This is why the calibre of people appointed into our judiciary is very critical. Unfortunately in Nigeria, we have not always had the right kind of people manning our judiciary. In the recent past, judges were poorly remunerated and even today the lower bench of the magistracy is still poorly paid and easily corrupted. In our relatively complex society, people are appointed even into the Supreme Court not on merit, but on such nebulous grounds of religious and ethnic balance, federal character, seniority, zonal representation and old school ties. The effect of this is divided loyalty and inability to uphold the solemn principle and ethics of judicial independence. This is one of the constraints of the judiciary in Nigeria. Secondly as long as there is no fiscal or financial independence of the judiciary, it will continue to be subject to the control of the purseThe advent of the military into governance with their commandist approach to statecraft makes very difficult the development of an independent judiciary in Nigeria. Since 1966, precisely 48 years ago, the military has been in power for almost 30 years and out of the remaining 18 years, a pseudo-democratic regime of the Obasanjo administration (1999-2007) was in power for eight years leaving only 10 years of untrammelled democratic governance. With this background, we can see that the journey of properly functioning independent judiciary is just beginning. We had a situation under General Obasanjo when the government most of the time ignored the judiciary and refused to obey court judgments including those of the Supreme Court. We all remember when the federal government under Obasanjo’s watch seized the budgetary allocation of Lagos state local governments amounting to over N14 billion on the grounds that Lagos state had illegally split her 20 local governments into 56 or so local governments without following due process. Lagos was justified in creating additional local governments to cater for its people. Governance, Lagos state argued, is about people, not about land mass. After much pleadings and intervention by independent minded leaders from the South West to no avail, Lagos State government went to the Supreme Court for adjudication. The Supreme Court ruled that what the federal government did was illegal. The court said no one government in a federation has the right to seize or withhold what belongs to another branch of government.Obasanjo simply ignored the courts decision and it was not until the new President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua ordered the release of the funds that justice was done. Our constitution makes it impossible for the executive, whether the President or Governor, to be compelled to obey the law. The chief executives at Federal and State levels enjoy immunity against all kinds of judicial intervention or pronouncements and, in fact, the chief executives are above the law while they are still in power. It is because of this that some people, including the current president, have been suggesting that the immunity clause in our constitution be expunged. There is divided opinion on this and in this division, even some progressive politicians feel that the clause be retained in order to avoid frivolous suits being brought against the president, his deputy, the governors and their deputies, thus grounding government operations. We have seen in recent times in Nigeria especially after the poorly conducted and violently rigged and manipulated elections that the judiciary is perhaps the only institution standing between justifiable resistance to electoral manipulation and anarchy. The 2006 electoral law of Nigeria makes the judiciary the final arbiter of electoral disputes. But in a situation where elections are deliberately rigged and where political parties are bent on presenting political fait accompli before victims are asked to go to court, the position of the judiciary as an adjudicatory electoral arbiter may not be viable. Kenya presents an extant example where the opposition led by Raila Odinga blatantly, but justifiably, refused to go to court but took to the streets at the cost of thousands of lives and the dislocation of the lives of a million people. The reason for refusal to go to court was that the courts were appointed by Mwai Kibaki’s government and are expected not to be opposed to those who appointed them. Happily the Kenya situation is being resolved on the principle of cohabitation and shared responsibility. In the case of Nigeria, even though there are grounds for those who were rigged out of victory at elections to doubt the fairness of the courts, many have taken their cases to the courts. Some decisions of the courts have been favourable to the opposition; some decisions have been based on technicalities of the laws, even in cases where they have been favourable to the opposition. Some court decisions have been outrightly unreasonable such as in a case where somebody who did not contest an election was asked to be sworn in on the orders of the Supreme Court. 
Whatever the decisions have been pronounced by the courts, few have been based on perversion of electoral process, rigging, electoral violence, under age voting, corruption, tampering with ballot papers or bias demonstrated by officiating electoral officers. These are the offences that were apparent and palpable that everyone with eyes could see during the elections. The courts, rather than demonstrating sagacity in this respect, seem to indulge in arcane legal technicalities, thus avoiding the truth and helping to demonstrate that the precedence of electoral malpractice will invalidate future pyrrhic victories. 
