It is difficult to predict what historians will say of this age. Will they say it is the age of the politician, in which case they would say we should not blame the law, and that the law was only at their beck and call? Not their muse, but their mule.

Shall we say it is an age of the law, in which the merchants of technicality take precedence over the spirit? Or shall we applaud the cunning and fervour of the justices, for making themselves the definers of the people’s choice because the people cannot decide for themselves? Shall we say, this trinity is the albatross of democracy? Or shall we conclude that we have never had a democracy but a sham in glorious frock, and we have more of a republic than democracy, by which we mean we have handed over the will of the people to a coterie of individuals?

That is what the democracy by courts has shed on us all. I call it courtocracy, which is a government of the people for the judges and by the judges. Lincoln would wince in his grave because a certain country in the depth of Africa has sniffed at his definition of democracy as the government of the people, for the people and by the people. The former United States president prayed that it should not “perish from the earth.” We should pray that we are able to revive it from what seems to be a mortal mockery into which the Supreme Court is turning political justice.

It is not whether PDP should not be happy today that it won the seat of governor back after the Odili-led verdict. It is whether APC should have rejoiced in Kogi States about four years ago when Yahaya Bello climbed the throne alone. The courts did not say his was not a joint ticket then. Now, the Supreme Court imposes its intelligence that David Lyon cannot go it alone. Maybe the courts saw the deputy of Yahaya Bello then. We didn’t. We were blind like the Justice maiden. The deputy was a spirit, without flesh, blood and bones then. He materialised later when Bello eventually picked him. The justices saw the spirit of the law when we were looking for the flesh of the deputy beside Bello.

Was it not the same Supreme Court that ruled once, in the case of Rotimi Amaechi vs Omeihe, that voters did not cast their lots for individuals on the ticket but for political parties? So, if that is the case, why was it possible for Audu to die and Faleke not take over as governor in Kogi State? It was Audu who died and not the APC. Audu was not on the ballot box as the court ruled in the Rivers State saga. Why couldn’t the Supreme Court have nullified the inconclusiveness of the election by INEC and declared Faleke governor with his spirit of a deputy? After all, Audu, being dead, was now spirit. And only a spirit could have taken over from a spirit as in the case of Bello later.

Going back, did we not remember the story of Atiku Abubakar who was thrust to the high seat of vice president by the Owu Chief? And had he not won the seat of governor at Adamawa State? Did his deputy, Boni Haruna, not joyfully and without a scent of controversy take over?

So, if it’s a case of a spiritual Supreme Court, we can forgive them for seeing the spirit of Bello’s deputy in Kogi. Did it now go carnal in the case of David Lyon? They did not only see the flesh, they also saw the sins of the deputy.

Now, we cannot in any way excuse the sloppiness of the APC screening committee that did not see that one person had a different name in primary school, another in secondary school, another in the university and another as a politician. This serial self-naming could have raised highbrows. A harlot of self-identity cannot be ordinary. The man got away with it in the senate, so he and his backers thought he could get away with it again. They probably thought they could get away with the impunity the Nigerian style? This time it is a story of “cunning man die, cunning man bury am.” A crooked politician often knows the crookedness of his rival. If you don’t watch your back, you will fall. David Lyon will probably be lamenting the woes brought on him by the footloose plotting of his party. In pidgin English, we say, “e take his own take spoil my own.” Unlike Lot’s wife, the deputy didn’t turn into a pillar of salt. He didn’t look back but forward to perdition.

Diri now wears the crown, and in this climate the PDP is reaping where it did not sow. It is just like Kogi in APC.

Some observers also think if Lyon’s deputy had his papers right, the judges might have found some other excuse to give it away to the PDP. That is how the Supreme Court is suspected by many in the Nigerian civil society.

In Bayelsa, all the votes that went to APC were cast by the people, unless there is evidence to the contrary. That has not been asserted, so we take it for granted that all those votes that went to Lyon came from the people. They saw Diri before they cast it for Lyon. Now, because of a candidate’s carelessness, the minority becomes the majority. This calls to mind the poem by Bertolt Brecht, asking us whether we should dissolve the people and elect another one? The courts dissolved the people who cast the majority votes. That is why democracy itself was overtaken by the republic, but not in the classic definition of the republic, which consists in representatives.

In this case, the people vote, the justices decide. Some have asserted that sometimes it depends on what sort of justices are empaneled for a case. It does not matter the merit. That is dangerous. Some say that is why quite a few justices have been de-benched. We go into the territory of corruption.

That accounted for why some have argued that the Supreme Court is playing a balancing act, a verdict for APC here, another for PDP there. One to Imo State, the other to Bayelsa State. If that’s the case, it is not balancing, it is pandering. Justice in this light is mere judgment. It makes the Supreme Court not a place for final judgment, but judgment finale. It is the last act as ritual, not as justice. It becomes a temple of law, not a cathedral of justice. After all, as this essayist has noted before, Thoreau lamented that “the law never made anyone a whit more just.”

It is often asserted that the court is no father Christmas. It is sometimes an excuse by justices to deny a society justice. The late Gani Fawehinmi knew this, hence he told me once that if there is a case between a rich and poor man, he would find the law for the poor. The law is often a blank slate, and it depends on who is reading and interpreting it. A good judge will turn it to social justice, and another to a tyrannical cause. They should observe what Jesus said about lawyers who have taken away the key of knowledge. They would not open the door to enter and would not let the people in. That is why justice and the law are at the mercy of the courts.