'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.

Accountability and Value for Money in Private Finance Initiative Contracts

Within the context of New Public Management (NPM), successive UK governments have claimed that PFI projects provide more accountability, and arguably, more value for money (VFM) than conventional procurement for the public (HM Treasury 1995, 2000, 2003a and 2003b). However, recent empirical research in the UK on PFI has indicated its potential limitations for accountability and VFM (Broadbent, Gill and Laughlin, 2004; Edwards, Shaoul, Stafford and Arblaster, 2004; Shaoul, 2005; and Ismail and Pendlebury, 2006) albeit these are based on either published accounts or a limited number of key stakeholders. This paper attempts to partially redress this gap in the literature by presenting an interesting case of the impact of PFI on accountability and VFM in Northern Ireland's education sector. The findings of this research, based on forty two interviews with a wide range of key stakeholders, suggest that stakeholders have different and often conflicting expectations and the actual PFI accountability and VFM benefits are much more obfuscated than those claimed in Government publications.

Rethinking Amnesties: Atrocity, Accountability And Impunity In Post-Conflict Societies.

The notion of accountability that is propagated in transitional justice often appears limited to demands for the prosecution and imprisonment of those who have been involved in serious human rights violations. Amnesties, widely understood as the absence of punishment for wrongdoing, are in turn considered by many scholars and activists as an example par excellence of the kind of Faustian pacts which are made in the name of political expediency in transitions from conflict. Drawing from a range of interdisciplinary literature, as well as research completed by the authors in a number of societies with a violent past, this paper uses amnesties as a case-study to argue for a more rounded interrogation of the notion of accountability in transitional justice. The paper charts the various forms of intersecting accountability which both shape and delimit amnesties at key ‘moments’ concerning their remit, introduction and operation. The paper concludes that the legalistic view of amnesties as equating to impunity and retribution as accountability is inaccurate and misleading. It argues that a broader perspective of accountability speaks directly to the capacity for amnesties to play a more constructive role in post conflict justice and peacemaking.

Public Accountability: a critical approach

'Public Accountability' has been variously described as, for example, Chameleon-like, as everexpanding and as an iconic concept. Public accountability (PA) is a contested but fundamental concept in the structure of contemporary public services. However, much of the existing literature on PA can be seen as reductionist or managerialist. The experiences of public service-users rarely feature and certainly not in the context as a potential agent for change. A second related strand concerns the introduction of New Public Management (NPM) models, and their impact on accountability in the public sector. A central line of argument is that to overcome the reductionist approaches researchers need to place their work in the broad context of these changes. To that end, this paper sets out a critical conceptualisation of 'public accountability', where it is seen as a dynamic social relationship through which civil society seeks to control and challenge the state. This critical PA conceptualisation is then applied to the context of Social Housing in England. The analysis highlights key changes in the structure of accountability relationships, but also stresses the opposition that the reforms have generated. Finally, the conclusion draws links to the debates in the anti-capitalist movement as providing a source of possible research projects.