Apart from this glaring shortcoming, it is taking the judiciary too long a time to resolve electoral cases before them. Many of the election petition tribunals have been sitting for nine months. In the meantime, the wrong people are occupying positions of power. These wrong people are carrying on as if they actually won at the polls. In some cases, those who may eventually lose, are, as usual, involved in all kinds of financial malpractices and corruption which in the nature of governance in Nigeria may be difficult to prove. Almost any amount can be removed from the public treasury and be explained off as security vote which is not accountable. Justice delayed is justice denied, so goes the saying and the lengthy waiting game in electoral matters may, if care is not taken, lead to self help by which aggrieved people may take the laws into their hands. 
There ought to be a law in Nigeria where all electoral disputes must be settled before people are sworn in, certainly before the expiration of three months. Perhaps special constitutional and electoral courts need to be created for this special purpose. Since elections are held every four years, such courts can be deployed to decongest our courts of other civil and criminal cases before them. Whatever happens, the judiciary needs to take more solemnly its responsibility to the people. Because if people lose confidence in the judiciary, then we will witness the kind of situation that nearly destroyed Kenya and has led to the division of the Ivory Coast into two halves for the past decade.
To be continued
It is more serious when the act is by the Executive . I think for one organ, and more especially the Executive which holds all the physical powers, to put up itself in sabotage or deliberate contempt of the other is to stage an Executive subversion of the constitution it is to uphold. Executive lawlessness tantamount to a deliberate violation of the constitution…. The essence of the rule of law is that it should never operate under the rule of fear. To use force to effect an act and while under the marshal of that force, seek the court’s equity is an attempt to infuse timidity into court and operate a sabotage of the cherished rule of law. It must never be.” 
Obaseki, JSC seemed to have been more peeved, for he declared pointedly: “In the area where rule of law operates, the rule of self help by force is abandoned. Nigeria being one of the countries in the world even in the third world which proclaim loudly to follow the rule of law, there is no room for the rule of self help by force to operate. Once a dispute has arisen between a person and the government or authority and the dispute has been brought before the court, thereby invoking the judicial powers of the state, it is the duty of the government to allow the law to take its course or allow the legal and judicial process to run its full course. The action the Lagos State Government took can have no other interpretation than the show of intention to pre_empt the decision of the court. 
The courts expect the utmost respect of the law from the government itself which rule by law.”In Obeya Memorial Hospital v. Attorney_General of the Federation & Ors. (1987)10 NWLR (Pt.60) 325 at 343, the Supreme Court pointedly and roundly stood up in defence of the rule of law. The court held, inter alia: “… the seizure of the hospital buildings by heavily armed army and air force personnel from unarmed law abiding citizens should not be encouraged or applauded in a democratic society such as ours where the Rule of Law reigns. It is more honourable to follow the due process of law. It is also more respectful and more rewarding to follow such a course …” 
Another notable feature of democracy is the protection and presentation of fundamental human rights. Happily, the judex plays a more important role than any other form of individual or group in this connection. In a line of authorities which include Ogugu v. State (1994)9 NWLR (Pt.336) 20, Oshevire v. Bristish Caledonian Airways Ltd. (1990)7 NWLR (Pt.63) 507, Fawehinmi v. Abacha (1996)7 NWLR (Pt.475) 710, Kuti v. A_G Federation (1985)6 SC 246, Agbakoba v. Director SSS (1993)7 NWLR (Pt.305) 353, Director of SSS v. Agbakoba (1999)3 NWLR (Pt.595) 314, Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000)16 NWLR (Pt.660) 228, Pastor Monday Williams Umoh v. The State (2001)6 WRN 48, the Judiciary has demonstrated its resolve to enthrone democratic values in our system. Our courts are not resting. Recently in AG Abia v. AG Federation (2006)16 NWLR (Pt.1005) 265 at 454, the Supreme Court, per Musdapher JSC graphically summarized the functions, duties, powers and jurisdiction of a judiciary in a democratic set_up like ours where the Executive is always inclined to act brashly, arbitrarily and in a self_seeking manner as follows: 
 “The judiciary especially the Supreme Court in particular, is an essential integral arm in the governance of the nation. It is the guardian of the Constitution charged with the sacred responsibility of dispensing justice for the purposes of safe guarding and protecting the Constitution and its goals. The judiciary, when properly invoked, has a fundamental role to play in the structure of governance by checking the activities of the other organs of government and thereby promoting good governance, respect for individual rights and fundamental liberties and also ensuring the achievement of the goals of the Constitution and not allow the defeat of such good goals and intendments. It is the duty of the Court to keep the government faithful to the goals of democracy, good governance for the benefit of the citizens as demanded by the Constitution. 
