'Democratic Transition, Judicial Accountability and Judicialisation of Politics in Africa: The Nigerian Experience'

Purpose – This paper aims to examine the growing incidence of judicialisation of politics in Nigeria’s democratisation experience against the backdrop of questionable judicial accountability. Design/methodology/approach – The article draws on legal and political theory as well as comparative law perspectives. Findings – The judiciary faces a daunting task in deepening democracy and (re) instituting the rule of law. The formidable challenges derive in part from structural problems within the judiciary, deficient accountability credentials and the complexities of a troubled transition. Practical implications – Effective judicial mediation of political transition requires a transformed and accountable judiciary. Originality/value – The article calls attention to the need for judicial accountability as a cardinal and integral part of political transitions. Keywords Democracy, Politics, Law, Nigeria, Africa Paper type Viewpoint

'Calling the Judiciary to Account for the Past: Transitional Justice and Judicial Accountability in Nigeria'

Institutional and individual accountability is an important feature of societies in transition from conflict or authoritarian rule. The imperative of accountability has both normative and transformational underpinnings in the context of restoration of the rule of law and democracy. This article argues a case for extending the purview of truth-telling processes to the judiciary in postauthoritarian contexts. The driving force behind the inquiry is the proposition that the judiciary as the third arm of government at all times participates in governance. To contextualize the argument, I focus on judicial governance and accountability within the paradigm of Nigeria’s transition to democracy after decades of authoritarian military rule.

Absent Witnesses and the U.K. Supreme Court: Judicial Deference as Judicial Dialogue?

This article analyses the position of absent witness evidence under the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003 after significant European and domestic case law on the topic. It argues that flexibility in the hearsay regime under the 2003 Act and a permissive approach by appellate courts has increased the potential for fair trial violations in recent years. Moreover, the UK Supreme Court decision in R v Horncastle preserves domestic courts’ authority to determine the meaning of European rights and selectively defer to Parliament. This area of the law demonstrates the scope that the domestic system retains for divergence from European standards.