I woke up this morning and Trump was on my mind. As I think of Trump and his second pursuit of the US presidency, Nigeria’s judiciary flashed through me. Across human history, no nation has EVER developed better than its legal system because the legal system drives the regime of property rights upon which wealth, commerce and markets stand upon.
In a speech before the Nigerian Society of Engineers last week, I made the point that if you look over 2,000 years of GDP, across nations, you cannot point to any country which advanced faster than its legal system. In other words, despite all the efforts to train and develop better engineers, for an innovation-economy to emerge, you still need to have a system which respects property rights, because that unlocks capital needed to combine factors of production into products and services.
You are a civil engineer and you have constructed a house. Then one bad person came and planted a grenade inside that house. And when he detonated it, the house crashed killing some residents. You are sued and convicted for bad work. You appealed, but lost. Then at the Supreme Court of Nigeria phase, your legal team was able to find a video which showed the planting of that grenade just hours before the explosion. But unfortunately for you, the Court does not allow you to introduce new evidence at this phase. With that, the conviction stands, and you are going to be locked up forever. Is that justice?
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
As I think of Trump, I imagine a Nigerian-equivalent who can challenge our current ordinances. Why can’t a higher court allow the introduction of new evidence? Sure, I am not a Trump voter (did not vote for him), but over the last few months, I tend to appreciate some of his views. Nigeria needs someone to shake things up because the ways some of our systems work will never allow PROGRESS.
Comment on Feed
In the UK, Nigeria benefitted with new evidence. “Putting into perspective the recent judgement in favour of Nigeria in the P&ID case in UK. The applleat court relied on new evidence provided by Nigeria counsels which were not presented to the lower court hence the judgement of 2017 was in favour of P&ID. In the appeal, Nigeria counsels submitted fresh evidence to prove there were corrupt practices which the trial judge relied upon to give his judgement saving Nigeria from payment of $11 billion.” – Charles Ochike
Largely, if this was a case in Nigeria, would our Supreme Court have allowed the introduction of the new evidence? Here, we are celebrating our win over P&ID because the UK Judge applied a principle which we may not even give to litigants in our land, easily.
Comment 1: What if Nigerian engineers (NSE) and business owners also take interest and lessons in law, and get to function in the legal system, doubling as legal luminaires?
Could this inject agility into the precincts of the system and the collective mode of reasoning?
My Response: That will not solve the problem since they will still operate on the current system. Having an engineer-turn-lawyer will not change the hypothetical case of the civil engineer I described above. The issue is not the players but the PROCESS and SYSTEM.
Comment 2: Such video would likely have been admitted by the Supreme Court as evidence as the video in the context of your phantom case, would meet the “special circumstances” requirement of the Supreme Court.
Of course your post and the phantom question was in relation to the Supreme Court’s non admission of the famour “Chicago deposition” with respect to the ruling of the Nigerian Presidential Election Petition Tribunal. Equating straightforward election petition issues to a phantom criminal matter seems rather far-fetched and an attempt to (again) mislead your young readers.
Lastly, every profession, including the engineering profession, and now finance profession that you belong to or practice, has its rules which are/should be well known by those in the profession. The Supreme Court’s rules on non-admittance of “fresh evidence” is a long standing rule that those who filed for the admission of the Chicago deposition are very well aware of.
There is certainly a need to shake many things up in the Judiciary. But it cannot be on faulty grounds like faulting the SC on its correct decision not to admit the Chicago deposition. The speech by rtd SCJ Dattijo, is a good place to start shaking things up at the highest level of the judiciary.
My Response: Leave politics out of this so that we can have a debate. I have tried to leave it out. Let us focus on the broad system and not what happened with Atiku and Tinubu. You wrote “The Supreme Court’s rules on non-admittance of “fresh evidence” is a long standing rule”. Why can’t someone provide evidence when it is available and do you think that is justice if that is the norm?
I am trying to understand why SC should not welcome new evidence. The US system does and how is the Nigerian system better?
I woke up this morning and Trump was on my mind. As I think of Trump and his second pursuit of the US presidency, Nigeria’s judiciary flashed through me. Across human history, no nation has EVER developed better than its legal system because the legal system drives the regime of… pic.twitter.com/P2XBtBOMXe
— Ndubuisi Ekekwe (@ndekekwe) October 29, 2023
Comment 3: I agree with you 100% except for the idea of imagining a Nigerian-equivalent of Trump. That personality will further deepen our problems as a nation. We need an individual with excellent character strength that can challenge our current ordinances like you rightly stated.
My Response: You need someone who does not take himself or herself seriously. Nigeria won the P & ID case in the UK with new evidence, but our legal system does not typically allow that. A gentle person may not fix the mess. Trump is not my type of guy and I do think he does not care that much about certain things; Nigeria needs someone like him as our systems are supremely terrible!
Comment 4: As a matter of fact, there is no appellant court anywhere in the world that admits any evidence that existed when the initial case was being decided (
My Response: “As a matter of fact, there is no appellant court anywhere in the world that admits any evidence that existed when the initial case was being decided” P&ID vs Nigeria in the UK. That Nigeria had corrupt workers existed before the 2017 decision. But when that was presented later in the appeal, the judge included that new evidence to give Nigeria victory. Of course, we the commoners may be wrong in our understanding. The Court voided the old verdict because P&ID did not disclose that it corrupted some Nigerians.
My Response:Just make your point without personal attack. I never like how you write here. You can write without personal attack to me. You show so much bitterness and unhappiness when you comment here. Why not educate us and stop always attaching me and my tribe? Nigeria won a case over $11B because new evidence was allowed in UK, but in Nigeria that is not always possible. I am asking which is better?
Again, this is not about Atiku, Tinubu, etc. I have no interest in that. I want evidence on a broad matter of the law.
---
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA (Feb 10 - May 3, 2025), and join Prof Ndubuisi Ekekwe and our global faculty; click here.
Do Nigerians really look like people who want a better country? Even on LinkedIn, you have lots of people who will join you in talking about all the things that are seemingly wrong with Nigeria, but once your post is perceived as touching on their own person or allegiance, they deviate immediately. What exactly does justice look like in the Nigerian context? It’s a society deeply in love with oppression at every level, whether it’s your neighbour, school mate or colleagues, there’s that element of wanting to show that you are winning while others are losing.
The Supreme Court has the discretion to accept or reject fresh evidence, the question now is, who or what determines when it should accept or reject? The credibility of this question is rested on whether the justices actually ruled based on strict application of the law, their honest opinion, or outside inducements? If the third option was the case, then it’s a pure waste of time debating for or against, because there’s no remedy to judicial corruption, other than throwing everyone away.
We are building on a very faulty and corrupt foundation, but somewhat wishing for the best, it will never happen. Nobody has ever built successfully on falsehood, the disgrace will be loud.