The Supreme Court has the sacred duty to translate into actuality the noble ideas expressed in the basic law, give flesh and blood, in fact life, to the abstract concepts of freedom, liberty, transparency, a society free from corruption, abuse of power and all the noble goals articulated and reiterated in the Constitution.” 
It is noteworthy that the Nigerian judiciary is at the vanguard of our dream renaissance. As the harbinger of hope and repository of trust and confidence, our judiciary through the judex, has worked assiduously in ensuring that our nascent democracy is rooted in the rule of law. In sooth, our apex court’s pronouncement on the anti-corruption case recently has demonstrated that the judiciary, as an arm of government, is indeed sensitive to the issue of corruption. In that case, AG Ondo State v. AG Federation & 35 Ors. (2002)9 NWLR (Pt.772) 222 at 364, the apex court, per Katsina_Alu, JSC opined thus: 
“Corrupt practices and abuse of power spread across and eat into every segment of the society. These vices are not limited only to certain sections of the society. It is lame argument to say that private individuals or persons do not corrupt officials or get them to abuse their powers. It is good sense that everyone involved in corrupt practices and abuse of power should be made to face the law in our effort to eradicate this cankerworm.” At pages 337_339, Ogbuegbu, JSC stated that: “Corrupt practices and abuse of power can, if not checked, threaten the peace, order and good government of the federation or any part thereof … I must also point out that all Nigerians, except perhaps those who benefit from it, are unhappy with the level of corruption in the country. The main opposition to the ICPC Act is, I believe, borne out of fear and suspicion.” 
On his part, Mohammed, JSC contributed thus: “It is quite plain that the issue of corruption in Nigerian Society has gone beyond our borders. It is no more a local affair. It is a national malaise which must be tackled by the Government of the Federal Republic. The disastrous consequences of the evil practice of corruption has taken this nation into the list of the most corrupt nations on earth.” Equally, our courts have been applauded in their decisions in a welter of cases notably, A_G Abia State & Ors. v. A_G Federation (2002)6 NWLR (Pt.763) 264 (popularly known as the tenure of local governments case), A_G Federation v. A_G Abia State & Ors. (2002)6 NWLR (Pt.674) 755 (popularly known as the Resource Control case) etc. 
These cases have demonstrated, in no uncertain terms, that in so far as the interpretation of the constitution and all laws in the land is concerned the courts have the final say. See also A_G Lagos v. A_G Federation (2004)18 NWLR (Pt.904) 1 (otherwise known as the Statutory Allocation case). Of all the three arms of government, the judiciary in Nigeria has remained the most disciplined, sober, reflective, diligent, patriotic, committed to the goal of democracy and, indeed, it is the vessel that is holding Nigeria together today. I have often wondered aloud whether our politicians are indeed interested in democracy or in nurturing it, as a result of their peculiar behavioural pattern, nuances, mischief and misdemeanor, all of which, more often than not, oscillate between the sublime to the ridiculous. But thank God for the judiciary that has stood in gap for Nigeria and Nigerians on one hand and the preservation of our nascent democracy on the other hand. 
