At a time when the Hall is shifting attention to judiciary as an alternative way of enforcing law and order, perhaps it is the right moment to resurface the issue of Zik Hall’s Judicial Council and its needlessness.
This is definitely not an issue on the relevance of the judiciary in determining political aspirations nor is it to raise dust on the touchy rumours of judicial compromises at the highest level. This goes to the very root, and frankly raises the question, what is the judiciary’s role in the student-based administration of Zikites?
In reality, a non-functioning Judicial Council will hardly raise anyone’s eyebrows. With due respect to the hallowed Judicial Council, its existence is of little to no relevance to the successful administration of the hall.
If this assertion comes across as unsettling perhaps the Council’s inconsequential history will put matters to rest. Ever since its creation about 5 years ago, the Council has entertained only 3 cases and merely thrashed the preliminary aspects of it without venturing into its substance. For instance, last session, the Council convened for just two cases, both brought forward by the then Attorney General, now Chief Justice. In one instance, the Attorney General filed a nolle prosequi—indicating the decision to drop the case—because key witnesses were unavailable, rendering the matter moot. There are a lot of issues in Zik that affects how often cases are being litigated. Zikites refuse to report their fellow Zikites due to their own interpretive version of “togetherness, oneness and brotherhood”, same as why Zikites refuse to testify against their fellow Zikites.
But of course, any 100 level law student can quickly interject to say it is a trite principle of law that the Judiciary should not engage in soliciting its cases. True.
But how about a broader picture of a student body where Judicial intervention at the student level has never been warranted? How about the fact that students in halls of residence are simply not litigious and students would hardly consider approaching a student-run Judicial Council to adjudicate over their disputes?
Again, how about the fact that there are existing mechanisms for dispute resolution within the hall by Porters and the hall management? Judging from the only case that was heard by the Council which involved several paper works and compliance with complex court processes which even the average law student still grapples with, there is clearly little to be benefitted from having a Judicial Council. The little being CV prospects, a certificate of (non) service, and smiling portraits at the back of the books given as hall packages.
If it is so compelling to institutionalize a Judicial Council in Zik Hall then it would be practical to have a less-rigid system that allows a flexible process of adjudication. Such system will facilitate easy access to the judiciary and fast-track cases.
No hassle of looking for a half-baked lawyer for legal representation, no qualms about filing court processes that little is known about, and nothing of a prolonged process of ratification that only serves as a legislative burden.
It might be fancy to have a representation of the three arms of government in our coveted community but necessity should remain the mother of invention, and a Judicial Council in Zik Hall does not cut across as a necessity.
ALL CORREPONDENCE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE OFFICE OF THE EDITOR @ 07032350937