Marriage, in my view, is one of those traditions that can
best be described as a truly awful charade based on skewed horse-trading. Don’t
get me wrong, I have a deep respect for married couples and their union; one that
is borne out of real fear for their mental health, yes, but a respect
nonetheless. I even find the commercial
wedding shows on television mildly entertaining, even if it’s from a sadistic
view point. But really, the bottom line is that marriages is one of those
decisions people make, and then later find justification for it.
What could possibly be wrong with such a formula you ask?
Well it’s simple. A rational, logical
and sensible decision is part of a THINKING process; one that involves weighing
and discarding the merits and demerits of the situation presented, comparing
all possible outcomes and naturally discarding fallacious reasoning. A rational
decision is based on factual evidence, and precedents that are applicable. A
rational decision applies logical and established processes to come to a final
conclusion.
A decision to get married is rarely based on logic. In
fact, if people were rational about marriage, no one would get married. When
people decide to get married they make an emotional decision first, stick to
their decision, and then later find justification for their emotional
decisions. Even years later, when the emotions have run dry or changed, the
justification is the sole comforting factor that married couples can always
lean on.
Making a decision, an unanimous one, and then seeking
justification for it, is an indication that a lack of rationale was behind that
decision making. When the Supreme Court
came back with a 6-0 bench decision on the presidential petition filed by Raila
Odinga in late March, and with no further statement on how they came to such a
ruling, it was a chilling indicator that a jurical rationale may actually be
missing from their ruling.
So when their ruling was released to the public this
week, filled with logical fallacies I was not really surprised. After all, what
happened in late March was an announcement of an engagement – you ever see a
couple together and think what does HE see in HER? Or vice versa? The announcement in March had that same
dumbfounding effect on all of us.
I personally was stunned. Well, not so much stunned as
shocked at the unanimity of the decision. Of course I could see the early trend
and tendency in the Chief Justice to be a judicial toddler unaware of his
responsibilities to the nation and incapable of comprehending the law remotely
well enough to even be considered a jurist. That has always been the case since
Dr. Willy Mutunga announced cheerily that his earring helps him communicate
with his gods during the vetting by the CIOC.
What shocked me is that somehow, we actually appointed 5
other judges with the same infantile approach to judicial matters!
This explains the blank stares and absent smiles on their
faces during the hearing of the petitions. I thought they were as bored as I
was listening to the redundant overtures of false humility rent by Kethi
Kilonzo; “My lords, I humbly this, I humbly that.”
But no, it was not sweet Kethi’s court room mannerisms
that were getting to the bench. They had blank stares on their faces because
there is a blank space behind those eyes.
This click of 6 judicial tots, not a single jurist
between them, went into a boardroom and made a decision to uphold the results
of the election, having applied neither rationale nor legal basis and then 2
weeks later, having taken the time to dig up some storyline, present what can
only be described as a “justificatory assent.”
A legal acquaintance, Emmanuel Essaidah, put it best –
“My favorite legal scholar, Ronald Dworkin, in his book, ‘Justice in Robes’ describes
the problem of “justificatory assent” as
the realization that a principle we are relying on is ‘inconsistent with…some
other principle that we must rely on to justify some other and larger part of
the law’. You can see this particular problem loom large all over the Supreme
Court judgment. The Judges claim to recognize that an election case isn’t a
criminal case, yet they realize they must rely on a criminal standard of proof
(proof beyond reasonable doubt) to achieve a pre-conceived result. They claim that
transparency is crucial, yet they rely on the principle of discretion to afford
the IEBC the right to do things behind closed doors. Go figure.”
Are you as baffled as I am at this? Where did we go
wrong, pray tell, as a nation such that we can churn out such skewed minds and
put them in such seats of power as the Supreme Court?
What an awful charade this Supreme Court has become, a
place where justice is swept neatly under reasonably good English yet
ridiculous references to totally irrelevant cases from the Nigerian Supreme
Court.
I guess some 6 people are in love or something, there is
no other way to explain the lack of judicial rationale in their ruling. It’s
obvious that the unanimous decision in March was a pre-conceived outcome, that
had little basis on the law, and then 2 weeks later the ruling is forced to
express itself in the most fallacious manner, causing even the least developed
legal mind to be completely irritated.
Just like the awful marriage idea that some people get in
their youth, 10 years of wedded hell and 3 children later at their anniversary,
the couple smiles banally at their guests and behind those blank faces is a
blank mind that repeatedly screams “I hate this person!”; we as a republic will
surely find ourselves regretting, in fact deeply regretting this Supreme Court
ruling for the precedent it has set.
No comments:
Post a Comment