Let me briefly illustrate this by reference to the mad spate of impeachment of Chief Executives at State level that took place under the last administration with the open support and collaboration of the Federal Government. Governors Rashidi Ladoja of Oyo State, Joshua Dariye of Plateau State and Peter Obi of Anambra State were removed from office in flagrant and arrogant breach of the clear provisions of the Constitution as contained under Section 188 to the effect that certain mandatory and peremptory conditions must be fulfilled by the Legislature before a Governor can be impeached/removed. Hitherto, there was this understandable constitutional position being parroted by lawyers all over the country that impeachment of a Governor or any Chief Executive of a State is a political matter constituting a no_go_area to Judges, wrongly citing the case of Balarabe Musa v. Hamza (1982)3 NCLR 229. 
Fortunately enough, the ghost of that decision which has wrongly haunted our legal system since 1982 has now been crushed in the recent decisions in Adeleke v. O.S.H.A. (2006)16 NWLR (Pt.1006) 608 and Balonwu v. Obi (2007)5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 488. See also Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007)3 NWLR (Pt.1025) 423 where the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal which set aside the laughable impeachment of Governor Rashidi Ladoja. The illuminating contribution of Musdapher JSC at pages 669_670 in relation to how the Judiciary must inquire into impeachment proceedings and procedure which patently and latently are outside the confines, stipulations and expectations of the constitution is worth reproducing: 
 “The principle of separation of powers under the Constitution is meant to guarantee good governance and development and to prevent abuse of power. A writer, Montesquieu once said, ‘political liberty is to be found only when there is no abuse of power. But constant experience shows every man invested with powers is liable to abuse it, and carry his authority as far as it will go.’ In this wise, impeachment has come to be recognized as one of the legitimate means by which a Governor or Deputy Governor, President or Vice President can be removed from office for an impeachable offence. The meaning of ‘gross misconduct’ as contained in the Constitution in relation to impeachment proceedings is whatever the legislature deems ‘gross misconduct’. This clearly, is very nebulous, fluid and subject to potentially gross abuse and is also potentially dangerous at this point of our national or political life. That is why, the legislature should strictly comply with all the other provisions as contained under section 188. Failure to comply with any one of them will render the whole exercise unconstitutional, null and void and any purported impeachment or removal will be declared improper
by the courts. 
As mentioned above, whether ‘gross misconduct’ is sufficient to warrant the removal of a Governor is apparently a political question and what tantamount to it is within the discretion of the legislature. In their legislative functions, including deciding whether a conduct amounts to an impeachable offence, the legislature is bound by the other provisions of the Constitution. In my view, the legislature must act in a responsible and civilized manner, whenever it considers whether a conduct amounts to ‘gross misconduct’. The offending conduct must be in my view at least breach of the code of conduct contained in the Constitution. It is not every conduct that the legislature deems impeachable that is impeachable, the courts have the jurisdiction to examine whether a conduct amounts to gross misconduct or there is indeed a breach of the Constitution. 
In any event, even if one concedes that the question of what is tantamount to ‘gross misconduct’, and whether such ‘gross misconduct’ is sufficient to warrant the removal of an elected Governor or Deputy Governor, is ‘a political’ question, because the constitution expressly commits to the legislature the prerogative of determining that question, all the same, this does not justify complete denial of judicial review in respect of the entire impeachment or removal process.” 
Earlier on in the leading judgment, Niki Tobi, JSC has succinctly put forth what Legislators are and what a Legislative House is when the Noble Law Lord held thus: “In Akintola v. Aderemi (1962) AU NLR 442 at 443 (1962)2 SCNLR 139, it was held that anything done outside the House of Assembly to remove the Governor of the old Western Region was/is a nullity. The Governor is elected by the people _ the electorate. The procedure and the proceedings leading to his removal should be available to any willing eyes. And this, the public will see watching from the gallery. It should not be a hidden affair in a hotel room. 
A legislature is not a secret organization or a secret cult or fraternity where things are done in utmost secrecy in the recess of a hotel. On the contrary, a Legislature is a public institution, built mostly on public property to the glare and visibility of the public. As a democratic institution, operating in a democracy, the actions and inactions of a House of Assembly are subject to public judgment and public opinion. The public nature and content of the Legislature is emphasized by the gallery whose members of the public sit to watch the proceedings… I do not think proceedings for the removal of a Governor should be hidden from the public. 
