Tag: Judges

  • Uproar over judges’ arrest

    Uproar over judges’ arrest

    Gun-wielding agents of the Department of State Services (DSS) swooped on the residences of senior judges in Abuja, Gombe and Port Harcourt at the weekend. The DSS said it recovered N93.5 million and cash in foreign currencies from the three judges arrested in Abuja. The development has thrown up some questions: Is it legal to arrest and prosecute judges without recourse to the National Judicial Council (NJC)? Can a judge who is on trial continue to sit? JOSEPH JIBUEZE sought lawyers’views on these and more.

    n what has been described as unprecedented, two justices of the Supreme Court, Inyang Okoro and Sylvester Ngwuta, were arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS) in what it called a “sting operation” in Abuja.

    Apart from the two Supreme Court justices, Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court in Abuja was also arrested after his house was raided. The security operatives also searched Justice Nnamdi Dimgba’s house, but he was not arrested.

    In Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, the DSS operatives besieged the house of a Federal High Court judge at No. 35, Forces Avenue, but were thwarted by Governor Nyesom Wike, who rushed to the scene and was reportedly harassed by the operatives.

    The suspended Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya, Justice Kabiru Auta of Kano State High Court were also said to have been arrested while the residences of the immediate past Chief Judge of Enugu State A. I. Umezulike in Enugu and that of Justice Muazu Pindiga in Gombe were reportedly raided.

     

     

    DSS: Why they were arrested judges

    The DSS on Saturday said its action  was a “special sting operation”, adding that the arrested jurists would be charged to court. A DSS senior officer, Mr. Abdullahi Garba, said: “The DSS action is in line with its core mandate, as we have been monitoring the expensive and luxurious lifestyles of some of the judges, as well as complaints from the concerned public over judgments obtained fraudulently and on the basis of money paid.

    “The judges involved were invited, upon which due diligence was exhibited and their premises searched. The searches have uncovered huge raw cash (sums) of various denominations, local and foreign currencies, with real estate worth several millions of naira and documents affirming unholy acts by these judges.”

     

    Are judges above the law?

    According to the 1999 Constitution, judges have no immunity. But can they be arrested and prosecuted? The Third Schedule of the Constitution gives the National Judicial Council (NJC) powers to appoint and discipline corrupt judges.

    The NJC is empowered to “recommend to the President the removal from office of the judicial officers … and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers; recommend to the Governors the removal from the office of the judicial officers … and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers.”

    According to legal analysts, the implication of the constitutional provision is that where a judge is suspected of corruption, it behoves the NJC to discipline him by removing him from the Bench, following which he can be prosecuted.

    Some have justified the judges’ arrest on the basis that Supreme Court justices are rarely disciplined, as if they are perfect or there are no corrupt elements among them, and because most judges found guilty of corruption are merely given a slap on the wrist and allowed to go home and enjoy their loot.

    But, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) believes it was wrong to arrest the judges in the manner the DSS did.

     

    Can a judge stand trial?

    Explaining the quagmire of prosecuting a sitting judge, a former legal counsel at the World Bank Group, Mr Emeka Ugwuonye, said the scenario would be to first ensure that a judge leaves the Bench before putting him on trial.

    “Because before sending a judge to prison, you must first remove him from being a judge, so that when he arrives in prison, he will not remain a judge.

    “All the people in DSS cell today will either be released or charged to court. When charged to court, they will appear before judges. So, if you detain a judge in the same cell as the other people, what will happen tomorrow when they appear in the same court before the judge who was their cell mate?

    “There is the presumption of innocence, which means that the judges will remain judges until they are proven guilty, which could be four years from today. So, it is important to first remove a judge as a judge before he is prosecuted.

    “Otherwise, the same man will be standing criminal trial at a time he is still a judge. So, if his own case is coming up on Tuesday, he will serve as a judge on Monday, but on Tuesday, he will stand in the dock as an accused person. Then on Wednesday and Thursday, he will sit as a judge in the next courtroom.

    “If the judge remains a judge (since he has not been removed as a judge) during the time that his own case is being tried, it is the same DSS prosecutors prosecuting him that will appear before him to prosecute other suspects.

    “If you are a lawyer representing a suspect against the DSS in the court of this judge, who is also being tried by the DSS, you will fear that the judge would be too afraid of the DSS to render impartial judgment.

    “It is odd, stupid, impracticable and unconstitutional to arrest a sitting judge for a common crime,” Ugwuonye said.

    According to him, the law envisages that if a judge commits a crime, he has to be reported to the NJC, which disciplines judges. That body will dismiss the judge within six months if found culpable, after which he can be prosecuted, meaning that there is no possibility of him sitting at the same time as he is being prosecuted.

    “Ironically, if you start criminal prosecution of a judge, the NJC cannot do anything until you finish the criminal trial, which can take four years. So, the best way for a judge to remain a judge for a long time is for you to start criminal trial rather than a disciplinary proceeding to remove him first.

    “All over the world, there is a special procedure for dealing with a judge that committed a crime. The first step is to remove him as a judge so he will not remain a judge when his case is being tried,” Ugwuonye said.

     

    How corrupt judges were dealt

     with elsewhere

    A corruption scandal in the Ghanaian judiciary made the headlines in September, last year, following an exposé by an undercover investigative lawyer-turned journalist, Anas Aremyaw Anas.

    He conducted a two-year investigation and brought out audio and video evidences of how corruption takes place within the Ghanaian judiciary.

    Following the exposé, 22 circuit court judges and magistrates were suspended. Seven of the judges were among the most senior to be suspended in what was the biggest corruption scandal to hit Ghana’s judiciary.

    Ghana’s Chief Justice Georgina Theodora Wood said Ghana’s Judicial Council had established a “prima facie case of stated misbehaviour against them”.

