The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Chief Justice

  • House of Reps confronts Senate, Chief Justice over protocol status

    House of Reps confronts Senate, Chief Justice over protocol status

    • Passed motion: House not subservient to Senate

    • Speaker is equal to Senate President, higher than CJN

    • ‘Upgrade Speaker’s CFR to GCON like SP, CJN’

    The harmonious working relationship between the two chambers of the National Assembly is threatened by yesterday’s motion on equality with the Senate, passed by the House of Representatives.

    The Green Chamber faulted the award of national honour to Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, higher than the one awarded to Speaker Abbas Tajudeen.

    They argued that the speaker is higher than the CJN in order of state protocol.

    President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in his Independence Day broadcast awarded the second highest national honour – Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON) – to Chief Justice Kekere-Ekun and Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

    The third highest national honour – Commander of the Order of the Federal Republic (CFR) – was awarded to Speaker Tajudeen.

    The House said the Speaker’s honour should be upgraded to GCON which befits his status as “co-chairman” of the National Assembly.

    It faulted the description of the Senate President as the Chairman of the National Assembly.

    In a resolution following a motion of urgent importance by Phillip Agbese (APC, Benue), the House said while the office of the Speaker is higher in rank than that of the CJN, it shares the same status with the Senate President.

    It therefore sees no reason for the Speaker to get a lesser title than what was given to the Senate President and the CJN.

    The motion was seconded by Abubakar Makki Yalleman (APC, Jigawa).

    Before its adoption, the House added an amendment to call on the President to upgrade the Speaker’s honour to GCON.

    It set up a committee to interface with the Minister of Special Duties and Inter-governmental Affairs, Zaphaniah Jisalo, whose ministry is in charge of the national honours.

    Read Also: Memo to CJN Kekere-Ekun

    Contributing to the motion, Sada Soli (APC, Katsina) said the House was subjected to a similar award during the Ninth Assembly when the former Speaker and now Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, was given the CFR title which the House initially resolved to reject, but chose the path of dialogue.

    He said the House should liaise with Jisalo who is a former member to ensure that the “anomaly is resolved”.

    According to him, the current position has made the House subservient to the Senate.

    Babajimi Benson (APC, Lagos) said the reason for the motion is to put democracy on the right track, adding that “injustice to one is injustice is to all”.

    He said: “This has gone on for far too long. When the order of protocol is being read, the Speaker comes before the CJN. How come the CJN is getting the GCON while the Speaker is getting CFR? This lacuna should be investigated.”

    Former Deputy Speaker Idris Wase reiterated that the House initially wanted to reject the CFR title given to the last Speaker, but chose to be diplomatic in handling the issue while expressing surprise that “the same error was repeating itself”.

    He said: “We are not subservient to any arm of government. We have equal rights with the Senate.

    “In the Ninth Assembly, we discussed and agreed to return the CFR title to the government and we expected that error to be corrected.

    “We need to write officially as an institution to the person in charge of the National Honours.

    “It is handled by a group headed by the Minister for Special Duties. We are not in competition with anybody, but we want to be given our right place”.

    The House resolved to call attention to what it called the “ongoing discriminatory practice” of referring to the Senate as the “upper chamber” and the House of Representatives as the “lower chamber,” as well as “portraying the Speaker as subordinate to the President of the Senate”.

    It said that such references undermine the equal status of both chambers as established by the Constitution and diminish the standing of the House in the legislative process.

    It affirmed that the House is an independent and equal chamber of the National Assembly, and the Speaker is a co-head of the legislative arm of government alongside the Senate President.

    The House also resolved that the Speaker be regarded as co-chairman of the National Assembly in all respects, and requested that all references to the leadership of the National Assembly reflect this equality.

    It called on all government institutions, officials, and the media to take cognisance of language and titles that suggest a hierarchical structure between the Senate and the House or their respective leaders.

