There appears a re-awakened zeal by leaders in Africa to grill some of the universal concepts that guide economic, social and political action. Observed weaknesses of these concepts especially, their inability to approximate their real essence are some of the issues that reinforce the desirability for such inquisition.
Of late, former president Olusegun Obasanjo had cause to interrogate western Liberal democracy and returned a verdict that it does not suit African needs. Curiously also, the military President of Burkina Faso, Captain Ibrahim Traore joined the fray last week, with the claim that no country has developed under democracy.
“it is impossible to name a country that has developed in democracy. Democracy is only the result” he said. Troare may have been moved to this conclusion by the recurring political instability and deficiencies in the deliverability of that governance framework.
But even as the suitability of western liberal democracy to the African cause remains a moot issue, JUSTICE is another concept whose real meaning and application will continue to confound observers especially in the manner it finds practical expression in Nigeria.
It does seem ours is a vague notion of JUSTICE that means different things in different situations. The inability to discern universalism or some form of regularity in the application and enforcement of justice in the country has continued to raise questions regarding its real meaning and essence.
This is not entirely new as it preoccupied the attention of early philosophers, dividing them along the line. Socrates saw justice as the equitable and fair treatment of others. “Justice is a virtue that must be cultivated in order to lead a fulfilling life and injustice is a fault that leads to misery and failure”, he said
But Thrasymachus argued in Plato’s Republic that justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger- justice is simply what the rulers or those in power deem to be in their own interest. The other strand of his argument was that justice is not an inherent good or a natural principle but rather a tool used by the strong to maintain their dominance and ensure their own interests are served.
Karl Marx provided yet, a third perspective to the definitional and philosophical issues embodied in the concept of justice when he categorised it as tied to the mode of production and the historical stage of the society. The main thesis of his presentation is that the current capitalist system’s legal and political structures are designed to maintain the status quo and benefit the ruling class rather promoting genuine justice.
Socrates’ notion of justice as the equitable and fair treatment of persons, aligns with our general understanding of the concept. But the perceived inability of justice to guarantee fairness and equity to all, was the driving force for the positions shared by Thrasymachus and Karl Marx. And they seem to find ample support in the serial double standards in the application of justice in societies especially the developing ones.
There is a surfeit of evidence in the public space that question the conformity of our notion of justice with the principles of equity and fairness. It is evident in political decisions and reactions of official of the government to acts of infringement on citizens’ rights to life and property. It is also manifest in judicial pronouncements/decisions and legislative action. It can also be located in the different standards of its application in matters that relate to the fault-lines of our federal order.
All these flaws in application and dispensation have left us with the notion of a justice system that reinforces the characterisations of Thrasymachus and Karl Marx.
These were the feelings evoked when former senator, Adamu Bulkachuwa confessed before his colleagues at the 9th senate of influencing the decisions of his wife Zainab while she served as a Judge and President of the Court of Appeal.
He had in a valedictory speech at the 9th senate, spoken of his “wife whose freedom and independence I encroached upon while (she) was in office, and she has been very tolerant and accepted my encroachment and extended her help to my colleagues” Despite attempts by the senate president to stop him from spilling the bean, he refused to bulge.
The same feelings thrown up by the revelations of Bulkachuwa are behind the euphemism “Go to court”. Go to court has become the popular response of politicians accused of brazen electoral malpractices. Yes, our laws provide ample avenue for those dissatisfied with the outcome of elections to seek legal remedy. That is not what those who readily ask complainants of obvious electoral fraud to go to court imply. It is deployed in a pejorative sense.
For one, it goes with the impression that politicians can flout electoral laws and rules of engagement with impunity and still have their ways at the courts. And for another, it conveys the miserable impression that the litigant may not get justice since those that rig elections are more connected with more resources to pursue the cases to their logical conclusion. And may in fact, get the type of help Bulkachuwa spoke of.
Where this leaves the judiciary and justice is anybody’s guess. But it highlights the curious electoral judgments that sometimes emanate from our courts, including the Supreme Court. A contestant that came fourth in a governorship election was declared overall winner by the apex court in circumstances that have remained confounding.
It is not for nothing that the prompt handling by the federal government of the brutal killing of 16 northerner travellers in Uromi, Edo state, resonated feelings of inequitable and unfair treatment of past victims of such lawless acts across the country. Yes, the federal authorities and the police did the right thing by promptly responding and arresting some suspects for interrogation.
The heavy deployment of security agencies to restore order and avert further relapse, are part of the responses demanded by the situation. But the attention given to the Uromi incident appears a marked departure from the responses of the authorities to similar bloodletting across the country in the past.
Just before the dust raised by the Uromi incident was about to settle, more than 50 innocent citizens were murdered by a band of terrorists in some communities of Plateau state. Plateau and many states in the north central have been home to frequent attacks and despoliation of their communities by a band of terrorists suspected to be Fulani herdsman. Though the federal government is giving similar attention to the Plateau case, such responses were at best tepid, in past incidents.
Governor, Caleb Muftwang captured the double standard in handling such killings when he said last week that the attacks have been going on for 10 years without gathering national attention. Hear him: “If these attacks have been going on for close to 10 years, it tells you there is a deliberate, conscious attempt to clean up the population”. Muftwang must have also shocked the nation when he revealed that more than 64 communities in the state have been taken over by the bandits and renamed after sacking the original owners.
The north central is not alone in this unfortunate fate. Similar acts of terrorism have also seen many innocent citizens in the southern parts of the country sent to their early graves. Curiously, the criminals are rarely arrested and prosecuted. They simply disappear into the thin air with the government seemingly helpless.
Even then, Global Terrorism Watch had since 2014 named Fulani herdsmen, the fourth deadliest terrorist group in the world. Despite this rating, the authorities are yet to call that group by its rightful name. little wonder they have been operating with an air of near invincibility leaving in their trail blood, sorrow and awe.
When the federal government responded to the Uromi incident in the manner they did in the face of the uproar and threats from sections of the north for reprisals, our commitment to justice for all was bound to face serious inquisition. That is not to diminish the efforts put in by the government to discourage and punish resort to lawlessness in the Uromi incident. No!
Rather, it is a demand for commensurate response to the serial attacks, killings and despoliation of communities by rampaging herdsmen across the country. Where were those threatening reprisals and fanning embers of discord when communities in Benue state were serially attacked with innocent people massacred and displaced? Why did the northern ‘crusaders for justice’ not find their voices during the massacre at Uzo-uwani in Enugu and similar atrocities committed by the herdsmen? Or is it a verity of George Orwell’s Animal Farm where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others?
Ironically, there has emerged the phenomenon of gun-wielding ‘hunters’ from the north going to the south on hunting expedition. Curiously, the government sees nothing wrong with it in the face of kidnappings and sundry acts of terrorism by those taking advantage of the forests to kill and maim their victims.
Yet, we want to stem the tide of insecurity in the south linked to the masquerades hiding in the forests? If gun-wielding hunters from the south cannot similarly invade forests in the north without clearance from the local authorities, something must be wrong with the manner of hunters that invade southern forests in the face of subsisting insecurity.
That was how banditry crept into our security lexicon. But Boko Haram insurgents and bandits have since remained two sides of the same coin. Northern hunters have no business in southern forests because, it will complicate insecurity due to challenges of identity.
These are issues of double standards that challenge our notion of equity, fairness and justice. They interrogate the actions and responses of the government and influence the swing of opinion between our conventional notion of justice and its characterisation by Thrasymachus and Karl Marx.
