Tag: CJN

What are the attributes of a good and eminent judicial officer? One may ask. The qualities and core values of a good and eminent judicial officer include:

 

Independence

 

In this context, independence means being free of any loyalties, duties or interests that might inappropriately influence the performance of a judicial officer’s functions.

Judicial independence is not a privilege, but a right to every court user in Nigeria, that his or her cases are dealt with by a court, whose independence is guaranteed in qualification, nature and character. Independence is therefore, a core quality of an astute and eminent judicial officer.

 

Impartiality

 

The next important attribute of a good and eminent judicial officer is impartiality, which is closely aligned to independence. It lies at the heart of judicial function and it is reflected in the oath of office.

All litigants must be treated equally without regard to wealth, influence, circumstances of birth or any other factor whatsoever. Impartiality guarantees the existence of rule of law.

If a judicial officer compromises his functions so as to curry favour from the rich and powerful, or in order to receive positive media coverage, he or she would cease to be impartial and would certainly undermine and truncate the rule of law.

 

Patience

 

It is commonly said that patience is a virtue. It is an important attribute of a sound judicial officer. A judicial officer needs to be patient particularly when listening to evidence that is implausible or to submissions that are dubious and unattainable.

Natural justice requires that the parties be given fair opportunity to present their cases before a decision is made. If a judicial officer acts impetuously by expressing fixed views prematurely or by cutting off a party before his case is completed, an appellate court may order a retrial and in the process, other unpleasant consequences may arise.

Even in situation where a litigant is not represented by counsel, a judge should be patient enough not to be put off by the inability or unwillingness of the litigant to comply with normal court processes and judicial directions. He has the constitutional right to choose not to be represented by counsel except in serious criminal trials.

 

Humility

 

Humility is not out of place in the judiciary. Where a judicial officer is assisted by counsel in the course of trial, it is appropriate to acknowledge this at that time or at the end of the trial.

Likewise, where a judge is under a misapprehension in a case, it is not inappropriate to acknowledge the error and to thank the party that clarified the position.

Such respect and cooperation strengthens the relationship between the Bar and the Bench and instils a sense of confidence in the humanity and integrity of the Judiciary in the eyes of court users.

 

Communication skills

 

Good communication skill is an essential requirement for a sound and erudite judicial officer. As judicial officers, you are constitutionally required to make rulings in the course of a trial and to give directions to litigants and witnesses.

These rulings or judgments must be done in a manner and language that can be quickly understood by those who are expected to comply with them. You are required to give written reasons for your decisions. Sometimes, the cases may involve complex factual and legal issues.

The reasons must therefore, be clear, succinct and unambiguous so that the parties and other interested persons can understand them. Lack of good communication skills can be dangerous and devastating. Avoid too much Latin maxims that have no bearing on the positive Nigerian jurisprudence.

 

Courtesy

 

This is not only a basic human quality, but an important attribute for a judicial officer. In the past, some judges regarded aloofness and gruffness as adding to judicial authority and to the mystique of the office. Those days are gone. Everyone who comes before the court is entitled to be treated with courtesy and respect; even those who are accused of heinous or despicable crimes deserve some respect.

If litigants or counsel are throwing barbs at each other in offensive or disruptive manner, you must order them to stop. If a counsel is shouting at a witness in a humiliating manner, you must order him to desist from doing that.

After all, courtesy is not incompatible with effective advocacy or effective adjudication. Judicial courtesy bolsters the authority of the court, and earns the respect of the society it serves.

 

Cultural and community engagement

 

Nigeria is a multi-ethic nation. Most states of the federation are made up of diverse ethnicities, languages, religions and cultures. The success of such society depends on mutual understanding and respect. Equality before the law and respect for other people’s rights are important elements of rule of law.

As you move from one judicial division to another, you must treat all Court users with equal respect regardless of how different they are or how unpopular their cause may be. In the interpretation and application of customary and native laws, avoid assumptions that are based on cultural stereotypes.

Negative cultural stereotypes strain harmony within the community and cause serious security breaches. Except where the adduced native law and custom is barbaric or offends the repugnancy test, every litigant is entitled to have his or her case decided based on the evidence that has been adduced and tested in open Court in the Course of trial rather than on any other extraneous considerations.

For the kadis of the Sharia Court of Appeal, your applicable law is the Sharia.  For the judges of the Customary Court of Appeal, your applicable law is the prevailing customary laws of the litigants that come before you, not the biblical or koranic injunctions.

