ABSTRACT
It is utopian to expect that the judiciary is capable of curing all the ills of society.1 Conceding the reality does not detract in any way from its potential role as an important agent for social change. It is highly unlikely that any of the other branches of government can independently cure every ill of society. It is also doubtful that the collaboration of the three branches can (even with the best intentions) lead to the realization of that aspiration considering the complexities of social arrangements in contemporary society. However, it should be safe to posit that effective cooperation of all three branches would likely enhance the quality of individual and collective social well-being. A critical assessment of judicial impact on the course of governance and
the exercise of state powers ensures that the judiciary is confronted with its role in governance and facilitates its institutional transformation where required. Earlier, the case for the relevance and merits of accountability for the judicial role in previous governance in transitions generally was set out. The basic premise for that argument is the proposition that the judiciary as one of the institutions of the state participates in governance at all times and in transitional states where accountability of governance is pursued, it should extend as a matter of principle to the judiciary. This chapter evaluates the impact of the judicial function on governance
utilizing some of the theoretical principles set out earlier. The utilitarian value of such assessment lies in ensuring that ‘the judiciary takes its fair share of the credit’ for the state of affairs in society. The judicial ‘fair share’ on close scrutiny could be on the debit side.2 More than that, it provides the basis for articulating a programmatic transformation of the judicial institution, where such is established, in line with the recognized need for societal reconstruction of complicit pre-transition state institutions.3 To contextualize the argument, I focus on judicial governance and accountability within the paradigms of Nigeria’s transition to democracy after decades of authoritarian rule. I analyze specific issues that necessitate accountability of the
judiciary in the context of Nigeria’s political transition. It has been stated earlier that there were unresolved allegations of complicity for violations of human rights against the judiciary in Nigeria because the Oputa Panel omitted to engage with that aspect of accountability for the past in its work. The discussion commences with a legal premise for accountability of the
judiciary for the past in the Nigerian context. I examine the accountability gap in judicial governance in Nigeria’s transition before providing an analysis of the bi-dimensional issues that necessitate accountability of the judiciary for the past in the country’s transition experience. These are of a legal-jurisprudential and sociological nature. It emerges that the accountability gap with respect to the role of the judiciary saddles the transitional society with an untransformed judiciary. The absence of transformation in the wake of the political transition in the country threatens not only the rule of law, but also the transition project as a whole.