    It called on relevant House Committees to liaise with the Presidency and propose amendments to the National Honours Act of 1964 to appropriately recognise the Speaker as co-head of the National Assembly and confer the national honour of GCON upon the Speaker, ensuring parity in recognition with the President of the Senate.

    The House said the President should uphold the spirit of bicameral equality as enshrined in the Constitution when making decisions and recommendations that concern the leadership of the National Assembly.

    It directed the Clerk of the National Assembly to ensure that all communications, orders, and publications from the National Assembly henceforth refer to both the Speaker and the Senate President as co-heads of the National Assembly.

    Speaker Tajudeen presided over the session.

    In moving the motion, Agbese who is the deputy spokesman, said the National Assembly is constitutionally established as a bicameral legislature comprising two equal chambers – the Senate and the House of Representatives, as stipulated in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), with both chambers operating within a framework that ensures the legislative independence and equality of each.

    According to him, Section 47 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the establishment of the National Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives, each of which plays distinct but complementary roles in the legislative process.

    He said there is an ongoing and inappropriate culture of discrimination against the House, often portrayed as inferior to the Senate, through language that consistently refers to the Senate as the “upper chamber” and the House as a “lower chamber.”

    This terminology, he said, misrepresents the legal status of both chambers and diminishes the House’s standing.

    He expressed concern about the growing trend where the Senate President is referred to as the “Chairman of the National Assembly,” which inaccurately implies a hierarchical structure between the two chambers, contrary to the Constitution, and undermines the Speaker’s authority.

    Neither the institution nor the Standing Orders of both chambers recognise the position of a Chairman of the National Assembly and this title has no legal basis, Agbese argued.

    He said this discriminatory practice was once again evidenced during the conferment of National Honours on the leadership of the National Assembly by Mr. President, saying: “While expressing our gratitude to Mr. President for recognising and honouring the leadership of the National Assembly, we note that the conferment of the title of GCON on the President of the Senate and the conferment of the CFR on the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Deputy President of the Senate perpetuates the inappropriate subordination of the Speaker to the President of the Senate.

    “The CJN, who is lower in protocol ranking than the Speaker, was also awarded the title of GCON, further exemplifying this culture of discrimination against the leadership of the House.

    “The Constitution, in promoting a balanced and equal bicameral legislature, clearly provides that bills passed by one chamber must be concurred with by the other in the same form for them to become law, thus affirming the equal status of both chambers as essential components of the legislative process.

    “While the Constitution assigns specific responsibilities to the Senate, such as confirming certain presidential appointments, it gives greater authority to the House over appropriations and the power of the purse.

    “These distinct roles are designed to maintain a system of checks and balances within the legislative arm rather than establishing the superiority of one chamber over the other.

    “The House and the Senate are two distinct but equal components of the legislative branch, and their leaders – the Speaker and the President of the Senate – are co-heads of this branch, each playing a unique role in advancing legislative functions.

    “This distinct dual leadership is a unique arrangement in our governmental system that must be respected.

    “The National Honours Act of 1964 does not explicitly prescribe the conferment of specific honours, such as the GCON for the President of the Senate or the CFR for the Speaker.

    “These distinctions are rooted in customary practice rather than the statutory requirement.

    “The honour of GCON is not restricted to any particular office or individual but can be awarded to any distinguished Nigerian deemed deserving by the President, as evidenced by the conferment of GCON on Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala by former President Muhammadu Buhari.

    “This House acknowledges the flexibility inherent in the National Honours system and the prerogative of the President in the allocation of such distinctions.”

    The motion was carried by the lawmakers.

    The state of affairs

    The Senate is made up of 109 members. Each state is represented equally by three senators. The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has one senator.

    The salary of a senator is higher than that of a member of the House of Representatives, according to the dictate of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).

    Since 1999, the Senate President has been addressed as chairman of the National Assembly.

    The Senate is given some specific assignments not given to the House of Representatives by the Constitution.

    These include confirmation of the CJN, ambassadors, ministers and some statutory positions.

    While members of the House have moved to the Senate, no senator has moved the other way.

