There is no law stopping the Department of State Sevices (DSS) from arraigning judges, who have not been suspended by the National Judicial Council (NJC), lawyers said yesterday.
They stated that the NJC’s disciplinary process was neither superior to, nor the same as arraignment of a judicial officer by a law enforcement agency.
The lawyers included Chief Ganiyu Adetola-Kaseem (SAN); former chairman, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch Yinka Farounbi; member, Ogun State Judiciary Service Commission Abayomi Omoyinmi; former welfare officer NBA Ikeja Branch Samson Omodara and Lagos lawyer Ugochukwu Ukamba.
They argued that notwithstanding presumption of innocence in the judges’ favour, they could not rely on the NJC’s refusal to suspend them to avoid prosecution by a law enforcement agency.
But Dr. Paul Ananaba (SAN) mulled over the practicability of arraigning sitting judicial officers in courts where the judges are supervised by the NJC.
The NJC at its meeting in Abuja last week insisted that the DSS must follow due process in its handling of allegations against the judges.
Of the nine judges, six are not the subject of any disciplinary procedures at the NJC while three had been recommended for suspension by the NJC for misconduct.
The two Supreme Court Justices – Justices Sylvester Ngwuta and Inyang Okoro – who were among those arrested and amitted to administrative bail by the DSS, have gone back to their duty posts.
Those under investigation, besides the duo, are the suspended Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya; Justice Adeniyi Ademola (Federal High Court); suspended Chief Judge of Enugu State, Justice I. A. Umezulike; suspended Justice Kabiru Auta of Kano State High Court; Justice Muazu Pindiga (Gombe State High Court); Justice Bashir Sukola and Justice Ladan Manir of the Kaduna State High Court.
Adetola-Kaseem said the initiation of a disciplinary process by or before an employer or a supervisory authority and arraignment before a court for a criminal complaint ”are two distinct processes”.
He added: “Therefore, the latter can be go on before disciplinary process is initiated. Once a suspect has been successfully arraigned, depending on the nature of the offence allegedly committed, disciplinary process can be commenced against him, at least for the purpose of placing him on interdiction or suspension pending the determination of the criminal charge against him.
“This is the principle in the public service which I believe also applies to judicial service.
“Applying this principle to the case of the judges, I believe that if they have sufficient materials upon which to ground a charge or charges, the DSS, through appropriate prosecution agency, can arraign any of the judges even before any disciplinary process is commenced against such a judge or judges.”
Ananaba said he “completely” agreed that corruption must be fought and that “any judge that is corrupt must not be allowed to sit” and should face disciplinary proceedings but that the DSS should follow due process.
“I believe that the DSS will read the NJC’s response and comply with it. I believe the DSS has a legal department which, along with the Office of the Attorney-General, will weigh into this matter and ensure that it follows the NJC’s response.
“The NJC’s creation and powers are constitutional and not by an Act of Parliament, so it takes eminence over any agency, in this instance.
”Which courts are you going to arraign them? Are they not courts where the judges are supervised by the NJC?”
Farounbi said the planned trial of the judges had become a matter of public interest and “it is therefore a welcome development that they are going to be formally charged.”
”The implication of this is that it will enable the DSS convince the public that its act is patriotic and afford the justices and judges to prove their presumed innocence”, he stated.
Omoyinmi found nothing wrong in the planned arraignment.
He said: “The arraignment of anyone accused of corruption is a normal procedure in our criminal litigation regardless of status attributed to such individuals.”
“No one is above the law; the DSS can arraign the judges that allegations of corruption have been alleged against. There is no law or rules of practice that suggest that the judges must first be suspended before they can be tried.”
Omodara, who “did not totally agree with the modus operandi of the DSS,” stated that although it was unusual, judges will not be immune from prosecution if evidence of corruption against them is found.
“Though unconventional in the history of the legal profession to see judges arraigned particularly as it relates to corruption, they are not immune to such if actually there is prima facie evidence against such judges.