Judges Must Revenge

It is high time the judges (and the judiciary) took their own pound of flesh on both the executive and the legislative arms of government by giving speedy and harsh judgement to any of the latter found guilty of corruption.

The commando style in which some judges were arrested last weekend was a shame on the hallowed personalities of the court. Reactions and counter-reactions have been made concerning their arrests as well as the commitment of the Buhari's administration to fighting corruption.

The opponents of Buhari has blamed him for arresting the judges like mere criminals, but it is still this same set of people who have been criticising Buhari for not convicting anyone bbeing prosecuted for corruption. These people pretend to make Buhari and the corruption fighting agencies the ones to be the judges to convict those accused of corruption.

It is not the duty of the president to prosecute or deliver judgement on anyone accused of corruption as this is the duty of the judiciary. Since the commencement of this administration, it's business as usual in the courts as only a handful have been convicted of corrupt enrichment, as this is a setback on the fight against corruption.

The judiciary should clean its rank and file in order to make the temple of justice a holy place. They should not allow the "partial" cleansing of the executive to go without a more severe reaction. The judiciary as an arm of the government should also clean both the executive and the legislative arms as well.


Bribery and any form of inducement must be shunned by the "lords" while unholy romance with the lawyers bust be avoided as well. Both the bar and the bench must brace up fo this assignment as it will be disgusting not to use their only tool-the courts- to cleanse other arms of the government.

I rest my case.

If judges don't revenge, I recommend a ten fold dose of the initial treatment the DSS gave them.

Why should the executive claim saints and make the judges look like morons?

It is time for all the arms of government to cleanse one another.

Do me I do you,in a honest way tho

Ademat7:
Do me I do you,in a honest way tho

Yea, when right hand washes the left, and the left washes the right, both gets clean.

Ademat7:
Do me I do you,in a honest way tho

If judges don't revenge, that means they have deliberately traded their position as the third arm of the government.
The judiciary should not water down its capability to dispense justice to the administration that wants change at all cost.

solutionsnow:


Yea, when right hand washes the left, and the left washes the right, both gets clean.

No hand must be left unclean

solutionsnow:
If judges don't revenge, I recommend a ten fold dose of the initial treatment the DSS gave them.

Why should the executive claim saints and make the judges look like morons?

It is time for all the arms of government to cleanse one another.

If they don't, they are noting but puppets, no longer an arm of the government.

Op: One point to make clear, the judiciary does not prosecute, that is the role of the executive, under the direct supervision of the Presidency. The judiciary is designed to be an impartial umpire between accused persons and the state and then deliver judgment after diligent prosecution of a matter before the court. That said, I agree that the judiciary needs to up its game in fast tracking trials and ensuring less emphasis on technicalities particularly those that do not occasion a miscarriage of justice. I think they also need to come down really hard on prosecuting agencies that do shoddy jobs or come unprepared, disgrace them very well in open court and really make use of the power of committal for contempt as well as stiff fines for deliberate abuse of court processes.

oneolajire:

It is not the duty of the president to prosecute or deliver judgement on anyone accused of corruption as this is the duty of the judiciary. Since the commencement of this administration, it's business as usual in the courts as only a handful have been convicted of corrupt enrichment, as this is a setback on the fight against corruption.

freeze001:
Op: One point to make clear, the judiciary does not prosecute, that is the role of the executive, under the direct supervision of the Presidency. The judiciary is designed to be an impartial umpire between accused persons and the state and then deliver judgment after diligent prosecution of a matter before the court. That said, I agree that the judiciary needs to up its game in fast tracking trials and ensuring less emphasis on technicalities particularly those that do not occasion a miscarriage of justice. I think they also need to come down really hard on prosecuting agencies that do shoddy jobs or come unprepared, disgrace them very well in open court and really make use of the power of committal for contempt as well as stiff fines for deliberate abuse of court processes.

Mind you, if the judiciary don't prosecute as you claimed, what about being the umpire as you said. No case has been successfully done away with by these "black and white" people. How can only the executive fight corruption when the judiciary and the courts are mere viewing centres?

My point is clear, the executive arm should not be allowed to remain corrupt the way it is and paint the judiciary "sinners". The judiciary should also help purge the system

oneolajire:


Mind you, if the judiciary don't prosecute as you claimed, what about being the umpire as you said. No case has been successfully done away with by these "black and white" people. How can only the executive fight corruption when the judiciary when the courts are mere viewing centres?

My point is clear, the executive arm should not be allowed to remain corrupt the way it is and paint the judiciary "sinners". The judiciary should also help purge the system

Maybe if u understood the meaning of prosecution and what it entails, you'd get my point better. The judiciary has its role to play and I substantially outlined them in my post which it appears u didn't quite comprehend. I'll leave u to ur thing anyways...