Your religious inclinations should not be brought to bear in your judicial decisions as a judge of the Customary Court of Appeal. No matter how you feel about the religious implications of such alleged customs, so long as they comply with requisite legal and judicial tests prescribed, you must apply them in relevant cases.

 

Sense of humour

 

The administration of justice is a serious business, with important obligations and responsibilities. Court cases involve tremendous stress for court users and therefore, the courtroom is not a place for judicial officers to try their hands at being comedians.

That does not mean, however, that judicial officers must be perennially uptight and unhappy. No, the courtroom is not a grave yard. A balanced life style, interests outside the law, a down-to-earth personality and a good sense of humour can increase a judicial officer’s enjoyment of his judicial work.

This can assist in ensuring that the mood in the courtroom is positive which, in turn, can ensure that the hearing is conducted in an efficient and harmonious manner.

 

Abiding by the Coden of Conduct and judicial ethics

 

This is the most important requirement of a judicial officer. Every judicial officer must abide by the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and judicial ethics as expounded in the Bangalore principles of judicial conduct.

Any judicial officer that does not abide by the code of conduct is on his way out of the Judiciary.

The Judiciary is now more prepared and more poised than ever before to rid itself of all the ugly dirt’s inflicted on it by unscrupulous persons occupying judicial offices in Nigeria.

The National Judicial Council (NJC) and the respective states’ Judicial Service Commissions are adequately empowered to remove, with ignominy, any judicial officer or judicial staff that has chosen the path of dishonour to be lazy or refuse to abide by judicial ethics and judicial code of conduct.

The code of conduct covers all aspects of a judicial officer’s live both in and out of court. It must be studied, digested and imbibed by all judicial officers in Nigeria.

As new judicial officers you are advised in your own best interests, to make the code of conduct your constant companion and an ever ready guide.

 

Prompt disposal of cases

 

This is a constitutional requirement. A good judicial officer must dispose of matters before him promptly, efficiently and diligently. You must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to have their cases heard and disposed of without unnecessary delay.

You must be in control of your courts to eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays and unnecessary adjournments. You must devote adequate time for court duties, be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters before you.

Before the March 28 election, some suits were filed to challenge the eligibility of Gen Muhammadu Buhari to contest the poll. There were fears that the courts may disqualify him. But Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Mahmud Mohammed’s warnings to judges not to be used to scuttle the election seem to have paid off. JOSEPH JIBUEZE reviews some of the cases that could have truncated the election.

Months before the March 28 presidential election, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) made an issue of Gen Muhammadu Buhari’s certificate. At every opportunity, the party’s leaders accused him of lying on oath that he had a school certificate.

They contested Buhari’s claim that he obtained his school certificate from the Provincial Secondary School, Katsina, which he attended some prominent Nigerians, such as the late Gen Shehu Yar’Adua and a former Court of Appeal president Justice Umaru Abdullahi.

The president-elect said he sat for the University of Cambridge/WASC Examination in 1961, citing his examination number as 8280002. He said he made Second Division.

A copy of the result was released by the school, but the PDP said it was forged. At least 10 suits were filed seeking to disqualify Buhari, heightening tension. There were fears of huge crisis if Buhari is disqualified.

To maintain the judiciary’s sanctity, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Mahmud Mohammed warned judges against subverting justice for percuniary benefits. He urged them to remember their oath in the discharge of their duties.

The CJN first gave the warning last December at the yearly conference of Court of Appeal justices, where he said: “It is most regrettable and worrisome to hear members of the public increasingly criticise judicial officers for playing into the hands of politicians. All too often, these very close critics create unfortunate perceptions and connotations, as insinuations are readily drawn from them.

“It is immaterial whether or not this assessment is fair, for as judges we must be seen to rise above the tide of systemic corruption and other unfortunate afflictions that have become commonplace in Nigeria today…

“I must, therefore, implore all judges to remember that as next year is an election year, we need to be more dedicated and alive to our duties, shun unnecessary delays in the dispensation of justice and reject every illicit approach to compromise our collective integrity. It must also be remembered that every infraction of the law by any judicial officer may subject the entire judiciary to public accusation.

“I advise that justices should shun such acts and decisions that will cause our courts to fall into disrepute and public ridicule. I must also remind you that it is only when we act with a clear, free conscience that the judiciary will retain its integrity and independence.”

The CJN restated the warning while inaugurating 242 election petition tribunal judges that will handle disputes emanating from the general elections.