The Court of Appeal in the Obi and Dariye’s cases followed their earlier decision in the Inakoju case as affirmed by the Supreme Court. But what fascinates one more in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Balonwu v. Obi (2007)5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 488 is the admonition of Denton_West, JCA on pages 561_562 on the attributes of good leadership which can sustain a democracy. Hear what the Appellate Justice said: 
“We lack good leadership in our body politic. A good leader is someone who is able to lead and has the ability to influence his people positively to attain and achieve greater heights for the good of humanity. A good leader is selfless and has only the interest of the people he is leading at heart. A leader’s action always has a rippling effect on the society. The leadership’s wrong actions can destroy the society and bring it to naught, whilst the acts of a good and seasoned leader could catapult our country Nigeria to the country we all dream about. It is great men and great leaders like Indira Ghandi, Roosevelt, Mrs. Thatcher, the Kennedys, the Nkrummahs, Nelson Mandela that have made their country the pride with which we all adorn their country. These men were all people of great standing who acquired the moral right to lead their people and as much as possible they kept to this moral right and immediately a leader loses this moral right, he ceases to be a leader. A good leader should adhere to law and observe same. 
Leaders cannot exist without followership and so everyone must observe the Constitution and obey State authorities, because no authority exists without God’s permission, and the existing authorities have been put in place by God who had allowed them to swear to an oath to uphold the Constitution. Therefore the followership should endeavour not to oppose the existing authority for whoever opposes them unduly has himself to face the wrath of the law. Therefore I enjoin the followership to love their leaders and pray for them to do good and they the followership should refrain from acts that is calculated to stop the smooth running of the affairs of government, so that together and in love with their leaders, a very strong and indivisible State shall henceforth emerge where the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be adhered to.” 
Much recently, our appellate courts lived up to the expectation of Nigerians by resolving the constitutional crisis heaped on Nigeria by the former President when he unilaterally and arbitrarily removed the Vice president from office and stripped him of all rights, privileges and perquisites accrued to him by virtue of 
his position. Peeved by this show of naked power and abuse of position, the then Vice President, invoked the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under and by virtue of Section 239 of the Constitution to ventilate his grievance, asking the Court to make specific pronouncement on whether or not the President has any power whatsoever to remove a Vice President who was elected by Nigerians as with the President to serve a specific or definite term. 
He also asked the court to pronounce on the legality or otherwise of the action of the President in arbitrarily removing him from office. In a landmark judgment delivered in that case, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar v. Attorney_General of the Federation (2007)3 NWLR (Pt.1022) 601, the Court of Appeal held that a Vice President upon being elected into office by the electorate cannot be removed from office at will by the President. In the leading judgment of the Court which was read by the President of the Court of Appeal, Abdullahi, PCA it was forcefully stated at page 641 as follows: 
“The President and the Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are jointly elected at a general election and the relationship between them is not that of a master and servant. In other words, the Vice President is not an employee of the President or of the political parties on whose platform they are both elected. In the instant case, the plaintiff not being an employee of the President or the political party on whose platform he was elected, he cannot be impliedly or constructively removed by either of them”. 
Expectedly, the Supreme Court on Monday, April 23, 2007 unanimously affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and authenticated with a seal of correctness of the lower court’s stance that the office of the Vice President, being a creation of the Constitution, the holder of the office can only be removed in accordance with the constitution and not at the whims or behest of a single individual, no matter how highly placed. 
Happily, it is not only the appellate courts that have appreciated the pivotal role(s) played or expected of the Judiciary in enthroning or cementing democratic culture in our polity. Our various High Courts, Federal or State have also delivered landmark judgments or rulings which in no uncertain terms have reinforced the important place of the Judiciary as a bastion of our democracy. See for example the judgment of Justice Anwuli Chikere of the Federal High Court Abuja delivered on Friday, June 24, 2005 whereby his Lordship in a show of exemplary courage and character voided the Public Order Act on the ground, inter alia, that it conflicts with Section 40 of the Constitution which guarantees to every Nigerian the right “to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other Association for the protection of his interests”. 