    Last December, judges implicated in the judicial corruption scandal were sacked; one other was reprimanded.

    In the state of Ohio in the United States, for instance, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has a grievance form online. Once a complaint is filed, the Disciplinary Counsel investigates and gathers evidence. If the Disciplinary Counsel finds evidence of an ethical violation, it will file a formal complaint against the judge with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

    If the Board finds enough evidence of wrongdoing, it will then make a recommendation to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which will decide on disciplinary action ranging from a public reprimand, or limitation on the judge’s duties, to disbarment.

    In Alabama judges may be removed in one of two ways: The judicial inquiry commission investigates complaints against judges and files complaints with the “court of the judiciary”. The court of the judiciary may censure, suspend, or remove a judge.  Decisions of the court of the judiciary may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Judges may be impeached.

    In Alaska, judges may be suspended, removed from office, retired, or censured by the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of the commission on judicial conduct. Judges may be impeached by two thirds of the senate and convicted by two thirds of the House of Representatives.

    In Arizona, a judge may be impeached by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and convicted by a two-third vote of the senate; or the Supreme Court may censure, suspend, remove, or retire a judge upon the recommendation of the commission on judicial conduct, and judges are subject to recall election.

    Where federal judges are involved, judicial councils, which are panels of the United States federal courts, handle such disciplinary issues within their circuits. The judicial discipline process of US federal judges is initiated by the filing of a complaint, following which a special committee investigates the facts and allegations in the complaint. The committee then files a comprehensive written report of its investigation with the judicial council of the circuit involved.

    There have also been instant arrests. In 2013, nine traffic court judges in Philadelphia were arrested for fixing tickets for friends and political allies in a sweeping federal indictment that alleged pervasive, but covert, corruption in the courthouse.

    Federal officials alleged “a widespread culture of giving breaks on traffic citations to friends, family, the politically-connected and business associates.”

    Virtually everyone who wore the robe in the city’s traffic court between July 2008 and September 2011 were arrested and forced to stand on the other side of the bench after being accused by federal prosecutors of cheating the average citizen out of a fair shake.

    Last November 4, the FBI arrested a North Carolina judge for bribery and corruption after he allegedly attempted to bribe federal agents. A superior Puerto Rico judge was also arrested in May 2014 for bribery in a fatal drunk driving case.

     

    NBA’s position

    NBA President Abubakar Mahmoud declared ‘a state of emergency’ in the judiciary and demanded the immediate release of the justices and judges without conditions.

    At a briefing in Lagos, he warned the Federal Government of “grave consequences” should the demands not be met.

    “If these demands are not met, there will be grave consequences that will follow and we do not want us to get to that situation,” Mahmoud said.

    The association also set up a Crisis Management Team which comprises the association’s past presidents and general secretaries to investigate the situation.

    The NBA president said: “I want to, on behalf of the Bar Association, make the very following clear and unequivocal demands: we demand the immediate, unconditional release of all the judges abducted.

    “The release must be done immediately and without any conditions. Two, we demand that the Department of State Services (DSS) should limit itself to its statutory and constitutional responsibilities.”

    Condemning the arrests, Mahmoud said: “This style of operation is not acceptable under a democracy. Whatever the justifications, whatever the complaints, there are legitimate routes and due processes must be observed.

    “If there are any legitimate complaints against any serving justice, there are constitutionally-laid out procedures and there are rules that govern these.

    “We expect the government to take legal counsel from appropriate officers of the government including the Attorney-General of the Federation who is there to guide them.”

     

    Lawyers express anger

    Lawyers have condemned the arrests. Chief Mike Ozhekome (SAN) said: “Welcome, full-blown dictatorship and fascism that are now here with us. It started with political opponents and opposition. Some of us cried out. Many gloated with eclat and a sense of victory at opponents’ horrific travails.

    “Now, the judiciary, up to the very apex court of the land, the Supreme Court, has been targeted and is now being intimidated, humiliated and annexed. The earlier Nigerians rise up and speak against this latest onslaught on the judiciary, the better for all of us and democracy. I am greatly troubled for my dear country.”

    Activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa called on lawyers to boycott the courts. He said: “It is condemnable for the DSS, which is an arm of the executive, to be breathing down on the judicial arm of the government, under the guise of fighting corruption. It is now clear without any shadow of doubt that the so-called anti-corruption war is a hidden agenda to perpetuate the Gen Buhari regime in office beyond 2019. It is meant to silence the opposition and to cover the inefficiency and cluelessness of this administration.”

    Executive Director of a rights group, Access to Justice (A2J), Mr Joseph Otteh, said: “Breaking into judges’houses, assaulting their relatives  and arresting them at that time of night over-reach the boundaries of how the DSS can legitimately conduct its business in a democratic government.

    “President Buhari’s government must respect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary and must rein in the excesses of its agencies. The government must denounce the actions of the DSS, investigate this assault on the judiciary, express its regrets and reassurances to the judiciary and ensure that those who authorised these assaults on judges and their households are disciplined.

    “The government must further address concerns that its agencies may be using the investigation of corruption allegations as a means to cower judges, and cajole them into silence, or as a way to intimidate judges who question the administration’s fledgling respect for the rule of law and court orders. The President must assure Nigerians that the judiciary will never, again, during his administration, be denigrated in this manner.”

    Chief G. A. Adetola-Kaseem (SAN), said: “The invasion of a judge’s (and indeed any citizen’s) home at any time and worse still  in the wee hours of the night, by any arm of the law enforcement agencies without following the due process of the law, is condemnable in the strongest language.

    “It amounts to intimidation of judges and therefore impinges on the independence of the judiciary and rule of law. In these days of kidnapping and general insecurity, it erodes the ordinary citizen’s confidence in the ability  of the  State to guarantee his security at all times.”

