The evolution of authoritarian processes: Fostering cooperation in large-scale groups

Authoritarianism, comprising conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression, is an important factor underlying prejudice and social discrimination and therefore is typically perceived as socially problematic. In contrast, our work examines adaptive features of authoritarianism. Evolutionary game theoretical considerations (e.g., biased social learning) point to authoritarian psychological processes that establish and foster group life (e.g., high levels of ingroup cooperation). First, the evolution of social learning (particularly conformist and prestige biases) leads to the establishment of local and distinct cultural groups (conventionalism). Second, local cultural rules solve coordination dilemmas by transforming these rules into normative standards against which others are evaluated (authoritarian submission). Third, the common rules within a particular culture or group are reinforced by a tendency to reward norm compliance and punish norm deviations (authoritarian aggression). Implications regarding the deduction of novel research questions as well as dealing with authoritarianism as a social problem are discussed.

'Rule of Law and Politics of Anti-Corruption Campaigns in a Post-Authoritarian State- The Nigerian Case'

This article evaluates the anti-corruption campaign instituted in Nigeria following on the post-authoritarian transition in the country, with specific focus on political corruption. The anti-corruption campaign is being prosecuted within a context where law is as critical a factor as politics. This article examines whether the judiciary, in view of its accountability deficit, can offer legitimacy to the campaign. How has its questionable credentials impacted on its involvement in the campaign to sanitise public life? What has been the impact of the judicial role on the rule of law? These are some of the important questions this article seeks to answer. The inquiry in this article demonstrates how the guardian institution of the rule of law faces an uphill task in the performance of that role in a post-authoritarian context.

‘The Judiciary and Political Change in Africa: Developing Transitional Jurisprudence in Nigeria’

At a time of increased evaluations of law, human rights, and the rise of judicial power all over the globe, the work of most African judiciaries and the principles of the jurisprudence they espouse in promoting social justice remain an unlikely focus of comparative legal scholarship. This ought not to be so in view of the considerable activities of the courts on the continent in the dawn of the third wave of democratization. This article explores the work of the Nigerian Supreme Court in the political transition to democracy since 1999. Utilizing insights from the work of Ruti Teitel, it attempts to outline some of the major constitutional and extraconstitutional principles adopted by the Court in mediating intergovernmental contestations in the turbulent transition away from almost three decades of authoritarian military rule. It emerges that the task of fostering social transformation through the “weakest” branch seriously tasks the institutional integrity of the judiciary.

'Robes on Tight Ropes: The Judicialisation of Politics in Nigeria'

This account of judicialised politics in the Nigerian transition experience examines the regulation of the judiciary of the political space, through the resolution of intergovernmental contestations in a dysfunctional federation. It analyses the judicialisation of elite power disputes which have resonance for due process and the rule of law in particular and governance in general. A study of the role of the judiciary in stabilising the country, itself a pivot in the West Africa region in particular and Africa in general, is important. This is especially in view of its classification as a ‘weak state,’ despite its enormous human and natural resources. The analyses here suggest the Supreme Court has taken a strategic position in the task of democratic institutional building and the reinstitution of the rule of law in the country. This strategic measure has received the acclaim of the public. However, the account also discloses that the judiciary, in the course of its numerous interventions, has been drawn into overly political disputes that overreach its jurisprudential preferences. Of even more significance, it demonstrates that the judiciary is itself still challenged by institutional dysfunctions constituting part of the legacies of the authoritarian era. The situation leads back to the need for closer scrutiny of the judicial function in transitional societies.

'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.

'The Judiciary and Constitutionalism in Transitions: A Critique'

The article critically analyses the role of the Nigerian courts in mediating resultant tensions in the post-authoritarian transition period. In doing this, I examine jurisprudence emanating from the courts on some serious inter-governmental disputes, as well as decisions bordering on individual and group rights, particularly those connected to the transition process. The dynamics of democratic transition in Nigeria after decades of military rule dictates the inevitability of these disputes. The military left a legacy of systemic distortion and institutional dysfunctions which constitute formidable challenges to the transitioning society. The article argues a case for a purposive jurisprudential approach to resolving the ensuing tensions which typically threaten the viability of the transition.