One cannot but salute the courage, boldness and character demonstrated by the Judiciary so far, while expecting that our Judges in all strata of the court system would continue to build upon this with a view to churning out justice to all manner of people, irrespective of age, sex, religion, creed, ethnic or political affiliation, professional leaning or calling, etc. This should and ought to be a commandment which our Judges must keep and guard jealously. This is so because justice is not only priceless and inestimable, but also a sine_qua_non to the sustenance of democracy. After all, as posited by learned Justice Hand and quoted with approval by the late Honourable Justice Fatayi_Williams, CJN in Senator Abraham Adesanya v. President of Nigeria (1981)2 NCLR 358 at 373: 
“If we are to keep our democracy there must be one commandment: thou shall not ration justice”.
The point I have struggled to make is that in its role of preserving the tenets of democracy and Rule of Law, the Judiciary must jealously guard and guide its coveted position in the scheme of things and that so far, our Judges have fared well. I still trust that in its role of checking acts of violation, breach and indiscretions on the part of the politicians, the Judiciary will continue to do more and do better. 
Interestingly, even from within the walls of the souls of other arms of government, commendations, exhortations and exultations have continued to pour out to the Judiciary for its role in what we continue to describe as “our nascent democracy”. For example, while swearing in four new Judges of the Delta State High Court, the former Governor of the State, Chief James Onanefe Ibori was quoted in the Saturday Independent newspaper of January 13, 2007 as saying that: 
“The State Judiciary has proved that it is a dependable custodian and defender of our constitution. It has demonstrated that it is a strong and reliable servant of our democracy.” 
Similar encomiums were made by other former Governors, such as Peter Odili, Lucky Igbinedion, Bola Tinubu to mention a few at different fora in appreciation of the commendable role being played by the Judiciary. 
Similar thumbs_up have been showered on the Judiciary and these in most cases have resonated through the pages of newspapers or electronic media. Let us consider a few examples: i. Writing under the caption “Apex court as a force for deepening democracy in Nigeria” (Page 65, The Guardian Newspaper, Tuesday, May 1, 2007), Associate Professor of Law in the University of Lagos, Ibidapo_Obe posited thus: “In conclusion, whether one agrees with the verdict handed down by the Supreme Court and the reasons that the court will offer for its decision, the Justices Idris Legbo Kutigi court has stepped up to increase its relevance as a potent force in the entrenchment of democratic principles in Nigeria”; ii. Commenting on the Court of Appeal Judgment which preserved the sacrosanct nature of the office of the Vice President, a legal luminary and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Solomon Asemota was quoted on page 3 of the Guardian Newspaper of Wednesday February 21, 2007 as having lauded the said Judgment as strengthening the Rule of Law in the country.
iii. A few years back, the influential Guardian newspaper awarded the Judiciary its “Man of the Year”. 
Respected colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that all that has been presented so far anticipates or looks at the Bench in a restrictive sense, that is, presupposing that the Bench is made up of only Judges. No. and as senior member of the Bar and a former President of this great Association, I should not be heard to be saying so. Indeed, the Judiciary deserves an elastic meaning which, of necessity, will include the Bar, a virile Bar. Indeed, the Bar and the Bench, the twin pillars of the Judiciary. This position finds support in the measurable words of P.N. Bhagwati, a former Chief Justice of India who posited in a paper he presented at the Four International Appellate Judges Conference in Kuala Lumpur on 20th April, 1987 thus: 
 “The essential truth is that the Judiciary is an institution. Its business as an institution of governance is larger than the individual profile of a Judge. But it is important to reflect on the constituent elements of this great institution. The institution consists of the Bar and the Judge. While we as the Judges maintain our personal integrity, it is the Bar that fiercely supports the independence of the Judiciary. While we pronounce judgments, it is the diligence and research of the Bar that unfolds in our work. While we express our commitments to the people, it is the Bar that fearlessly selects the causes of action which we pronounce upon. Those who fight zealously for the independence of the Judiciary must surely know, that, it is not enough. We need to be equally overzealous to fight for the independence of the Bar. 