“Let me use this opportunity to sound a note of warning to all judicial officers. Do not allow any political party or politician to compromise your integrity or your future. We must never again be used as tools to truncate our nation’s democracy,” the CJN said.

To further hammer home his point, Justice Mohammed repeated the warning last week at the swearing-in of Justice Ishaq Bello as the Acting Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

He said the leadership of the judiciary was aware of plans by some “unpatriotic citizens” to use the courts to stop the electoral process, warning judges not to yield themselves as tools to desperate politicians.

“Permit me to use this opportunity to again assure all Nigerians that, under my leadership, the judiciary remains resolute and committed to doing its constitutional duty during this election period. We will not be swayed or distracted from the course of justice in any election matter that is before or comes before the justice system.

“We are aware that some unpatriotic citizens may wish to use the courts to stop the electoral process, and I wish to warn in clear terms that we shall not be used as a tool for the breakdown of law and order in our beloved country,” the CJN said.

 

The anti-PVC/card reader suits

Judges played a key role in ensuring that the March 28 election held. For one, they were not stampeded into delivering a verdict in any of the suits that could have affected the poll.

At least four suits were filed at the Federal High Court Abuja and one in Lagos challenging the use of card readers and use of the Permanent Voter Cards for the conduct of the forthcoming polls.

The plaintiffs in one of the suits sought for, among other prayers, the postponement of the elections “until the Permanent Voter Cards are made available to the plaintiffs.”

The other suit is praying for an order restraining INEC from using card readers and an order mandating it to allow “every willing Nigerian who has any voter card issued by INEC to vote at the general elections.”

The anti-PVC suit, numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/06/2015, was filed by a group, Society for Advancement Protection of Public Rights. The matter is before Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Another suit filed before Justice Evoh Chukwu of the Federal High Court in Abuja is seeking to stop the use of the PVCs on the grounds that allowing it could amount to disenfranchisement of a lot of eligible voters.

The suit was filed by the Attorney General of Plateau State; its Speaker Titus Alams, and the chairmen of the 17 local government areas.

Other plaintiffs are Chairman of the Plateau State Council of Traditional Rulers, Gbong Gwom Jos, Da Gyang Buba; and former Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Domkat Bali, who is the traditional ruler of the Tarok People in Langtang.

Four political parties – the United Democratic Party, Action Alliance, Allied Congress Party of Nigeria and Alliance for Democracy – also filed an anti-PVC suit, saying the majority of their members were yet to get their PVCs.

A PDP chief, Waliu Taiwo, in suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos, is seeking an order restraining the commission from using the card readers during the polls.

The plaintiff claims that INEC’s guidelines which stipulate the use of card readers is unconstitutional and should be nullified.

According to him, this is “the first time anywhere in the world where a device such as the Card Reader as proposed to be used by INEC would be used to the effect that it supercedes the content of the register of voters properly compiled by the electoral body”.

Three lawyers, led by Chijioke Emeka, also sued INEC at the Federal High Court in Lagos, seeking a declaration their civil and legal rights would be breached if INEC does not issue them their PVC.

The plaintiffs told Justice Ibrahim Buba that they were told that their data wiped off from INEC’s system after they registered and therefore there was no PVC for them. Among others, they are praying for an order directing INEC to issue them their PVCs or make other alternative arrangements to enable them vote.

 

The anti-Buhari suits

Between January 26 and middle of February, at least 10 cases were filed seeking Buhari’s disqualification over his alleged inability to submit evidence of his academic qualifications to INEC.

Within the same period, two cases were filed against President Goodluck Jonathan’s eligibility to seek re-election. Two others seeking the same prayers are pending before the Court of Appeal in Abuja and may have become academic, Jonathan having lost the election.

Ahead of the case against Buhari, the APC warned against any orchestrated and last-minute disqualification its presidential candidate, saying: “If it is true, as it is being widely speculated across the country, that the Jonathan administration has procured a judgment to disqualify the APC presidential candidate when the Federal High Court in Abuja is expected to rule on the issue, then it portends a great danger for the nation.”

The party said in addition to other reasons, the six-week postponement of the elections might have been used by those who never wanted the polls to hold to shop for such a “satanic judgment.”

“This is why we are hoping that good reason will prevail and nothing will be done, deliberately, to plunge Nigeria into crisis by the same people who have always been quick to say their political ambition is not worth the blood of any Nigerian,” the party had said.