    Dr. Paul Ananaba (SAN) said the DSS should have followed due process and allowed the NJC to perform its statutory duty.

    “Our judges are not above arrest but issues concerning judges, procedure and how they should be handled, the National Judicial Council (NJC) is there statutorily to look into the issue.

    “I am yet to be convinced that by law, the DSS, by the Act establishing it, has powers to operate in the manner that it did when its officers swooped on the judges.

    “I believe that it could have been done in a more honourable manner, because these are honourable justices,” he noted.

    Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN)  yesterday accused the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) of shielding corrupt lawyers and judges.

    He said the judiciary has itself to blame for the “embarrassing” arrest of some judicial officers.

    “The Nigerian Bar Association, which has information on all corrupt judges and lawyers in the country have continued to shield them to the embarrassment of incorruptible members of the bar and the bench. The few lawyers who have plucked up the courage to expose corrupt judges and lawyers have been stigmatised and treated like lepers by their colleagues.

    “Having failed to take advantage of the  relevant statutory disciplinary bodies to purge the bar and the bench of corrupt elements the members of the legal profession have themselves to blame for the harassment of judges by security forces,” Falana said.

    NBA Vice President, Monday Ubani, said: “I want to say that corruption must be fought with the last drop of blood we possess to reclaim Nigeria irrespective of class, creed and religion but I advise that we must please follow our laws strictly and diligently in order to attract the support of the majority.

    “We must exorcise corruption from all our institutions including from the executive and the fight must remain total and impartial.”

    Abuja lawyer Nnaemeka Nwaogwugwu condemned the invasion as tantamount to intimidation of the judiciary.

    He said: “It remains a shameful dent on this administration to be intimidating the judiciary. If there is a solid reason based on investigation to indict any federal judge, such findings should be passed on to the NJC for appropriate sanctions.”

    The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) President, Malachy Ugwummadu, condemned the DSS action, saying Nigerians would resist it.

    He said: “This is one misadventure too many and will be decisively resisted by all well-meaning Nigerians, particularly those of us and groups who struggled hard for the return of constitutional democracy in Nigeria.”

    The Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP), through its National Coordinator, Chino Obiagwu, said: “LEDAP condemns in strongest terms the raid of residences of some judges accross the country, and the arrest and assault in some of them. The night raid is a flagrant assault on the rule of law and interference with the integrity and independence of judges. It amounts to crass intimidation of judges, which is the first line of attack of dictatorships.

    DSS acted within the law’

    Activist-lawyer Mr Jiti Ogunye justified the arrests. Speaking during a programme on Channels TV on Sunday, Ogunye said the DSS operatives acted within the law. He said the operatives were right to carry out the operation in the night, and that the law backed them to break into any house where the suspect was uncooperative.

    He said: “Everyone agrees that we have ethical problems bothering on corruption in the judiciary. The late Justice Kayode Eso stated that it was very shameful that there were ‘billionaire judges’.Chief Afe Babalola also echoed it recently.

    Until the isolated recmmendation that Justice Auta be prosecuted, how many times has the NJC recommended anybody for prosecution?

    ‘’As to whether what the DSS has done is within the ambit of the law, let me first dismiss what the learned SAN (Mike Ozekhome) has said. He’s quoting an old law.

    ‘’I refer to Section 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. It says: ‘A search warrant may be issued and executed at any time any day, including a Sunday or public holidays.’’’

    Ogunye further refer to Section 12 (2) of the ACJA, which provides: “Where access to a house or place cannot be obtained, the person or police officer may enter the house or place and search it for the suspect to be arrested, and in order to effect an entrance into the house or place, may break open any outer or inner door or window of any house or place… if after notification of his authority and purpose,and demand of admittance duly made, he cannot obtain admittance.’’

  • Judges shun courts in Abuja

    Judges shun courts in Abuja

    Judges of the Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday shunned courts in solidarity with one of their colleagues arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS).

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola, who was arrested at the weekend, sits in Court 7 of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Litigants, whose cases were scheduled for yesterday, were disappointed when the judges would not sit.

    Some of the major cases affected were those involving former Chief of Defence Staff Alex Badeh (retd), former Imo State Governor Ikedi Ohakim and the case filed against the House of Representatives by Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Limited (Shell).

    Ohakim is being tried before Justice Ademola on a three-count charge of money laundering and false asset declaration.

    He is accused of purchasing a property at 60, Kwame Nkrumah Street, Plot No 1098, Cadastral Zone A04, Asokoro District, Abuja with cash payment of $2.29m which was said to be dollar equivalent of N270m in November 2008.

    Ohakim was also accused of failing to declare the property as part of his assets when asked by the EFCC to do so.

    He was to open his defence yesterday, but for the absence of the trial judge. No date has been fixed for the case.

    Badeh and a company, Iyalikam Nigeria Limited, are being tried before Justice Okon Abang for allegedly diverting about N1.4billion belonging to the Nigerian Air Force (NAF) between January and December, 2013, an offence which contravenes Section 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

    The trial was expected to continue yesterday.

    Shell is challenging the jurisdiction of the House of Reps to investigate the process leading to the allocation of oil wells to it.

    It is also the company’s contention, in the suit that the planned investigation was subjudice as a similar case filed earlier by Malabo Oil was still pending before the court. The hearing was to open yesterday before Justice Abang.

     

  • Uproar over judges’ arrest

    Gun-wielding agents of the Department of State Services (DSS) swooped on the residences of senior judges in Abuja, Gombe and Port Harcourt at the weekend. The DSS said it recovered N93.5 million and cash in foreign currencies from the three judges arrested in Abuja. The development has thrown up some questions: Is it legal to arrest and prosecute judges without recourse to the National Judicial Council (NJC)? Can a judge who is on trial continue to sit? JOSEPH JIBUEZE sought lawyers’views on these and more.

