Tag: fixes

A Federal High Court in Abuja will, on March 11, rule in a suit by 11 plaintiffs seeking the reinstatement of Justice Isa Ayo Salami, former President of the Court of Appeal.

Justice Adamu Bello fixed the date after parties adopted their written addresses.

The plaintiffs are: Mr. Jitobo Akanike, Idris Musa, Allens Agbaka, Ibrahim Bawa, Princewill Akpakpan , Obruche Ayeteni, Nosa Ihaza, Timothy Odumosu, Stewart Salomi, Egogo Lawrence and Maxwell Adeniran.

They sued for themselves and on behalf of the Registered Trustees of the Centre for the Promotion of Arbitration.

The defendants are President Goodluck Jonathan, the Attorney- General of the Federation and Justice Minister, Mohammed Adoke (SAN), the National Judicial Council (NJC) and Justice Salami.

Adopting the plaintiffs’ written address yesterday, Akanike urged the court to hold that Jonathan has breached the Constitution by disregarding the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to reinstate Justice Salami.

He prayed the court to declare that the NJC is the only body that can exercise disciplinary powers over the Justices of the Court of Appeal and/or the President of the Court of Appeal.

He also prayed the court to direct the NJC to implement the recommendations of its three-man panel, which advised the recall of Justice Salami.

Jonathan and Adoke yesterday urged the court to dismiss the suit because the plaintiffs lack the locus standi to begin the action.

Their counsel, Matthew Echo, said the plaintiffs have not shown any authority granted it by the trustees of the Centre for the Promotion of Arbitration.

He argued that the reliefs are indeterminable as they are merely academic, urging the judge to dismiss the plaintiffs’ originating summons.

Counsel to the NJC, Dr. A. A. Kanah, “urged the court to arrive at a decision that will best serve the interest of justice.”

But, Salami’s counsel, A.O. Mohammed (SAN), aligned with the submission of the plaintiffs, when he persuaded the court to dismiss the defendants’ preliminary objection “as not representing the current status of the law on locus standi.”

Mohammed told the court that the NJC had “also admitted that it has the power to discipline judicial officers.”

He also agreed with the plaintiffs that “this court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant an order of mandamus compelling the third defendant to perform its constitutional duty, to save the judiciary from ridicule.”

Mohammed added: “The failure to reinstate the fourth defendant and the continuous appointment of an Acting President of the Court of Appeal is undoubtedly affecting the smooth running of the court.

“This case has provided a golden opportunity for this court to urgently redress the constitutional blunder committed by the National Judicial Council, which has ridiculed and embarrassed the Judiciary.

“The more fundamental problem confronting the Judiciary now arising from the mishandling of the unfortunate suspension and recall of the fourth defendant can re-assert itself as the third arm of the government to exercise its exclusive constitutional powers and regain the much eroded public confidence in the judiciary.”

But the NJC, in its written address to the plaintiffs’ originating summons, said: “The exercise of disciplinary power and recall of a suspended Justice of the Court of Appeal is exclusively vested in the National Judicial Council by the Constitution.

“By the combined provisions of sections 153, 158 (1) of the Constitution, and the National Judicial Council’s power to exercise disciplinary control over Judicial officers contained in Paragraph 21 (1) of the part 1, third schedule of the Constitution, the third defendant is to unilaterally and exclusively exercise disciplinary control over the Judicial officers, which we submit include the taking of any disciplinary measures by way of punishment, for instance in the form of suspension, and lifting the disciplinary measure taken, for instance in the form of recalling and reinstating the disciplined officer back to his position without recourse of any sort to the President.

“The only instances the third defendant exercises its powers in conjunction with the President is in appointment and removal of judicial officers and do not extend to the third defendant’s disciplinary control over the Judicial officers and reinstatement/recalling of suspended Judicial officers; these, we submit, are residual powers exercisable by the third defendant exclusively.

“The foregoing submission is strengthened by Section 158 of the Constitution as amended which states that the third defendant “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person.”

By the provision of Section 158 (1) of the Constitution, the NJC argued that it needs no recourse at all to the President in exercising its powers as expounded above.