All eyes were, therefore, on the court. Would Buhari be disqualified? Rather than deliver any verdict on the case, Justice Adeniyi Ademola adjourned it till April 22 and 23.

The judge, after fixing the new dates, explained that his decision because of the court’s impending Easter holiday and judges’ conference that would follow. He fixed the new dates without entertaining suggestions from lawyers to the parties. Tension was calmed.

The plaintiffs in the three suits want the court to declare Buhari ineligible to contest in the election on the basis of his alleged failure to submit his certificate of academic qualifications along with his Form CF001 to INEC.

The plaintiffs claim that Buhari’s failure to submit his certificate contravened provisions of sections 131 and 318 of the 1999 Constitution and section 31(3) of the Electoral Act, 2010.

With three of the suits earlier struck, there are now three pending suits challenging Buhari’s eligibility.

The judge fixed the new dates after he dismissed separate applications by Chukwuma Ochu and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa seeking to be joined as defendants in the suit filed by Chukwunweike Okafor, describing them as “busy bodies and meddlesome interlopers”.

Buhari, APC and INEC are the defendants in the suit and the other pending ones.

The court had earlier struck out three of such suits, one of which was filed by Ayakeme Whiskey (FHC/ABJ/CS/68/15); and the two others by Friday Ojelaro (FHC/ABJ/CS/20/15 and FHC/ABJ/CS/3/2015). The three suits were struck out because they were mere replica of one another.

The suits that were adjourned till April 22 are the ones filed by Okafor, Ayakeme Whiskey (FHC/ABJ/CS/68/15) and Max Ozoaka (FHC/ABJ/CS/14/15).

 

Suits seeking ‘inclusion’ in polls

In Lagos, Justice Okon Abang refused to compel INEC to include the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) in the elections. UPN is praying the court to order INEC to list its candidates for the elections.

The judge held that since INEC had printed and distributed electoral materials, it could not be compelled to destroy them and print new ones. This, the judge said, was because UPN filed its suit on February 25 after the postponement of the initial February 14 presidential election.

He said the suit came up for hearing on March 6, a period of 21 days to the rescheduled presidential election.

“The applicant (UPN) cannot create problems for this court and indeed the entire country. The court cannot command the impossible. The plaintiffs cannot file this suit 21 days to the election and expect that it must be heard and judgment delivered before the election.

“Even though the plaintiffs have no claim against the APC, the outcome of this suit will affect the party because it is about an election, which the party is participating. This is a pre-election matter and it can be heard after the election,” Justice Abang ruled.

The judge then ordered that APC and Buhari should be joined as second and third defendants and adjourned till May 6 for hearing.

Another suit that created some tension was the one by Young Democratic Party (YDP). Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Apo, Abuja ordered the party’s officials to address a press conference and retract the misrepresentation of his judgment delivered on March 4.

The court had ordered INEC register YDP as a political party but the party officials had claimed that the court also ordered that the party should be allowed to participate in the forthcoming elections or the polls be postponed.

Justice Mohammed, who also ordered the party officials to file an affidavit of compliance, threatened to jail them if they failed to carry out his directives.

The judge had, on March 12, when INEC’s application for stay of execution of the judgment was slated for hearing, summoned the party officials to appear in court to explain how they came about the court pronouncement ordering their inclusion in the polls.

Justice Mohammed, in a bench ruling after listening to the party’s counsel, Kelvin Nwofo (SAN), and INEC’s lawyer, Mr. Wole Balogun, held that a case of contempt had been established against the party officials from the two affidavits filed by them.

He, however, held that because the court was not out to unnecessarily join issues with anybody and that in view of plea for mercy by the party’s lawyer, he would “reluctantly temper justice with mercy”.

The judge said: “It is clear that the court did not order to include them in the ballot papers or to shift the elections.” Besides, YDP did not ask for inclusion in the polls in its amended originating summons dated December 2, 2014.

While some of the cases may become academic, a lawyer in one of the cases, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), was quoted to have warned Buhari’s supporters against celebrating prematurely.

He said the High Court could overturn the presidential election if it finds that Buhari lacked the requisite qualifications.

“In the event, for example, Buhari wins the election, all it simply means is that when eventually we finish this case and the court finds that he was not qualified … the court will simply dethrone him,” Ozekhome told reporters.

Buhari’s lawyer, Akin Olujinmi, said he was “absolutely happy” with the court’s decision as it removed the air of “uncertainty and pressure on INEC …”