Finally, respondents were asked about their expectations of other community members in relation to judicial corruption. A significant gap emerged between what people believed themselves about judicial corruption and what they thought others in their community believed. Respondents, on average, thought that 3.5 out of 10 people would approve, but survey data showed the real number to be only 1 in 10 (see Figure 2). The gap between these two numbers points to a potential opportunity for public information campaigns and community dialogue led by trustworthy individuals to correct such misperceptions.
This kind of misperception is in line with a general phenomenon termed ‘pluralistic ignorance’, which the SNAG project has previously found when bribery is either commonplace or perceived to be common. ‘Pluralistic ignorance’ is characterized by the mistaken belief of individuals that their personal views are different to those held by the broader public, even when their public behaviour aligns with that of the majority. This gap between individual perceptions and the true beliefs of others creates a situation where most people personally reject corrupt behaviour but fear the consequences of taking action to prevent it – a public disapproval/collective action gap. This fear can then prevent communities from taking the collective action necessary to combat corrupt practices, as people assume they do not have allies to cooperate with or that they will face criticism for expressing their views. Even in a scenario where action would be in keeping with societal beliefs that are widely accepted – e.g. that courts should be impartial or public funds should be used accountably – individuals perceive little incentive to act against corruption due to these fears over the disapproval or discouragement of others.
Changing social norms around judicial corruption
Disciplinary action against judges, anywhere in the world, is complex and sensitive. In Nigeria, the complexity and sensitivity are further heightened by a combination of sociopolitical factors including a high degree of political interference and financial inducement; a contested relationship between the executive and judiciary; a lack of transparency and meritocracy in the appointment and elevation of judges to higher courts; and a culture of lobbying for position among judges. Top-down disciplinary measures and regulatory reforms aimed at addressing these issues have largely failed thus far.
Judges are influenced by social pressures to acquire and display material status symbols to reflect their career success and elevated social status.
It is therefore important for reformers to acknowledge informal social norms and drivers that may contribute to the persistence of judicial corruption. Judges are not immune to the behavioural influences brought about by the endemic nature of corruption in Nigeria – a situation exacerbated by the relatively low risk of disciplinary consequences for judicial officials engaging in corrupt practices. Judges are also influenced by social pressures to acquire and display material status symbols to reflect their career success and elevated social status. The internally tight-knit and exclusionary nature of judicial networks, which generates pressure to keep malpractice hidden, means that honest judges risk professional consequences (e.g. being overlooked for promotion or transfer) for refusing to accept inducement for judgments.
While judicial networks are not isolated from society, they are inward-looking, politically protected and elevated to a high status within society. A social norms-based approach to tackling this situation would need to be buttressed by further research interrogating the in-group norms influencing judicial behaviour, which could then inform targeted action to change the social pressures active in the judiciary. This action would need to be supported by stringent disciplinary and social sanctions, such as shaming by their community when complaints of judicial bribery are upheld, to change both internal and social perceptions that there are no consequences for judicial misconduct. Communal shaming would also be more potent when the gap between individual and community beliefs on bribe-taking by judges is exposed and more people realize the extent of popular disapproval of the practice.
Finally, a broader challenge of judicial anti-corruption reform in Nigeria lies in addressing national and local realities in a way that encompasses the entire chain of justice – including lawyers, the police, prosecutors and all agencies responsible for enforcing judicial decisions. An even greater challenge is for judicial reform to be backed by sustained political will on the part of officials (while still upholding the separation of powers between executive and judiciary), and at the same time maintaining continual oversight and scrutiny through mechanisms such as annual audits of court accounts and social audits of courts.
