INTRODUCTION We have watched in disbelief, how the Executive arm of Government in Nigeria has reduced the other arms

of Government, the Legislature and the Judiciary to subordinate institutions. We however hasten to add, that the Judiciary is putting on a principled fight to assert its position as the ultimate resort in any dispute between power and the powerless. The Executive dominance of power in Nigeria is as a result of military interference in the government of the nation. For a far too many years under military rule, the Executive doubled as Legislature and dwarfed the Judiciary. Since returning to Constitutional democracy, the Executive has found it difficult to function just as an arm of government and has regarded itself as the major Government with the other two arms as subordinates. One would even argue that the Executive under military regime saw itself as having conquered the other two arms of Government, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Since the introduction of Constitutional democracy in 1999, the Executive has resorted to political subterfuge to dominate the Legislature and the Judiciary. The greatest weapon at its disposal, unfortunately, is the fact that while the Legislature enacts laws, and the Judiciary interprets them, the Executive which enforces the law, have done so, selectively and with nonchalance. In extreme cases it has subverted the law. It is in this connection that a number of us concerned Nigerians have decided to draw the attention of all Nigerians and the International Community to the harm which the Executive arm is doing to Nigeria as a nation that is supposed to operate under the rule of law. EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE JUDICIARY The Executive having failed in its primary responsibility has decided not only to pollute the spring of justice, but also to destroy her temple. The Executive have refused on many occasions to obey court orders as a result of which lawyers in 2006 had to go on a strike. One would have thought that the Executive learnt its lesson from this development but instead, it remains recalcitrant. The contempt which the Executive has for the courts no doubt encouraged attacks on some Judges outside and inside their courts. It is in the circumstance, safe to conclude that the Executive, especially the Presidency, the Police and INEC are challenging the freedom of all Nigerians and the fundamental basis of our democracy. The Executive is intimidating the Judiciary, with demolition order, removal from the Bench etc., in order to conquer or hold the Judiciary hostage. Nigerians must resist the ugly development, otherwise when all Nigerians resort to self-help, there will be anarchy and Nigeria may cease to exist. The judiciary is expected to be an institution that is beyond reproach. Sadly, like the other arms of government, it is caught in the web of corruption, misuse of power and arbitrariness plaguing every segment of the society. Rather than seize the independence that democracy offers, by virtue of the twin principles of separation of power and rule of law, the judiciary seems to have chosen to swim with the tide. In the process, it fell in to the morass which the political leadership has since sunk. An ideal judiciary, in every democracy, is a bulwark against executive and legislative excesses and helps to uphold the rule of law. To effectively perform these roles, the judiciary must operate as an independent and

impartial arbiter, held in high esteem by the people. Unfortunately, the Nigerian judiciary has over the years continued to be the opposite of an ideal judiciary. This development has resulted in the total erosion of all vestiges of judicial independence guaranteed by the Constitution. It has led to instances where judicial officers give no regard to their codes of practice, despite the various noble provisions aimed at guiding against abuse. For instance, the preamble to the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers provides: Whereas an independent, strong, respected and respectable Judiciary is indispensable for the impartial administration of Justice in a democratic State; And whereas a Judicial Officer should actively participate in establishing, maintaining, enforcing, and himself observing a high standard of conduct so that the integrity and respect for the independence of the Judiciary may be preserved. Also, in seeking to embolden judicial officers in the conduct of their businesses, the Constitution provides that: The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, and pressures, threats of interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. Despite these provisions, the judiciary is still striving to achieve a level of independence expected by the people. Instances still abound where respect for judicial pronouncements are not subjected to the discretion of the executive, judges tenure of office, financial security and appointment are dependent on the executive. For instance, some few months ago, while the nations judiciarys highest decision making body, the National Judicial Council (NJC), asked that the suspended President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Isa Ayo Salami, be recalled, the executive has refused, hiding under some excuses. Under President Olusegun Obasanjo, court decisions were subjected to executive interpretations, and the government became notorious for choosing which court decision to obey. Some of such decisions included the voiding of the purported impeachment of former Oyo State Governor Rashidi Ladoja and the Supreme Court decision in the seizure of Lagos States council funds by the Presidency. Issues that preceded the exit of Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the growing erosion of judicial independence have prompted the quest for a fundamental reform in the judicial sector. This realisation, no doubt, informed the lamentation, by the CJN, Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar over the increasing attack on judicial independence by the executive; she pledged not to condone interference of any sort. The CJN, at the an event marking the commencement of the 2012/2013 legal year and the inauguration of 25 new Senior Advocates of Nigeria at the Supreme Court in Abuja, was quoted as saying the judiciary under her watch will serve as a check on other arms of the government by interpreting the Constitution to determine their extent and scope of powers and whether any action of any arm of government transgresses such limits. It is the judiciary which has to ensure that the law is observed and that there is compliance with the requirements of law on the part of the government. Our courts should be independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law, which they apply impartially, without fear, favour and prejudice. Without judicial independence, there can be no preservation of democratic values.

It is not enough for the CJN to speak, by to follow same with actions. Observably the CJN was silent on instances of such interference; she also seemed not to be interested in building on the foundation for judicial reformation initiated by her predecessor. Observers noted that Justice Dahiru Mustapha sent a bill to the National Assembly at the twilight of his tenure, indicating about 52 areas of amendment to the Constitution, in an effort aimed at revitalizing the court system. They identified practices that threaten judicial independence and encourage interference in judicial process. Some of these include the process of appointing judicial officers, funding of the judiciary, the subjection of judges discipline to executive assent, security of tenure and corruption. They contended that the current practice where the executive plays a major role in judges appointment makes it difficult for the emergence of courageous and independent- minded judges. They argued that it would be difficult for a judge, whose appointment was influenced by a serving governor, to be impartial in deciding cases involving the governor or in which he has interest. On security of tenure, observers argued that the Justice Salami case serves as a pointer to any serving judge that, at the instigation of the executive, one could be thrown out of his seat no matter how innocent of any allegation he/she is. They argued that a situation where funding for the judiciary is left for the executive to determine; where the Constitution requires the same executive to provide infrastructure for the judiciary and where the judiciary, mostly at state and local government levels, rely on the executive for the provision of basic necessities can hardly encourage independence, because he who pays the piper dictates the tune. They said the major threat to judicial independence is corruption, arguing that the situation becomes helpless in a society like Nigeria with a code of moral ethics and ethos that drive the national aspiration. To them, in a society where the misnomer has become the norm and ingredients of corruption form a component of any policy decision, and where corruption permeates every sector, it will be difficult to attain judicial independence. They contended that a situation where judges at tribunals, assist desperate politicians to assume office by turning logical legal reasoning on its head, such judges should expect less, because desperate politicians are in office to meet their selfish ends and will circumvent all constitutional provisions to achieve their aim. Former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Joseph Daudu & other lawyers also proffered ways of assisting the CJN achieve her objective of ensuring an independent and impartial judiciary. They praised Justice Mukhtars courage and determination to reform the judiciary, stop intervention and ensure its independence with a view to restoring public confidence in that arm of government.