    Many governors after completing their tenure have moved to the Senate. No governor has moved to the House.

    The House of Representatives has 360 members. Membership of the House is allocated based on population in states.

    States with a high population have more members of the House.

    The equality of three senators per state is designed to give higher voices to states with small populations and prevent them from being dominated in lawmaking at the federal level by states with huge populations.

  • Mi-Lord the Chief Justice

    They say that geo-politics and ethno-religious considerations, not the fight against corruption, are at the root of the attempt to remove the Chief Justice of Nigeria CJN, Justice Onnoghen – by bringing him to trial over allegation of false declaration of assets. They insist that the trial is merely a smokescreen for an ill-motivated plan to execute an executive coup d’état against the judicial arm of government. That the aim is to remove a south-southernerchief justice whose tenure has not expired, and to replace him with a core northerner, Justice Mohammed Tanko. And the theory, according to the opposition PDP, is that since the APC –by all indications, they say- will be incapable of freely and fairly winning the forthcoming general elections, the only possible way it can secure a second term therefore, is if it rigs the elections. Plus, they say that all the indications are there that the APC does plan to rig, especially the presidential election. What with the president refusing to sign a new electoral law legitimizing the use of card readers and introducing the transmission of results electronically -rather than manually? What with the fact that he was also not initially disposed to removing a ‘partial’ Inspector General of Police, Idris because the president was planning to use him for partisan interest? And what with the president now suppressing dissent, including clamping down on press freedom?

    And they said that if the president must rig, he would then require to prepare the necessary condition for a regime-friendly judiciary that would validate his victory, but that Onnoghen, as Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) who would constitute the election petition tribunals, is the most unlikely, given especially his geo-ethnic background, to be disposed to playing the judicial cat’s paw ready to pull APC’s electoral chestnuts out of the political fireplace of petitions that are sure to dog the heels of the 2019 elections. The assumption here is that: either Buhari’s APC is truly unsure of victory at the election and will require to act to pre-empt a favourable role of the judiciary in legitimizing its rigged victories, or that even if it is sure of victory in a ‘free and fair’ election which it promises to allow, the APC may still require the superintendence of an upright, unbiased CJN to constitute impartial tribunals to uphold its hard-earned victories. They say that the APC neither believes that Onnoghen is upright enough to do that; nor, with a desperate money-bag Atiku in the fray, does it believe that he has not already sold to the opposition PDP. Or was Ononghen not the head of the judicial panel that helped to free the Senate PresidentSaraki from the clutches of the same Code of Conduct Tribunal on similar charges of false declaration of assets? Or was he not part of the Supreme Court panel that overruled the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, on interlocutories/stay of proceedings in favour of Saraki? And now with such exposed ‘dollarized’ accounts inconsistent with the earning capacity of the new CJN, there definitely must be something rotten in the State of Denmark.

    And maybe all these assumptions and presumptions are true. Or maybe they are not. Maybe there is an executive ‘motive’ behind the arraignment of the CJN. Maybe there is not. But why must we dissipate partisan and sectional energies in search of ‘motive’ to explain away a legal wrong, when we should simply submit to the due judicial process in search of ‘law’ and ‘fact’ so as to arrive at justice? The search for ‘motive’ cannot supplant the inquisitorial due process for the determination of guilt or the finding of innocence. Notwithstanding the presumed motive or ill-intention of the executive arm, there is a case before the courts! And as far as judges and lawyers should be concerned the question is: ‘has the CJN breached the law?’ A single lawyer will be more justified to answer this in court than a thousand SANs morally will be, who cartel to put a clog in the wheel of justice. The court will not ask whether the executive has a ‘motive’ in bringing the matter; because courts are presided over by judges of ‘law and fact’, not of ‘motive’ and ‘motivation’. And maybe it is the reason that even the law of evidence does not reckon with ‘motive’ as proof of guilt or of innocence. Nor will the absence of ‘motive’ to cheat during asset declaration be proof that Justice Ononghen has not breached the law –if the facts show that he has. The liability here is as strict as when a road user commits a traffic offence. You do not search for a ‘guilty mind’ (mens rea) when a driver beats the traffic light, because it is sufficient by law that he beat the traffic light. Not having intended to do it is immaterial to the fact that he did it. Nor should the police be inquisitioned on the ‘motive’ for apprehending him other than the obvious intention, as officers of the law, to fulfil the end of the administration of justice.