I am always in agreement and alignment with respected Justices the world over, including our own indefatigable retired Oputa, JSC who have always postulated that the Bar and the Bench are indispensable pillars/twins in the administration of justice. In several fora, I have always advocated that the Bar and the Bench must, like the Christian Trinity, act in unity and unison without any one of the two impairing the other. Respect between the two must be reciprocal. While the Bar should always defer to the Bench, the latter in return should respect the former. As rightly postulated by Niki Tobi, JSC in his book titled “The Nigerian Judge” at page 326, 
“A Judge has no right whatsoever to insult the person of Counsel or Advocate. This writer is yet to come across a law or a procedural rule which empowers a Judge to insult the person of Counsel or Advocate. The judicial powers of a Judge are enormous and immense but they do not extend to insulting the person of a Counsel or Advocate. After all, the Counsel or Advocate is not on trial. What is on trial is either the client or the matter in which he represents the party in his professional capacity.” 
CONCLUSION
By virtue of Section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the Judiciary is vested with the power, authority and jurisdiction to adjudicate on all matters between citizens inter se, citizens and government and government against government. This responsibility is daunting and awesome. Judges hold justice in trust for God who is the ultimate Justice of all. Justice is so central to man as well as to democratic norms and governance. No wonder Saint Augustine ranked it as a sine_qua_non to human and societal order. In his Civitas Dei (City of God) written in 413 AD Saint Augustine saw “justice” as an indispensable ingredient in the existence of a community or nation. He graphically declared that: “Remove justice and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale.” 
Aristotle in his “Nichomechean Ethics” declared that: “We see what all men mean by justice; that kind of state of character which makes people disposed to do what is just and make them act justly and wish for what is just.” Also in “Politics”, Aristotle declared that: “Justice is the bond of men in state, and the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.” 
Arising from the foregoing, and, for what has been said in this paper is the inescapable fact that for our democracy to survive and endure, the Judiciary must be up and doing, perform its constitutional and statutory duties without let or hindrance, either from the Executive or Legislature and must also be imbued with men and women of impeccable integrity, who command an unquestionable loyalty to the cause of justice and constitutionalism. The Judicial personnel must also possess sufficiency of learning in law and other subjects, while at the same time exercising and displaying unparalleled maturity and restraint, even in the face of provocation. 
 The Judiciary must be supported by a virile, learned, dutiful, courageous, diligent, articulate, honest, dogged and professional Bar who in and out of season will be prepared to defend the Judiciary against the assaults of politicians and their ilks. The Bar must at all times call for total obedience to the judgments and orders of courts and should not collaborate or conspire with those who disobey court orders and treat them with impunity. 
It is apt to conclude this paper by drawing this audience’s attention to the admonition given by the Honourable Justice Idris Kutigi, Chief Justice of Nigeria to newly appointed Judges at the on_going induction course organized for them by the National Judicial Institute at Abuja. In his address to the gathering and as reported in The Punch of Tuesday, June 5, 2007, his Lordship enthused thus: 
“In order to be successful as a judicial officer, I urge you to avoid corruption like a plague. In similar vein, I urge you to shun all forms of misconduct… The current democratic dispensation has posed serious challenges to the Judiciary in general. Our roles as judicial officers are being noticed and perhaps appreciated now more than ever before. As you embark on the performance of your judicial functions, it is important that you take cognizance of the dos and don’ts of the bench.” 
* Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN 
  

Jesus and Mary Magdalene:

Has history been wrong for 2000 years---was there a Mrs. Jesus Christ? In, “The Jesus Family Tomb,” (The Discovery Channel’s TV documentary) director Simcha Jacobovici claims there is “evidence” that Jesus and Mary Magdalene indeed were married and had a son named Judah.
