As we remain students of this system
The three components are supposed to be nearly equal,
And possibly independent and sharing powers.
But it was the president that promised to deliver the goods,
Not the Supreme Court.
We have been told time and again that the court’s decision is purely dictated by the evidence before it, organized and presented by the contending parties.
In other words, it is the superiority of the presentation of material before the court by either party that dictates what the President should do to deliver the promised goods.
How fair is this?
Especially considering, in addition, that the learned gentlemen are not always incorruptible.
Are there situations when the president would be considered right to disregard the decision of the court? If for example a court’s decision will obviously plunge the nation into unprecedent chaos that will eventually consume the nation, should the president obey the court order knowing fully well what the outcome would be just for the sake of obeying court order. Mr President’s promise to the people did not include a condition of good performance by the courts. The president of a nation, or any leader for that matter, is expected to solve problems as they emerge including never before seen or unanticipated problems. This usually calls for high level of resourcefulness to squarely deal with the problem at hand whereas the courts are usually rigidly held to the limits of boundaries set by man even though we know too well that all situations of the future can never be clearly foreseen by human beings. Isn’t it therefore necessary to provide for some exceptions even if with extreme caution? I agree it is necessary to have a way of putting a check on a leader, but the drag often caused by the NASS on the president’s movement is enough problem for the president to contend with. Theirs is even better since dialogue is often not only tolerated but invited, but the supreme court does not dialogue with anybody before not just making a decision but giving an ORDER! Yes, the number of judges in the supreme court is a much saner one compared to that of the NASS which is insane, but the fact remains that their decision(order) is controlled by the superiority of presentation of a legal team whose intentions are not necessarily in the interest of the nation but in the interest of the client. Ultimately therefore, Mr President’s promise to the people comes under the mercy of an often not morally upright legal team whose members are essentially businessmen. Adding the drag of the courts to the president’s movement is simply too much. We have seen many times the president has been stopped in his tracks in the cleanup of society by courts even in cases of obvious misdeeds by the accused. And the rot continues because the court says so, and we are all content. Is this the best we can achieve? I don’t think so.
In the matter on the front burner, the supreme court, by issuing interlocutory injunction on CBN deadline, has caused more damage to the FGN’s move by essentially granting the request(in the short term though) of the governors without hearing the FGN’s side. By the time the case is decided, even if in favour of the FGN, a substantial part of the expected gains may have been erased.