    In what has been described as unprecedented, two justices of the Supreme Court, Inyang Okoro and Sylvester Ngwuta, were arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS) in what it called a “sting operation” in Abuja.

    Apart from the two Supreme Court justices, Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court in Abuja was also arrested after his house was raided. The security operatives also searched Justice Nnamdi Dimgba’s house, but he was not arrested.

    In Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, the DSS operatives besieged the house of a Federal High Court judge at No. 35, Forces Avenue, but were thwarted by Governor Nyesom Wike, who rushed to the scene and was reportedly harassed by the operatives.

    The suspended Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya, Justice Kabiru Auta of Kano State High Court were also said to have been arrested while the residences of the immediate past Chief Judge of Enugu State A. I. Umezulike in Enugu and that of Justice Muazu Pindiga in Gombe were reportedly raided.

     

    DSS: Why they were arrested judges

    The DSS on Saturday said its action  was a “special sting operation”, adding that the arrested jurists would be charged to court. A DSS senior officer, Mr. Abdullahi Garba, said: “The DSS action is in line with its core mandate, as we have been monitoring the expensive and luxurious lifestyles of some of the judges, as well as complaints from the concerned public over judgments obtained fraudulently and on the basis of money paid.

    “The judges involved were invited, upon which due diligence was exhibited and their premises searched. The searches have uncovered huge raw cash (sums) of various denominations, local and foreign currencies, with real estate worth several millions of naira and documents affirming unholy acts by these judges.”

     

    Are judges above the law?

    According to the 1999 Constitution, judges have no immunity. But can they be arrested and prosecuted? The Third Schedule of the Constitution gives the National Judicial Council (NJC) powers to appoint and discipline corrupt judges.

    The NJC is empowered to “recommend to the President the removal from office of the judicial officers … and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers; recommend to the Governors the removal from the office of the judicial officers … and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers.”

    According to legal analysts, the implication of the constitutional provision is that where a judge is suspected of corruption, it behoves the NJC to discipline him by removing him from the Bench, following which he can be prosecuted.

    Some have justified the judges’ arrest on the basis that Supreme Court justices are rarely disciplined, as if they are perfect or there are no corrupt elements among them, and because most judges found guilty of corruption are merely given a slap on the wrist and allowed to go home and enjoy their loot.

    But, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) believes it was wrong to arrest the judges in the manner the DSS did.

     

    Can a judge stand trial?

    Explaining the quagmire of prosecuting a sitting judge, a former legal counsel at the World Bank Group, Mr Emeka Ugwuonye, said the scenario would be to first ensure that a judge leaves the Bench before putting him on trial.

    “Because before sending a judge to prison, you must first remove him from being a judge, so that when he arrives in prison, he will not remain a judge.

    “All the people in DSS cell today will either be released or charged to court. When charged to court, they will appear before judges. So, if you detain a judge in the same cell as the other people, what will happen tomorrow when they appear in the same court before the judge who was their cell mate?

    “There is the presumption of innocence, which means that the judges will remain judges until they are proven guilty, which could be four years from today. So, it is important to first remove a judge as a judge before he is prosecuted.

    “Otherwise, the same man will be standing criminal trial at a time he is still a judge. So, if his own case is coming up on Tuesday, he will serve as a judge on Monday, but on Tuesday, he will stand in the dock as an accused person. Then on Wednesday and Thursday, he will sit as a judge in the next courtroom.

    “If the judge remains a judge (since he has not been removed as a judge) during the time that his own case is being tried, it is the same DSS prosecutors prosecuting him that will appear before him to prosecute other suspects.

    “If you are a lawyer representing a suspect against the DSS in the court of this judge, who is also being tried by the DSS, you will fear that the judge would be too afraid of the DSS to render impartial judgment.

    “It is odd, stupid, impracticable and unconstitutional to arrest a sitting judge for a common crime,” Ugwuonye said.

    According to him, the law envisages that if a judge commits a crime, he has to be reported to the NJC, which disciplines judges. That body will dismiss the judge within six months if found culpable, after which he can be prosecuted, meaning that there is no possibility of him sitting at the same time as he is being prosecuted.

    “Ironically, if you start criminal prosecution of a judge, the NJC cannot do anything until you finish the criminal trial, which can take four years. So, the best way for a judge to remain a judge for a long time is for you to start criminal trial rather than a disciplinary proceeding to remove him first.

    “All over the world, there is a special procedure for dealing with a judge that committed a crime. The first step is to remove him as a judge so he will not remain a judge when his case is being tried,” Ugwuonye said.

     

    How corrupt judges were dealt with elsewhere

    A corruption scandal in the Ghanaian judiciary made the headlines in September, last year, following an exposé by an undercover investigative lawyer-turned journalist, Anas Aremyaw Anas.

    He conducted a two-year investigation and brought out audio and video evidences of how corruption takes place within the Ghanaian judiciary.

    Following the exposé, 22 circuit court judges and magistrates were suspended. Seven of the judges were among the most senior to be suspended in what was the biggest corruption scandal to hit Ghana’s judiciary.

    Ghana’s Chief Justice Georgina Theodora Wood said Ghana’s Judicial Council had established a “prima facie case of stated misbehaviour against them”.

    Last December, judges implicated in the judicial corruption scandal were sacked; one other was reprimanded.

    In the state of Ohio in the United States, for instance, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has a grievance form online. Once a complaint is filed, the Disciplinary Counsel investigates and gathers evidence. If the Disciplinary Counsel finds evidence of an ethical violation, it will file a formal complaint against the judge with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

    If the Board finds enough evidence of wrongdoing, it will then make a recommendation to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which will decide on disciplinary action ranging from a public reprimand, or limitation on the judge’s duties, to disbarment.

