The SANs, who spoke in separate interviews with The PUNCH on Sunday, said politicians and lawyers who had failed to present their cases well were behind such attacks.
Kayode Ajulo, SAN, noted that the attack on the judiciary is always on the rise during the election period.
He stated that if the judiciary was money-driven the way it was being portrayed, the judgment given on the issue of naira redesign would have gone the other way.
Ajulo said, “The court is about law. All over the world, the judiciary is being criticised. The criticism is higher in some places than others, and in Nigeria, it is higher during the election period. After the end of the election, no politician will say a word.
“After coming before them and they realise that they failed, that is when they complain to keep their followers in line, whereas they are the ones or their lawyers who did not do the right thing.
“During the naira redesign, if the judiciary likes money the way they have been portraying it, that was the best time to display that, but the judiciary stood by the law and the people.”
On his part, Yusuf Ali, SAN stated that those behind the attacks on the judiciary are those who have a score to settle with the arm of government.
He noted that many of those making the allegations have no evidence to substantiate their claims.
Ali said, “People make allegations but when you ask them to provide evidence, then they won’t be able to. Some even make this allegation because they have an axe to grind with the judiciary. We should not forget that the judiciary is a human institution; to think they are angels, you will get it wrong.
“Having said that, there is no smoke without fire. You cannot sweep it under the carpet. The judiciary must have self-retrospection on why the allegations are increasing.”
In his submission, Adegoke Rasheed, SAN, said following the attack on the judiciary, there was a need to probe some judges living above their means.
He said, “NJC needs to probe judges living luxurious lives. Some lawyers have been accused of facilitating bribes to corrupt judges. Also, politicians who agree to bribe a judge, whatever conduit they use, are equally liable. The giver and the taker are culpable.
“To sanitise the system, the remuneration of these judges must be reviewed. We need to remove what makes it tempting for judges to become desperate. Their remuneration is far below what is obtained in other cultures.
“The economy has nosedived; these are just people who have children to train in school, and they are not allowed to do other work than farming, but their workload cannot allow them to do that. It is also important that the integrity of an applicant for the bench must be considered.”
Another Senior Advocate, Prof. Sam Erugo, while speaking on the criticism of the judgments and the attacks on the judiciary, said, to an extent, the criticisms of the apex court are based on clear misconceptions.
“For instance, in view of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s refusal to abide by the law regarding electronic accreditation of voters and transmission of results, it was difficult for petitioners to obtain evidence in support of facts known to the public.
“Again, the role of INEC, the electoral umpire, was anything but noble. Rather than focus on the court, we must examine and condemn INEC, especially with regard to its non-neutrality and suppression or hoarding of relevant evidence needed for the courts to do justice.
“Again, there was no time for the court to review and write judgment,” he said.
On his part, Prof Edoba Omoregie, SAN, said those who engage in the attack of the judiciary are ignorant.
He said, “I appreciate that the court can be criticised but you don’t do it in such a way to impugn on the integrity of the court which many of our colleagues in the legal profession have been doing lately, it is very embarrassing.
“But for lay people who disagree or who are attacking the court, you can pardon them because they only do so because they are not aware of the law. But there should be a limit because they could be cited for contempt of court.”
Wahab Shittu, SAN, stated that the attacks on the Supreme Court over the recent judgments on election petitions in the country were unjustified.
He said, “Attacks on the judiciary are unjustified. They are uncharitable and I don’t think we should continue to ridicule our judiciary for carrying out this constitutional service because we are displeased with the outcome.
“I think the way and manner some of the commentators have proceeded in the attack on the judiciary is in the service even to the temple of justice.
“The Supreme Court is the last court, the first court is a court of law, is a court of justice, is a court of policy, is a policy court and you cannot begin to malign the application of justices of the Supreme Court because you disagree with their conclusions.
“Attack on the Supreme Court, particularly as it relates to the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the presidential election, I think those who are attacking the Supreme Court missed the point greatly because the Supreme Court can only decide cases on the basis of facts, on the basis of proof established, on the basis of documents pleaded and actually proved.”
He further noted that the Supreme Court “cannot manufacture evidence if none is provided to the Supreme Court. So, I think on the whole, the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in both cases is very sound.
“There’s no way you can fault the Supreme Court for deciding Abubakar Atiku’s case the way it decided it, or Peter Obi’s case the way it decided it.
“If you look at all those decisions follow exactly established legal principles. Judgments are not decided, are not handed down on the basis of beer parlour gossip or rumblings in the marketplace, or not even on the basis of public opinion.
“There’s a wide gap between public opinion and the pronouncement of the court based on the facts, you know, adduced. The pronouncements of courts are based on settled legal principles with the Supreme Court correctly applied in the two cases.”
