect of a backward-focused mechanism to address what went wrong in the past. There is the need to incorporate a publicly accessible backwards-looking mechanism like a truth-seeking process offers an opportunity for identification and institutional acknowledgement of the judicial role in governance at the important transition moment. I argue a case for incorporating accounts
of what I refer to as judicial governance in the remit of truth commissions to facilitate a complete account of the past as well as provide for a robust market of ideas for institutional transformation of the judiciary much as is done through such processes for the other branches of government. Across-theboard transformation of state institutions, an important aspiration of transitional processes, is virtually impossible without incorporating the third branch of government, the judiciary, into the accountability process.