    In Alabama judges may be removed in one of two ways: The judicial inquiry commission investigates complaints against judges and files complaints with the “court of the judiciary”. The court of the judiciary may censure, suspend, or remove a judge.  Decisions of the court of the judiciary may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Judges may be impeached.

    In Alaska, judges may be suspended, removed from office, retired, or censured by the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of the commission on judicial conduct. Judges may be impeached by two thirds of the senate and convicted by two thirds of the House of Representatives.

    In Arizona, a judge may be impeached by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and convicted by a two-third vote of the senate; or the Supreme Court may censure, suspend, remove, or retire a judge upon the recommendation of the commission on judicial conduct, and judges are subject to recall election.

    Where federal judges are involved, judicial councils, which are panels of the United States federal courts, handle such disciplinary issues within their circuits. The judicial discipline process of US federal judges is initiated by the filing of a complaint, following which a special committee investigates the facts and allegations in the complaint. The committee then files a comprehensive written report of its investigation with the judicial council of the circuit involved.

    There have also been instant arrests. In 2013, nine traffic court judges in Philadelphia were arrested for fixing tickets for friends and political allies in a sweeping federal indictment that alleged pervasive, but covert, corruption in the courthouse.

    Federal officials alleged “a widespread culture of giving breaks on traffic citations to friends, family, the politically-connected and business associates.”

    Virtually everyone who wore the robe in the city’s traffic court between July 2008 and September 2011 were arrested and forced to stand on the other side of the bench after being accused by federal prosecutors of cheating the average citizen out of a fair shake.

    Last November 4, the FBI arrested a North Carolina judge for bribery and corruption after he allegedly attempted to bribe federal agents. A superior Puerto Rico judge was also arrested in May 2014 for bribery in a fatal drunk driving case.

     

    NBA’s position

    NBA President Abubakar Mahmoud declared ‘a state of emergency’ in the judiciary and demanded the immediate release of the justices and judges without conditions.

    At a briefing in Lagos, he warned the Federal Government of “grave consequences” should the demands not be met.

    “If these demands are not met, there will be grave consequences that will follow and we do not want us to get to that situation,” Mahmoud said.

    The association also set up a Crisis Management Team which comprises the association’s past presidents and general secretaries to investigate the situation.

    The NBA president said: “I want to, on behalf of the Bar Association, make the very following clear and unequivocal demands: we demand the immediate, unconditional release of all the judges abducted.

    “The release must be done immediately and without any conditions. Two, we demand that the Department of State Services (DSS) should limit itself to its statutory and constitutional responsibilities.”

    Condemning the arrests, Mahmoud said: “This style of operation is not acceptable under a democracy. Whatever the justifications, whatever the complaints, there are legitimate routes and due processes must be observed.

    “If there are any legitimate complaints against any serving justice, there are constitutionally-laid out procedures and there are rules that govern these.

    “We expect the government to take legal counsel from appropriate officers of the government including the Attorney-General of the Federation who is there to guide them.”

     

    Lawyers express anger

    Lawyers have condemned the arrests. Chief Mike Ozhekome (SAN) said: “Welcome, full-blown dictatorship and fascism that are now here with us. It started with political opponents and opposition. Some of us cried out. Many gloated with eclat and a sense of victory at opponents’ horrific travails.

    “Now, the judiciary, up to the very apex court of the land, the Supreme Court, has been targeted and is now being intimidated, humiliated and annexed. The earlier Nigerians rise up and speak against this latest onslaught on the judiciary, the better for all of us and democracy. I am greatly troubled for my dear country.”

    Activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa called on lawyers to boycott the courts. He said: “It is condemnable for the DSS, which is an arm of the executive, to be breathing down on the judicial arm of the government, under the guise of fighting corruption. It is now clear without any shadow of doubt that the so-called anti-corruption war is a hidden agenda to perpetuate the Gen Buhari regime in office beyond 2019. It is meant to silence the opposition and to cover the inefficiency and cluelessness of this administration.”

    Executive Director of a rights group, Access to Justice (A2J), Mr Joseph Otteh, said: “Breaking into judges’houses, assaulting their relatives  and arresting them at that time of night over-reach the boundaries of how the DSS can legitimately conduct its business in a democratic government.

    “President Buhari’s government must respect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary and must rein in the excesses of its agencies. The government must denounce the actions of the DSS, investigate this assault on the judiciary, express its regrets and reassurances to the judiciary and ensure that those who authorised these assaults on judges and their households are disciplined.

    “The government must further address concerns that its agencies may be using the investigation of corruption allegations as a means to cower judges, and cajole them into silence, or as a way to intimidate judges who question the administration’s fledgling respect for the rule of law and court orders. The President must assure Nigerians that the judiciary will never, again, during his administration, be denigrated in this manner.”

    Chief G. A. Adetola-Kaseem (SAN), said: “The invasion of a judge’s (and indeed any citizen’s) home at any time and worse still  in the wee hours of the night, by any arm of the law enforcement agencies without following the due process of the law, is condemnable in the strongest language.

    “It amounts to intimidation of judges and therefore impinges on the independence of the judiciary and rule of law. In these days of kidnapping and general insecurity, it erodes the ordinary citizen’s confidence in the ability  of the  State to guarantee his security at all times.”

    Dr. Paul Ananaba (SAN) said the DSS should have followed due process and allowed the NJC to perform its statutory duty.

    “Our judges are not above arrest but issues concerning judges, procedure and how they should be handled, the National Judicial Council (NJC) is there statutorily to look into the issue.

    “I am yet to be convinced that by law, the DSS, by the Act establishing it, has powers to operate in the manner that it did when its officers swooped on the judges.

