Reviewed by Chidi Anselm Odinkalu
Judicial autobiographies are often delicate projects, requiring a balance between candor and the mystique of high office. In Judging with Justice, Olukayode Ariwoola, former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), wrestles with this challenge, albeit with mixed results.
The memoir, ghostwritten by Olanrewaju Akinsola (popularly known as Onigegewura), spans 496 pages and is divided into 13 chapters. The first half recounts Ariwoola’s journey, from his modest beginnings in Iseyin to becoming Nigeria’s CJN, while the latter half is filled with glowing testimonials from colleagues and family. The narrative offers glimpses of his personal and professional life, including his health struggles, notably open-heart surgery in 2016, and his improbable rise through Nigeria’s judicial hierarchy.
While the author shares heartfelt anecdotes about his formative years, career milestones, and family, the book struggles to substantiate its lofty title. Ariwoola claims a long-held belief in judicial independence but offers scant evidence of this during his tenure as CJN. His assertion that the judiciary should not be an “appendage of the Executive or the Legislature” rings hollow, given his actions, including public appearances at politically charged events in Port Harcourt during the 2023 election season.
Ariwoola’s reflections on the Supreme Court as a “court of policy” lack depth, failing to illuminate how the court under his leadership advanced this philosophy. Notably, he takes pride in never dissenting during his 18 years on appellate benches—a puzzling boast in a judicial system where dissenting opinions often signify independent thought and intellectual rigor.
The book’s most glaring omissions lie in its silence on contentious issues during his tenure. Ariwoola celebrates achieving a full judicial establishment at the Supreme Court in 2024 and boasts of numerous judicial appointments. However, he omits that many of these appointments were steeped in nepotism. His son, daughter-in-law, and other relatives of influential figures—including the President of the Court of Appeal and his own predecessor—were among those appointed as judges. Such practices undermine his claim of appointing “credible, qualified, and people of proven integrity.”
The narrative is further undermined by Ariwoola’s tendency to cherry-pick achievements while ignoring critical questions about his leadership. For instance, he glosses over the judiciary’s perceived erosion of independence and public trust under his watch, presenting instead a sanitized account of his legacy.
Ultimately, Judging with Justice comes across as an exercise in self-promotion rather than introspection. The memoir misses an opportunity to critically examine the challenges facing Nigeria’s judiciary, opting instead for platitudes and selective memory. As Odinkalu aptly notes, a more fitting title might have been A Convenient Memory.
While the book offers some inspiring moments, particularly Ariwoola’s rise from humble beginnings, it leaves readers questioning the integrity of the system he presided over and the legacy he sought to defend.