(To see what scholars say about Jacobovici’s “evidence” see, "The Jesus Family Tomb)" article .
Jacobovici is not the first to postulate a possible romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary. The movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, and books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and The Da Vinci Code, made a secret relationship between Jesus and Mary central to their themes.
The Da Vinci Code begins with a page of facts that makes the fictional novel appear to be true in all its assertions. The book has broken all records on the New York Times best-sellers list, and has been followed by a blockbuster movie. Author Dan Brown’s clever weaving of fact with fiction has convinced many readers that Jesus and Mary Magdalene really were married and had a child (See “Mona Lisa’s Smirk”). But is this romantic assertion just hype to sell books and movies, or is it supported by historical evidence.
Mysterious Mary
Before we examine the evidence for any possible romance between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, let’s look into this person of Mary from the little Galilean town of Magdala. To begin we ask the question, what ancient documents shed light upon her character and her relationship with Jesus of Nazareth?
The New Testament gospels are the oldest written records of Mary of Magdala. In the gospels Mary is depicted as a woman who Jesus healed of demon possession. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) present Mary as a follower of Jesus who listened to his teaching, provided for his financial needs, witnessed his crucifixion, and three days later was first to see him alive.Some have said Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but neither the apostles nor the early church speak of her as more than one of Jesus’ close disciples. The idea that she was a prostitute originated in the sixth century, when Pope Gregory I identified her as both the woman spoken of in Luke 7:37, and the woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her hair. Although the pope’s view was probably influenced by the fact that Jesus had cast seven demons out of her, no biblical scholar is able to make the connection of Mary Magdalene with the woman in Luke’s passage. Additionally, the New Testament gospels don’t even hint of anything romantic or sexual between Jesus and Mary.
So where do conspiracy theorists get the idea? Why all the speculation? For that we turn to documents written 100-200 years after the New Testament gospels by a non-Christian cult called the Gnostics (See "Gnostic Gospels)". These writings are not part of the New Testament, and were rejected by early Christians as heretical. Those who write of a romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary cite a few passages from two of those writings, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip. Let’s look at those passages.Click here to continue reading “Jesus and Mary Magdalene”
Article Translations: SPANISH
NEXT
HOME PRINT TEXT ABOUT US SEND COMMENT RESOURCES

Have you ever met somebody with such personal magnetism that he/she is always the center of attention? Possibly his/her personality or intelligence---but something about him/her is enigmatic. Well, that’s the way it was two thousand years ago with Jesus Christ.
Jesus’ greatness was obvious to all those who saw and heard him. But, whereas most great people simply fade into history books, Jesus of Nazareth is still the focus of numerous books and media controversy. And much of that controversy revolves around the radical claims Jesus made about himself.
As an unheralded carpenter from an obscure Galilean village in Israel, Jesus made claims that, if true, have profound implications on our lives. According to Jesus, you and I are special, part of a grand cosmic scheme, with him as the center of it all. This and other claims like it stunned everyone who heard them uttered.
It was primarily Jesus’ outrageous claims that caused him to be viewed as a crackpot by both the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy. Although he was an outsider with no credentials or political powerbase, within three years, Jesus changed the world for the next 20 centuries. Other moral and religious leaders have left an impact---but nothing like that unknown carpenter from Nazareth.What was it about Jesus Christ that made the difference? Was he merely a great man, or something more? These questions get to the heart of who Jesus really was. Some believe he was merely a great moral teacher; others believe he was simply the leader of the world’s greatest religion. But many believe something far more. Christians believe that God has actually visited us in human form. And they believe the evidence backs that up. So who is the real Jesus? Let’s take a closer look.
As we take a deeper look at the world’s most controversial person, we begin by asking: could Jesus have been merely a great moral teacher?

Knowing when u've got a crush on someone

There re seven ways of knowing when u like someone.

1] U always think of them

2] U dream about them

3] u have butterfly feelings when u re around them

5] u re thinking of someone right now

6] u got carried away u didn't notice there was no number[4]

7] u looked up to see if I was correct then u laughed at urself