    “I believe that it could have been done in a more honourable manner, because these are honourable justices,” he noted.

    Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN)  yesterday accused the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) of shielding corrupt lawyers and judges.

    He said the judiciary has itself to blame for the “embarrassing” arrest of some judicial officers.

    “The Nigerian Bar Association, which has information on all corrupt judges and lawyers in the country have continued to shield them to the embarrassment of incorruptible members of the bar and the bench. The few lawyers who have plucked up the courage to expose corrupt judges and lawyers have been stigmatised and treated like lepers by their colleagues.

    “Having failed to take advantage of the  relevant statutory disciplinary bodies to purge the bar and the bench of corrupt elements the members of the legal profession have themselves to blame for the harassment of judges by security forces,” Falana said.

    NBA Vice President, Monday Ubani, said: “I want to say that corruption must be fought with the last drop of blood we possess to reclaim Nigeria irrespective of class, creed and religion but I advise that we must please follow our laws strictly and diligently in order to attract the support of the majority.

    “We must exorcise corruption from all our institutions including from the executive and the fight must remain total and impartial.”

    Abuja lawyer Nnaemeka Nwaogwugwu condemned the invasion as tantamount to intimidation of the judiciary.

    He said: “It remains a shameful dent on this administration to be intimidating the judiciary. If there is a solid reason based on investigation to indict any federal judge, such findings should be passed on to the NJC for appropriate sanctions.”

    The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) President, Malachy Ugwummadu, condemned the DSS action, saying Nigerians would resist it.

    He said: “This is one misadventure too many and will be decisively resisted by all well-meaning Nigerians, particularly those of us and groups who struggled hard for the return of constitutional democracy in Nigeria.”

    The Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP), through its National Coordinator, Chino Obiagwu, said: “LEDAP condemns in strongest terms the raid of residences of some judges accross the country, and the arrest and assault in some of them. The night raid is a flagrant assault on the rule of law and interference with the integrity and independence of judges. It amounts to crass intimidation of judges, which is the first line of attack of dictatorships.

    DSS acted within the law’

    Activist-lawyer Mr Jiti Ogunye justified the arrests. Speaking during a programme on Channels TV on Sunday, Ogunye said the DSS operatives acted within the law. He said the operatives were right to carry out the operation in the night, and that the law backed them to break into any house where the suspect was uncooperative.

    He said: “Everyone agrees that we have ethical problems bothering on corruption in the judiciary. The late Justice Kayode Eso stated that it was very shameful that there were ‘billionaire judges’.Chief Afe Babalola also echoed it recently.

    Until the isolated recmmendation that Justice Auta be prosecuted, how many times has the NJC recommended anybody for prosecution?

    ‘’As to whether what the DSS has done is within the ambit of the law, let me first dismiss what the learned SAN (Mike Ozekhome) has said. He’s quoting an old law.

    ‘’I refer to Section 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. It says: ‘A search warrant may be issued and executed at any time any day, including a Sunday or public holidays.’’’

    Ogunye further refer to Section 12 (2) of the ACJA, which provides: “Where access to a house or place cannot be obtained, the person or police officer may enter the house or place and search it for the suspect to be arrested, and in order to effect an entrance into the house or place, may break open any outer or inner door or window of any house or place… if after notification of his authority and purpose,and demand of admittance duly made, he cannot obtain admittance.’’

  • FHC judges shun courts in solidarity with arrested colleagues

    FHC judges shun courts in solidarity with arrested colleagues

    …Ohakim’s, Badeh’s trials affected

     

    Judges of the Federal High Court in Abuja Monday shunned court in solidarity with one of the colleagues arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS).

    One of the judges arrested during last Saturday’s raid by the DSS is Justice Adeniyi Ademola, who sits in Court 7 of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Litigants, whose cases were scheduled for Monday, were disappointed when, on getting to court, they learnt that the judges would not sit.

    Some of the major cases affected were those involving former Chief of General Staff, Alex Badeh, former Imo State governor, Ikedi Ohakim and the case filed against the House of Representatives by Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Limited (Shell).

    Ohakim is being tried before Justice Ademola on a three-count charge of money laundering and false asset declaration.

    He is accused of purchasing a property at 60, Kwame Nkrumah Street, Plot No 1098, Cadastral ZoneA04,  Asokoro District, Abuja with cash payment of $2.29 which was said to be dollar equivalent of N270m in November 2008.

    Ohakim was also accused of failing to declare the property as part of his assets when asked by the EFCC to do so.

    He was to open his defence Monday, but for absence of the trial judge. No date is fixed yet for the case.

    Badeh and a company, Iyalikam Nigeria Limited are being tried before Justice Okon Abang for allegedly diverting about N1.4billion belonging to the Nigerian Air Force (NAF) between January and December, 2013, an offence which contravenes Section 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

    Trial was expected to continue Monday.

    Shell is challenging the jurisdiction of the House of Reps to investigate the process leading to the allocation of oil wells to it.

    It is also the company’s contention, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/443/2016, that the planned investigation was subjudice as a similar case filed earlier by Malabo Oil was still pending before the court.

    Hearing was to open in the case Monday before Justice Abang.

  • Melaye faults DSS over invasion of judges’ homes

    Melaye faults DSS over invasion of judges’ homes

    The Senator representing Kogi West, Senator Dino Melaye has faulted the invasion of the residences of some Supreme Court and High Court judges by operatives of Department of State Security (DSS).

    Melaye said that there was no doubt that the DSS operatives acted outside their constitutional mandate.

    The lawmaker in a statement in Abuja on Sunday noted that although there was the need to rid the judiciary of corruption, “the approach adopted by President Muhammadu Buhari was totally wrong and unacceptable.”