    And so to say that the National Judicial Council, NJC has disciplinary jurisdiction over judicial officers who commit crimes or that it decides whether or not a judicial officer who commits a criminal offence should be arraigned before a court is to arrogate to the NJC the powers and status of a court which it has not. The NJC has jurisdiction only over judicial officers who commit judicial misconduct in the course of their judicial duties. The commission of a crime, which any false declaration of asset is, cannot be said to be part of that judicial duty. Besides, the requirement for declaration of asset as provided for by the 5th Schedule of the constitution has not made the obligation to do so incumbent only on ‘Judicial officers’ but all ‘public officers’ failing which the constitution has empowered the Code of Conduct Bureau to prosecute. And so concerning a breach of the asset declaration code, offenders are treated not in their capacity as ‘judicial officers’ misconducting in the course of their judicial duties, but in their capacity generally as ‘public offers’ breaching the constitution. Sections 12 and 18 of the schedule are clear on that.

    The inability of the National Judicial Council to discipline judicial officers who commit criminal offences or to decide whether or not to send them to court is no less poignant now in the case of an offending Justice Ononghen than it was a few years back in the case of Justice Ayo Salami that the NJC was bent on criminalizing. Salami was first accused of perjury (lying under oath against the then CJN, Katsina-Alu, who the council was determined to exonerate from the allegation of judicial interference with intention to pervert justice). When it became obvious that ‘perjury’ was a criminal offence and that only the court -and not the NJC- had jurisdiction to entertain, the council reverted to an indictment consistent with its disciplinary powers and accused Salami of violating the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers by granting a press interview without authorization. Now even in doing this, the NJC had disregarded the fact that none of the panels that it had set up to probe Salami had interrogated him on that allegation. Yet it was on the basis of this trifling offence –and thus without the fundamental benefit of ‘fair hearing’- that the NJC had proceeded to recommend Salami’s suspension to President Jonathan who, without a moment’s hesitation, was only too happy to approve, because he believed this was the Salami, as head of the Court of Appeal, that was responsible for the judicial loss of PDP’s Edo and Osun states to Tinubu’s AD. And it is interesting to note that self-righteous lawyers like OlisaAgbakogba and others were in fact members of the NJC when this travesty of justice was committed against Salami. By the way, as the discretion to arraign Salami on the offence of perjury would’ve been that of the attorney-general to exercise, the same today, concerning Onnoghen, is that of a prosecutorially-empowered Code of Conduct Bureau to exercise -without recourse to the NJC.

  • Ex-Chief Justice Katsina-Alu is dead

    A former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, is dead.

    His death was confirmed in a statement by the Senior Special Assistant to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) on Media, Mr. Awassam Bassey.

    Born on August 28, 1941, the deceased who hails from Ushongo in Benue State, served as  the CJN from December 30, 2009 to August 28, 2011.

    Bassey said the death of the former Chief Justice was confirmed while the CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen was in Canada.

    The statement reads, “A few of our colleagues have called this morning (from about 3:30am Montreal Canadian time) to seek confirmation of the death of former Chief Justice Katsina-Alu.

    “I can confirm that the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mrs. Hadizatu Mustapha, sent me a WhatsApp message to that effect about an hour ago confirming the death of the former CJN.

    “I have just called the Chief Registrar to confirm that this is indeed the situation. That the Personal Assistant of the former CJN called her at 3.00pm Nigerian time to inform her of the demise.

