The role of a Chief Justice is pivotal in maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the judiciary. In Nigeria, Chief Justice Olukayode Ariwoola has recently faced substantial criticism regarding his leadership, particularly in how it influences the behavior of judges under his jurisdiction. This analysis delves into the psychological aspects of his leadership, exploring how his stance and decisions affect judicial conduct and public perception, with a focus on the escalating tensions in Kano.
The role of a Chief Justice is pivotal in maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the judiciary. In Nigeria, Chief Justice Olukayode Ariwoola has recently faced substantial criticism regarding his leadership, particularly in how it influences the behavior of judges under his jurisdiction. This analysis delves into the psychological aspects of his leadership, exploring how his stance and decisions affect judicial conduct and public perception, with a focus on the escalating tensions in Kano.
Chief Justice Ariwoola’s approach is characterized by a strong emphasis on maintaining judicial independence and resisting public pressure, often described as “mob mentality.” This leadership style, while intended to preserve the objectivity of the judiciary, may inadvertently foster a sense of detachment and insensitivity among judges towards public opinion and sentiments. Moreover, under the guise of raising standards, Ariwoola’s leadership has, by public perception, become increasingly politicized, further complicating the judiciary’s role.
From a psychological perspective, Ariwoola’s leadership appears to exemplify transformational leadership principles, where the leader seeks to inspire and elevate the judiciary’s standards. However, his apparent disregard for public opinion, as evidenced by his statements, may also indicate a potential blind spot in acknowledging the psychological and social context in which the judiciary operates. In fact, the Nigerian judiciary has become a laughable entity among Nigerians.
Ariwoola’s admonitions to judges to remain impervious to public outcry and to focus solely on the law have significant implications. On one hand, this could empower judges to make decisions based purely on legal merits, free from external influences. On the other hand, it risks creating a judiciary perceived as aloof and unresponsive to societal needs and expectations. The psychological phenomenon of “groupthink” might emerge, where judges, following the Chief Justice’s lead, collectively downplay the importance of public perception in their rulings.
Justice Liman exemplifies this alarming trend, reflecting the consequences of Ariwoola’s weak leadership. Ariwoola has been repeatedly criticized for nepotism, notably appointing his children as judges, which severely undermines his credibility and authority. This nepotism not only tarnishes his reputation but also erodes the judiciary’s integrity, leading to a system where judges feel emboldened to act without accountability.
As a result, the judiciary risks descending into chaos, with judges like Liman making controversial rulings under the guise of judicial independence while ignoring the broader impact on society. The combination of weak leadership, nepotism, and judicial overreach threatens to destabilize the legal system and erode public trust, making it imperative for immediate reforms to restore confidence and ensure justice is truly served.
Moreover, Ariwoola’s leadership could inadvertently encourage a form of cognitive dissonance among judges. While they are urged to ignore public sentiments, the pervasive criticism and accusations of corruption and bias, particularly from influential political figures and the media, create a conflicting psychological environment. This dissonance might result in stress and decreased morale among judicial officers, potentially affecting their performance and decision-making quality.
A significant aspect of Ariwoola’s tenure is his stance against judicial corruption. Despite his warnings against corrupt practices, the persistence of corruption allegations suggests a disconnect between his directives and their implementation. This discrepancy can be understood through the lens of psychological resistance, where individuals or groups resist change due to entrenched behaviors and norms. Judges might display a form of “psychological reactance,” where the perceived pressure to conform to anti-corruption measures results in the opposite behavior.
Additionally, some judges, without pointing fingers, seem to disobey judicial leadership and ethical rules, doing as they please because they have the backing of influential political figures. In 2022, to the shock of Nigerians, Ariwoola was seen partying with politicians. This incident, perceived as partisan, led to calls for Ariwoola’s resignation and raised questions about his impartiality and integrity.
The long standing and currebt controversies surrounding Justice Abdullahi Liman of the Federal High Court sitting in Kano, exemplify the complex dynamics within the Nigerian judiciary. Justice Liman, involved in the contentious case of the Kano Emirate tussle, has faced criticism for stepping beyond his jurisdiction. This issue highlights the broader challenges of judicial overreach and the psychological motivations behind such actions.