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) Senator said that the invasion of the homes and arrest of the judges was condemnable especially when it is recognised that the agency conducted operation acted outside its core mandate.

    He insisted that although judges have no immunity and could be tried, the use of DSS by government was “absolutely wrong and unacceptable.”

    “I have studied the Act setting up DSS, Nigerian Intelligence Agency and DIA and can conclude that the DSS operatives went outside their core mandate. There is no doubt that many judges are corrupt. It is also important to state the need to sanitise the judiciary of corruption that make judges not to give commercial rulings which create terrible precedence in our legal system. Judges have no immunity and can be tried and should be tried but the use of DSS is absolutely wrong.

    “The DSS operatives overstretched themselves and conducted investigations on the judges. They ought to have handed over their findings to the appropriate institutions of government: the Police or National Judicial Council for prosecution and punishment.

    “The rule of law is a core value of governance and therefore must be guided jealousy. Prosecution of civil and corruption cases is not the responsibility of DSS. Internal security is the main duty of the DSS and they should stick to that.

    “Gun-wielding DSS and police operatives had on Friday night and in the early hours of Saturday swooped on the residences of senior judges, breaking doors and threatening to harm their family members and aides.

    “The judges affected in the raids carried out in Abuja, Port Harcourt and Gombe States were of the Supreme Court and Federal High Court judges

    “At least two of the Justices were said to have recently ruled against the DSS and condemned its disregard of the laws of the land during its operations.
    The arrested judges are Justice Sylvester Ngwuta (Supreme Court); Justice John Okoro (Supreme Court) and Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
    “The DSS also searched the residence of another judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, but he was not arrested.”

  • Judicial staff Union demand release of arrested judges

    The Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) has described as brutal and uncivilized, the raid on the houses of some Judges and their arrest at the weekend by men of the Department of State Security (DSS) for alleged corruption.
    The union said while it is in total support of the fight of corruption, the rule of law must be applied in dealing with cases of corruption and demanded the immediate release of all the arrested judges.
    National President of the union, Comrade Marwan Mustapha Adamu said in a press statement in Abuja that the union has summoned an emergency National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting for Tuesday 11, October 2016 to deliberate on the issue with a view to fashioning out the next line of action, if nothing is done to uphold the sanctity of the Judiciary as an arm of government.
    The statement signed by the National Public Relations Officer, Comrade Koin Selepreye quoted the Union President as lamenting the gestapo style adopted by the DSS in dealing with the matter.
    According to the Union officials, the secret police should have forward the names of the corrupt officers to NJC which is the statutory body which can punish or dismiss any erring judicial officer.
    While calling on members to remain calm on what he described as “invasion of the Judiciary” the union said “we received with disappointment the news of raiding and subsequent arrest of some Judges in Nigeria who were accused of corruption in an inhuman manner.
    “It is sad that as a Security Agency whose primary duty includes intelligent gathering and the protection of Senior Government official would now perform their duties in a gestapo style
    “The National Office of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) rejects this unfortunate trend. To think that an Agency like the DSS that is expected to respect the rule of law and due process would now under whatever guise not do the right thing.
    “In as much as we do not support corruption, we frown at the manner with which the DSS is going about its duty as it is very vindictive and unacceptable to us. We therefore urge the DSS and all Security Agencies to respect the Rule of Law for democracy to strive stronger in Nigeria”.

  • CJN: Judges under probe for conflicting decisions

    CJN: Judges under probe for conflicting decisions

    Govt seeks help to fight graft

    22 get SAN

    Judges who issue confliciting judgments were warned yesterday to pull the brakes on their action.

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) is probing their actions, Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Mahmud Mohammed said.

    Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation Abubakar Malami (SAN) and a leader of the Body of Senior Advocates on Nigeria, T. J. O. Okpoko (SAN), just like Justice Mohammed, are also worried over the rising trend of conflicting judgments.

    Justice Mohammed, Malami and Okpoko said instances where lower courts of coordinate jurisdiction render conflicting judgments on similar cases and at some instances, ignore established precedents were harmful to the integrity and reputation of the Judiciary.

    The CJN said judges found wanting would be punished.

    Justice Mohammed, Malami and Okpoko spoke in Abuja at a special court session mark the opening of the Supreme Court’s 2016/2017 legal year and the swearing-in of new Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN).

    In all, 22 lawyers were conferred with the rank yesterday, among them the Director-General of the Nigerian Law School (NLS), Mr. Olanrewaju Onadeko.

    The CJN said: “It is with great trepidation and dismay that I note the growing trend of the disregard for laid down precedent in decisions from various levels of courts, even the appellate court.

    “I am of the firm conviction that every court in Nigeria is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and shall not graft a different outcome from those expressly laid down by the Supreme Court.

    “Such departures from precedent therefore risk creating the type of confusion, which is inimical to the trust reposed in us by the people and we risk our reputations, our integrity and even our existence by such indiscipline.

    “Several conflicting decisions were recklessly dished out by the Court of Appeal last year in appeals arising from various decisions of the Election Petitions Tribunals, given on election petitions filed by the parties who lost in the general elections conducted in April 2015.

    “Such decisions were made as the result of flagrant refusal of the panels of the Court of Appeal involved to be bound not only by its own decisions but also by the decisions of this Court.”

    “I therefore call on our judicial officers to have due respect for the law and strive to adjudicate in a manner that is premised upon the principles of Justice.  Little wonder therefore that people are now increasingly looking at Alternative Dispute Resolution in order to engender more certainty to the resolution of their disputes,” the CJN said.

    Justice Mohammed, who frowned at moves to subvert the court’s succession tradition, stated that it was better to retain the practice where the most senior Justice succeeds a departing CJN.