    “However, it’s 3:30am here in Montreal, Canada, where His Lordship the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Mr. Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, GCON, and other Justices of the Supreme Court and Chief Judges of some states, are attending a conference organised by the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, and I haven’t yet contacted the Hon. CJN for his reaction.

    “I hope to do that as soon as he wakes up and get his reaction.”

  • Zimbabwe holds public interviews for Chief Justice

    The first ever public interviews for the vacant post of Chief Justice was held in Zimbabwe on Tuesday.

    The public interviews were to reflect President Robert Mugabe’s reduced authority under a constitution adopted three years ago in the southern African country.

    In the past, Mugabe had sole authority to appoint the head of the judiciary, but the 2013 charter required candidates to be interviewed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), a panel of mostly senior judges and lawyers.

    Mugabe then chooses from three names submitted by the JSC.

    A University of Zimbabwe law student last week asked the High Court to stop the interviews, arguing that the process was not transparent since the candidates were colleagues of, and known to, the interviewing panel.

    The High Court on Sunday ruled in favour of the student, who also wanted Mugabe alone to appoint the Chief Justice.

    The government says it plans to change the constitution to give Mugabe that sole responsibility but the JSC, which employs all judges and magistrates, appealed the decision at the Supreme Court, automatically setting aside the High Court ruling.

    The JSC decided early on Monday to hold the interviews, which were broadcast live on state television.

    Three candidates were interviewed: deputy chief justice Luke Malaba, Paddington Garwe, a Supreme Court and Constitutional Court judge, and Rita Makarau, chairwoman of the Electoral Commission and secretary of the JSC.

  • Oyo assembly confirms state CJ’s appointment

    The Oyo State House of Assembly has confirmed Justice Ladipo Abimbola as the substantive Chief Judge of the State.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Abimbola has been in acting capacity since August 6, 2014 following the retirement of Justice Badejoko Adeniji.

    The confirmation of his appointment came at a plenary presided over by the Speaker of the house, Hon. Monsurat Sunmonu (APC), Oyo East/West, after a recommendation from the House committee on Petitions and Judiciary, as presented in a report on the floor of the house by the chairman of the committee, Hon. Azeez Adesope.

    This followed the adoption of the recommendation by the committee which was moved by the Majority Leader of the house, Hon. Oyeniyi Oyediran, and seconded by the Minority Leader, Hon. Adetunji Rafiu, before it was adopted by the entire house.

    In their separate comments, lawmakers representing Iwajowa and Ibadan North II state constituencies, Hon. Adeniyi Farinto and Hon.Segun Olaleye, described Justice Abimbola as a man of integrity whose appointment would foster a rapid transformation of the judicial system in the state.

    ‎Abimbola said: “A greater challenge has been vested on me, so I should not be seen jumping around in celebration. It is actually the end of my tenure that will determine whether to celebrate or not.”

    On the congestion of court cases, Abimbola said that: “I have set up a committee to look into that and we have spoken with relevant agencies as regards that.

    “One of the reasons responsible ‎for the congestion is absence of witnesses in court.

    “With other measures that have already been put in place, things will change and criminal matters will be treated as fast as possible,” he summed.

  • NJC meets Thursday on CJN’s successor

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) will on Thursday meet in Abuja to deliberate on who among serving Justices of the Supreme Court, should be recommended to President Goodluck Jonathan to succeed the retiring Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Mukhtar.
    This is line with the provision in Section 21(a)(i) of the Constitution.
    It provides that: “The National Judicial Council shall have power to recommend to the President, from among the list of persons submitted to it by the Federal Judicial Service Commission, persons for appointment to the offices of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the President and Justices of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge and Judges of the Federal High Court.”
    Justice Mukhtar assumed office as the CJN on July 16, 2012 and will retire on November 20, 2014 when she is expected to attain the mandatory retirement age of 70.
    Barring any unforeseen development, the current next most senior Justice of the court, Justice Mahmud Mohammed is expected to succeed the retiring CJN, in line with the court’s long tradition.