Separation of powers among the three arms of government

From the address delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the Unity Party of Nigeria, to the Second Annual Conference of the Oyo State Branch of the UPN on Saturday, 8th November, 1980.

CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK

We must get it quite clear in our minds that, of the three organs, the Judiciary is sui generis. In a democratic society, the Judiciary is the fountain from which the preservation of law and order flows: for wherever there is no justice, anarchy and self-redress tend to prevail. The Judiciary is the adjudicator in all matters that may be brought before it, be they between individuals, between individual and Government at any level, or between Government and Government. It has a bounded duty, if so called upon, to declare, in no uncertain or ambiguous terms, against any legislative or executive abuse, misuse, or excessive use of power, and also against any violation of the law by any individual or Government or organ of Government or its agency. In its role as outlined, the Judiciary is not expected, under the Constitution, to collaborate with any of the other two organs. Indeed, it is expected to be detached, independent, impartial, honest, and absolutely fearless in the discharge of its duties which are universally held to be grave and sacred. Whether the Judiciary in Nigeria, with particular reference to the Supreme Court as at present composed, can be said to be or capable of being independent, honest, impartial and fearless in the discharge of its sacred and hollowed duties is another matter on which I propose to speak at some length next December. IN THE MEANTIME, HOWEVER, I MUST SAY THAT, SO FAR, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BENCH BELOW THE SUPREME COURT ARE UPHOLDING THE BEST JUDICIAL TRADITIONS, WITH CREDIT TO THEIR SECTION OF THE BENCH, AND CONSEQUENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO PEACE AND ORDER IN OUR SOCIETY.

Whilst the Judiciary must be detached and independent from the other two organs, and be manifestly seen to be so, the Legislature and the Executive must work in close and harmonious collaboration with each other if the welfare of the people is to be truly and effectively served.

READ ALSO: Relevance of separation of powers and its application to Nigeria (2)

It is the sole responsibility of the Executive to govern and administer the territory under its charge for the benefit of the people therein. To this end, it must initiate policies and programmes and mobilise all the means at its disposal for their implementation and execution. In discharging its responsibilities, the Executive acts in its unfettered discretion, but within the bounds circumscribed by the Constitution. If it exceeds those bounds or infringes the law, and there is complaint to that effect, the Judiciary must so pronounce with a view to curbing the excess or infraction complained of.

On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the Legislature to give legally-binding effect and authority to the policies and programmes of the Executive, whenever called upon to do so by the latter. In the exercise of this function, the Legislature has to satisfy itself, in its own independent judgement, that any given policy or programme is in the best interests of the people, and intra vires its constitutional powers. Once in a while, on the motion of one or more of its Members, the Legislature may make laws which will have the effect of laying down policies and programmes which the Executive would be bound to implement and execute. In the discharge of its duties, if the Legislature exceeds its bounds, the judiciary may be called upon to adjudicate.

It is quite clear that the objective of the legislature and the executive are one and the same – to promote and serve the best interests of the people. If they work at cross-purposes or refuse to cooperate and collaborate with each other, the interests of the people would be seriously endangered. This point is reinforced or the ground of plain common sense. When two persons or agencies are charged with joint responsibility to achieve a common objective, the two of them must co-operate harmoniously with each other. In the pursuit of their common objective, the two of them must constantly seek a consensus, or, in the event of disagreement, one of the two must be allowed to have the last say. If each of the two, in the absence of consensus, claims the right of last say, then, the common objective will either be unattainable or be very slow of attainment.

CONTINUES NEXT WEEK