Singing i concur...

freeze001:


Maybe if u understood the meaning of prosecution and what it entails, you'd get my point better. The judiciary has its role to play and I substantially outlined them in my post which it appears u didn't quite comprehend. I'll leave u to ur thing anyways...

Lol.

K, no problem with your explanation. If I may ask, what should the judiciary do to fight corruption in both the executive and legislative arms of the government?

BlackMbakara1:
Singing i concur...

Yes oooooooo

oneolajire:


Lol.

K, no problem with your explanation. If I may ask, what should the judiciary do to fight corruption in both the executive and legislative arms of the government?

The judiciary, beyond policing itself and providing practice directions in line with justice and equity cannot do anything until an issue is brought before it; the judiciary ie the judges doesn't investigate or file charges or argue whatever issues are before a court. That will be descending into the arena of dispute and giving ride to possible allegations of bias. That is why I said earlier that it is not the duty of the judiciary to prosecute.

Now, corruption issues are mostly criminal and therefore offensive to the society therefore the role of the judiciary is to pronounce punishment on erring offenders and keep them out of circulation, preferably incarcerated. Still they must uphold the law that assumes everyone including suspects and accused persons as innocent until proven guilty. However that will not happen until the prosecution bring their matters before the court.

Unfortunately, we have lots of instances of shoddy investigation thereby messing up evidence which will then end up with judgment in favour of the accused or unnecessary delays; that's why I said they should come down hard on such sloppy prosecutors and make use of their power of committal for contempt and abuse of court process. Since they are not part of the process of arrest and investigation, they cannot afford to be sentimental and deny a person his rights when the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Another thing d judges can do at the time of sentencing is to use the upper limits more. for instance if an offence is punishable with a term of no more than 7 years or an option of fine or both, d court gas discretion to sentence the convicted person to just 1yr or to pay only a fine and walk free. I rather expect the courts to sentence a guilty person to no less than 5yrs and still have same person pay heavy fines too so we don't have the case of the pension scam that basically went scot-free. It would be a good deterrent for prospective thieves.

freeze001:


The judiciary, beyond policing itself and providing practice directions in line with justice and equity cannot do anything until an issue is brought before it; the judiciary ie the judges doesn't investigate or file charges or argue whatever issues are before a court. That will be descending into the arena of dispute and giving ride to possible allegations of bias. That is why I said earlier that it is not the duty of the judiciary to prosecute.

Now, corruption issues are mostly criminal and therefore offensive to the society therefore the role of the judiciary is to pronounce punishment on erring offenders and keep them out of circulation, preferably incarcerated. Still they must uphold the law that assumes everyone including suspects and accused persons as innocent until proven guilty. However that will not happen until the prosecution bring their matters before the court.

Unfortunately, we have lots of instances of shoddy investigation thereby messing up evidence which will then end up with judgment in favour of the accused or unnecessary delays; that's why I said they should come down hard on such sloppy prosecutors and make use of their power of committal for contempt and abuse of court process. Since they are not part of the process of arrest and investigation, they cannot afford to be sentimental and deny a person his rights when the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Another thing d judges can do at the time of sentencing is to use the upper limits more. for instance if an offence is punishable with a term of no more than 7 years or an option of fine or both, d court gas discretion to sentence the convicted person to just 1yr or to pay only a fine and walk free. I rather expect the courts to sentence a guilty person to no less than 5yrs and still have same person pay heavy fines too so we don't have the case of the pension scam that basically went scot-free. It would be a good deterrent for prospective thieves.

I am not impressed. You haven't talked about breaking the unholy romance with corruption suspects as well as rejecting financial inducement from the politicians. I expected you to talk about how they can have financial autonomy against the begger's status they are presently which has made them vulnerable to bribes (judges are not angels as they are not immuned to inducement).

I expected you talk about removing the bottle-necks of delay tactics, having in mind that justice delayed is justice denied.

Seems you had a legal background, mine in engineering. Why didn't you talk about "soft judgement" for corrupt officials (see former IG police, Tafa Balogun and chief Bode George), when petty robbers are given strict sentences?

I believe the judiciary can help the security agents in their duties by organising seminars for them, so that they"ll be more effective in their fight against corruption.

I tire for una. you guys Dont get it ba. Revenge!!!!!!!! go on revenge.

PaPPi1:
I tire for una. you guys Dont get it ba. Revenge!!!!!!!! go on revenge.

Lol, just doing our own thing with the platform created by nairaland