By Dele Sobowale
“Not only is there but one way of doing things rightly; but, there is only one way of seeing them; and that is seeing the whole of them”. John Ruskin, 1819-1900. (VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS p 218).

Poor Justice Isa Ayo Salami, the embattled former President of the Court of Appeal who was recommended for reinstatement from suspension by the National Judicial Council, NJC. The Council, undoubtedly, must have been inspired by the admonition of Lord Mansfield, 1705-1793, the English jurist, who left the world with the immortal words: “We must not regard political consequences, how formidable so ever they might be, if rebellion was the certain consequence. We are bound to say: “Fiat justina et ruant coeli (let justice be done, though the Heavens fall)”.

(VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS p 111). That principle which should form the basis of all judgments unfortunately is not as absolute as it reads. Certainly, the eminent 18th century justice must have been aware that it is not possible to be just to everybody all the time in the world.

Furthermore, while judgments must take cognizance only of the evidence before the magistrates, it does not often result in justice, defined here as being fair to all concerned – the parties in court and society as a whole.

It is also true that the most difficult matters to decide are not those between “right” and “wrong”. Almost everybody can determine those. The really tough cases involve those between two “rights”. In this case the rights of the individual(s) and the rights of society.

At the moment, to me, the issues at stake are the rights of Justice Ayodele Salami and that of the Nigerian society. His most urgent right which he wants to exercise is to return to the Court of Appeal as President. And the National Judicial Council had supported him based on the evidence presented before them. However, there is another right at stake. That is the right of the Nigerian people to be served by a Court of Appeal free of any taint of partisanship or bias – especially on political litigation.

In that regard, Justice Salami, had become a victim of his “friends” in the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN, and his antagonists in the Peoples Democratic Party of Nigeria, PDP. Together, they have presented Nigeria with a President of Court of Appeal whose judgments will henceforth be seen through the prism of political partisanship. And, that will be a tragedy; not only for Salami, but for Nigeria.

Incidentally, of the two political parties, ACN and PDP, it is the former who have turned what should have been a routine decision of the NJC into another needless controversy. One, of these days, in his retirement, Justice Salami might have time to ponder the words of Charles Dibdin, 1745-1814, who lamented that: “In every mess, I find a friend..”.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals which had favoured the ACN in Osun, Ekiti and Edo and the Labour Party, LP, in Ondo States might have been based on the facts before the court each and every time. But, the ACN, more than the LP, had almost privatized what was after all a victory for the electorate. The PDP, which lost on each occasion, remains unconvinced that the judgments were not influenced by their main rival.

The allegations made against Justice Salami must have been investigated by the NJC before exonerating the jurist and requesting for his return to the bench. No information has reached the public with regard to the grounds for Salami’s exoneration. Was it preponderance of evidence, or proof beyond reasonable doubt?

Perhaps, one day we will know. We don’t even know if the decision of the NJC was unanimous or by simple majority. If the latter, it would mean that some people in the NJC still doubt the Justice’s innocence on this matter. Irrespective of the basis for the NJC’s decision, the fact remains that Justice Salami’s position had become politicized in some ironic ways by his supporters and opponents alike.

Henceforth, any decision in favour of the ACN will be interpreted as a triumph of the party not of justice. On the other hand the court might suddenly find itself delivering judgments in favour of the PDP, even when undeserved, just to “prove” that it is not biased.

No court deserves being saddled with that sort of baggage on account of one officer whose transient occupation of the position had brought questions about the court’s impartiality. Yet, the man had been declared innocent by the body established to investigate these matters.

Meanwhile, President Jonathan, who took the questionable decision to suspend Justice Salami , is confronted with a personal and political dilemma. Personally, he must act. That might mean reinstating Salami, as requested by the NJC, and provoking anger within his own party which is already divided along several fronts – including views about Boko Haram.

On the other hand he might refuse and ignite a confrontation with the Judiciary—a co-equal branch of government. He would also have all the political opposition united against him, personally. Calls will be made for his impeachment and the civil society groups might have another evidence to use against the President.

Any reasonable person in Jonathan’s shoes on the day the NJC letter was delivered, and wanting to make a decision, taking into consideration all stakeholders, would have done what the President did; he neither said yes nor no. He had sat on the decision waiting to find out the direction of public opinion depending on which step he takes.

I have read a lot of views about the issue and they all tend towards one of two options. The first represents that of the political opposition and legal purists. To them the matter is very simple; Jonathan should lift the suspension on Salami.

The second represents the position of the PDP; and they would want the President to ignore the NJC. Each side would want the President, now placed in the role of a judge, to decide and damn the consequences. The problem is both sides are being either selfish or simplistic. Jonathan cannot and should not take a decision which will make things worse for Nigeria – just to please those urging him to say yes or no.

Fortunately, for all of us, there is a third option which I have not read anyone canvassing; that third option says yes and no at the same time. But, it calls for a tri-partite agreement between the President, the NJC and Justice Salami. The President should invite the NJC and Justice Salami to Aso Rock and present the following proposal. Justice Salami will be reinstated as President of the Court of Appeal; but he will immediately request for early retirement from the bench. So he will not have to return.

To me this proposal represents a “win-win” solution; no victors; no vanquished. And our dear country can toss this particular issue into the garbage can of history – where it belongs.

Dear President Jonathan; try the Lyndon Johnson option –1