Justice Liman is at it again, despite previous controversies. Issuing restraining orders while far away in America, he seems to be experimenting with e-judiciary in line with the peculiar methods of Ariwoola’s courts. Recently, he declared that dethroned Emir Aminu Ado Bayero has the jurisdiction to be heard in a case filed by kingmaker Aminu Baba Dan Agundi concerning fundamental human rights in the emirate tussle. This development follows a Kano State High Court’s order for substituted service on Bayero and four other emirs to restrain them from parading themselves as emirs.
A few days ago, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, announced that the National Judicial Council (NJC) had summoned the Chief Judges involved in the conflicting court orders in the Kano Emirate dispute to investigate the situation, with Justice Liman at the center of these controversies. However, as with many such announcements, nothing has been heard since, leaving the judiciary’s actions and the NJC’s intentions in question. This pattern of inaction continues to erode trust in the judiciary, already perceived by the public as corrupt and ineffective.
Chidi Odinkalu, a prominent Nigerian human rights activist, has strongly criticized Justice Liman’s decision to intervene in the ongoing royal tussle in Kano. Odinkalu described the Federal High Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over a chieftaincy matter in Kano State as unconstitutional and pointed out instances of perceived corruption. He accused Liman of using “magic” rather than relying on law or evidence in his rulings.
Odinkalu also noted that Justice Liman’s declaration of jurisdictional powers over the Emirship tussle in Kano goes against a Supreme Court precedent that has existed since 1988. Chieftaincy matters fall under the jurisdiction of state assemblies and state courts, not federal judges. This challenge to established judicial hierarchy exacerbates the perception of judicial overreach and the potential for systemic instability. Justice Liman’s interventions extend beyond chieftaincy disputes, impacting state assemblies and other state affairs, further raising concerns about his overreach under the guise of protecting human rights.
Ariwoola’s assertion that “public opinions, sentiments or emotions can never take the place of law” underscores his commitment to legal principles. However, from a psychological viewpoint, ignoring public perception entirely can be detrimental. The judiciary’s legitimacy is partly derived from public trust, which is built on the perception that justice is not only done but seen to be done. By dismissing the importance of public opinion, Ariwoola risks alienating the very constituency that the judiciary serves, leading to a potential erosion of trust and confidence in the judicial system.
Chief Justice Olukayode Ariwoola’s leadership style, characterized by a staunch resistance to public pressure and supposed focus on legal principles, has both positive and negative psychological implications for the judiciary.
While it aims to uphold judicial independence, it may also foster a sense of detachment and unresponsiveness among judges, potentially leading to groupthink, cognitive dissonance, and decreased public trust. The controversies surrounding Justice Liman further illustrate the complexities of judicial behavior and the psychological challenges faced by judicial officers. Addressing these dynamics is crucial for ensuring that the judiciary remains both principled and perceptive to the societal context in which it operates.
Given the escalating tensions in Kano and the potential for severe unrest, it is imperative that President Bola Tinubu and Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi urgently address these critical judicial leadership issues. The stability and peace of Kano are at stake, and they must not be jeopardized by perceived stubbornness and missteps within the judiciary. Justice Liman’s repeated overreach and controversial rulings under Chief Justice Ariwoola’s weak and compromised leadership threaten to ignite further conflict, highlighting the urgent need for decisive intervention and comprehensive reform to restore judicial integrity and public trust.
As the case returns to court on June 14th, Justice Liman must exercise the utmost caution. In a typical and stable environment, facing such deep and tense controversies, a judge would likely consider recusing themselves to maintain impartiality. However, this is not the norm in Nigeria, and certainly not for Liman.
He needs to engage in profound self-reflection, considering the far-reaching implications of his actions and the potential for catastrophic outcomes. The Nigerian judiciary is already perceived as corrupt and inept, plagued by weak and inconsistent leadership. Judges must transcend political pressures and remember that their foremost duty is to serve the interests of the people and uphold the integrity of the nation. This critical self-awareness is essential to restore public trust and ensure that justice prevails in a system desperate for credibility and reform.
It is not far-fetched to predict that Justice Liman will land himself in serious trouble, given his pattern of controversial rulings and the mounting public outcry. His actions must strictly adhere to judicial ethics and prioritize the nation’s best interests to avoid further discrediting the judiciary and sparking public unrest and potential violence in a historically volatile region like Kano. President Tinubu and Attorney General Fagbemi must heed this urgent psychological counsel and act swiftly to prevent a catastrophic escalation. The stakes are too high, and the cost of inaction too great.
Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at Weldios University, Nexus International University, and Walden University. [email protected]