Fraternity in the judicial politics

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Justice Osai Ahiakwo

In the realm of judicial politics, the concept of fraternity plays a significant role. It refers to the intricate web of relationships amongst judges, lawyers, and litigants during the adjudication of cases.

These relationships can promote a sense of camaraderie among judges, leading to shared perspectives on legal principles and the law. However, they also risk giving rise to bias and sentiment once there is established ties evidently pointing on the party or lawyer involved in the case.

In Nigeria, the dynamics of fraternity in judicial politics are particularly complex. Unforeseen circumstances have led to a relentless struggle for power and control of resources.

In any stretch of imagination, it is crucial to recognize that there are motives beyond bribery and corruption that influence judicial decisions.

To ensure a fair and effective judicial system, it is essential to acknowledge and address these dynamics. By doing so, we can maintain public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and uphold the principles of justice.

Most often we witness decisions delivered in accordance with the laws regulating and binding on conducts of parties. These decisions are commonly referred to as judgements of the courts, to wit determines the rights and wrongs of disputing parties.

At some point in human history, legal entities seem not to be satisfied with outcomes of cases. Be it in their favour or against their conceived inpregnable interest. They simply allude to blaming the Judges for being corrupt.

The hasty generalization leaves litigants to feed on falsehood fabricated by their lawyers; not minding the dire consequences.

There is therefore an aspect of humanity, particularly within the judicial system touching on the relationship amongst the Judges, lawyers and even the litigants during the pendency of and after the matters.

As the compelling need to resought to the court for redress over a wrong committed, unforeseeable occurrences may have led to the unending struggle for power and control of resources insinuating a dangerous atmosphere for people to have a rethink.

With a concerted efforts, this discussion has captured the innuendos commonly associated with fraternity.

At sundry moments this descriptive phrase encompasses various dimensions. The personal human relationships, corporate networks, and alliances among the Judges, legal practitioners, including litigants do enjoy some level of interpersonal relationships and accruing gains.

It is not in doubt that Judges belongs to either professional bodies, cultural legues, traditional affilations or religious organizations that are capable of influencing their decisions during the adjudication of cases brought before them.

These networks, of course, create a sense of fraternity among them, which can metarmophosed into shared understandings of legal knowledge, principles and the law, as well as give rise to sentiment and bias conversed by lawyers.

A survey of such fraternal ties can act as an influence while delivering judgements in any court of law. The same fraternal affilations may have strong effect on how Judges interpret laws and deliver judgments.

Once Judges interact frequently, they may develop consensus around certain legal interpretations or approaches to legal reasoning against adversaries in disputed cases, thereby creating an imbalance in the administration of justice system.

In order to curb the wide spread discrimination and condemnation of judges whose collaborative and supportive approach is to administer justice in a collegial environment, a detachment from fraternal traits will enhance productivity within the justice delivery system.

It will not be favorable for Judges to act contrary to laid down rules of courts and the laws. Even when they are challenged, they must resist dissenting opinions from their association with people, which are less likely to emerge within the tightly-knit networks posing as think-tank groups.

In recent turn of events, we have seen the power play on cases been handled in the courts; exposing the judgements to criticism.

Apparently, it may not be all about corruption that plays out in the determination of cases, but the relationships among Judges and politicians.

Judges with similar backgrounds or ideological beliefs may promote similar legal outcomes, potentially impacting policy and social issues at a broader perspective.

Where the visibility of fraternity are widely acknowledged, this lone issue is capable of shaping public opnions to attract wrong impression over judgements delivered in courts of law.

To avoid losing trust in the judicial system and/or the public confidence on the judiciary to be eroded, this view that judicial decisions are influenced too heavily by personal relationships or networks must be avoided completely.

Since the bonding of Judges can lead to some positive outcomes, such as mutual support and shared knowledge, it also raises questions about the independence of the judiciary, why should the executive arm of government determine the increase of basic salaries and allowances, recommend the Judges appointments, as well as, buy exotic cars, fund building projects to provide them with shelter and every incentive.

A close working relationship with the executive may distort the impartiality of Judges, resulting to the executive exercising overwhelming influence on the judiciary because of social ties with political litigants.

Embracing these dynamics is very important to enable the judiciary play key roles in fostering a fair and effective judicial system while maintaining public confidence in its integrity.

Remember that rules are made clear on what Judges must do in a bit to avoid being caught up in the act of miscarriage of justice. Application of these rules will definitely protect the sanctity of the judiciary.

Having garner enough experience in resolving political disputes, the adaptability of learning from public outcry, must reflect the impartiality of the courts in all cases in our egalitarian society.