    “While I would admit that there is no constitutional restriction as to where those to be appointed are selected from, the long-held practice, which I daresay has been apolitical, transparent and fair, has been to appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court to the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    “With the exception of two Chief Justices, who were appointed from outside the Supreme Court during the military regimes and in exceptional circumstances, this system has proven to be seamless, predictable, respectable and dignified.

    “The idea that we can appoint a legal practitioner, without the proven experience or the temperance of character developed through years of active participation in adjudication, may indeed be fraught with risk, none greater than the risk of creating another sinecure for party loyalists or reducing the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria to one which can be ‘lobbied’ for.

    “This will undoubtedly and irreversibly hurt our justice system and must be strenuously resisted,” he said.

    Justice Mohammed, who noted that the Supreme Court performed exceedingly well in the last legal year by handling 1489 cases, blamed delay in court process on lawyers.

    “Sadly, certain members of the Bar are conspicuous in utilising unethical, frivolous applications and appeals, multiplicity of actions in courts of coordinate jurisdiction and other acts of calumny to frustrate the speedy dispensation of justice.

    “These abuses of court process not only occasion delays, but also diminish the standing of the justice system and the legal profession in the eyes of Nigerians,” he said.

    The CJN added: “I am proud to say that by the will of Almighty, I am leaving the Supreme Court in a better shape than I met it.’’

    Justice Mohammed is due to retire in November whe he will be 70.

    Justice Mohammed said the last legal year witnessed transition in the ranks of the justices of the court, with the appointment of Justice Amiru Sanusi.

    “While we are waiting for the confirmation of the appointment of two justices of the court by the Senate, the NJC is expected to consider and recommend the appointment of two additional justices at its meeting on Sept.28

    “We also held valedictory sittings on the retirement of two of our brothers, in the persons of Justices Afolabi Fabiyi and Sailfullahi Muntaka-Coomasie into well deserved life of leisure and rest.

    “I thank these two distinquished jurists and gentlemen for their invaluable contributions to the jurisprudence of the court and rest assured, they are sorely missed by us all,’’

    The CJN, who frowned at the growing practice where lawyers encourage their clients to direct complaints against judicial officers to the President, urged the new SANs to uphold their professional ethics and conduct themselves in a manner beholding their new status.

    Aside the various conflicting judgments handed out by the various divisions of the Court of Appeal in the post-2015 election cases, the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) have recently, given some judgments that appeared conflicting and confusing.

    Two of such are the various decisions given so far in relation to the leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the governorship dispute in Abia State.

    While Justice Okon Abang (of the Federal High Court, Abuja) has consistently held that the Ali Modu Sheriff-led Executive Council of the PDP was the authentic body to take decisions on its behalf, Justice Ibrahim Watila (of the Federal High Court, Port-Harcourt) has upheld the leadership of the Ahmed Makarfi- committee.

    Justice Nwamaka Ogbonna of a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Kubwa added a twist to the PDP leadership crisis when, in a judgment onAugust 17, she restrained Sheriff from further parading himself as the Chairman of the PDP.

    The judge hinged her decision on an earlier judgment by Justice Valentine Ashi (of the High Court of the FCT, Apo) where Ashi voided the amendment to the PDP constitution, on which basis Sheriff became the party’s Chairman.

    In the Abia case, Justice Abang (of the Federal High Court, Abuja) upheld the cases of false tax information brought against Governor Okezie Ikpeazu by Sampson Ogah and Obasi Ekeagbala, and sacked the governor.

    Justice Abang held that the plaintiffs in both cases proved their cases that Ikpeazu submitted false tax information to his party and was therefore not qualified to have contested the party’s primary.

    However, another judge of the Owerri division of the Federal High Court, Justice   A.I Allagoa held in a separate case that the allegation against Ikpeazu was forgery, which the plaintiff in the case, Friday Nwosu could not prove.

    Justice Allagoa dismissed the suit and held that the allegation that Ikpeazu forged his tax papers, which also was the kernel of the cases before Justice Abang, was not proved as required.

    Malami, who was represented by the Solicitor General of the Federation (SGF), Taiwo Abidogun, sought the cooperation of the Judiciary in ensuring the Federal Government’s efforts at curbing corruption and terrorism.

    The AGF, who noted that public confidence is important in the justice administration system, urged the leadership of the Judiciary to take steps to discourage activities that may result in the erosion of public confidence in the courts.

    Okpoko, who spoke for the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, urged the NJC to be firm in dealing with judges found to have compromised their position in rendering conflicting decisions and disregarding existing precedents.

    While lamenting the dwindling public respect for the Judiciary, Okpoko cautioned against engaging in unethical conduct, including accepting bribe.

    “In our nation, as it stands today, no one needs to be told that the Bar and the Bench are at a cross road. For the Judiciary, the nation, in recent past has witnessed the show of shame brought about by court of coordinate jurisdiction assuming jurisdiction to hear the same dispute between the same parties and delivering verdicts that are totally in conflict with one another.

    “For the Chief Justice of Nigeria, and the NJC, this is a very embarrassing development, and I call on the regulatory authorities to step in immediately to do the damage control so as to save our justice system from further ridicule. This is not just a matter of corruption. Conflicting judgments go to the very root of the judicial system.

    Onadeko, who spoke for the new SANs, said they will work to uphold and positively advance the ethics and ethos of the profession, from their new position, bearing in mind the privilege, duties and responsibilities that their new status attracts.

    Other new SANs include: Olaseni Abiodun Adio,  Nnamonso Udo Ekanem, Prof Muhammed Tabiu, Dr Valerie-Janette Ogonna Azinge and Olufunke Abimbola Agbor. Olusola Oladimeji Ojutalayo, Richard Ayodele Akintunde, Oyesoji Gbolahan Oyeleke and James Onyeanwuna Njeze Ikeyi,

    There are also: Elisha Yakubu Kurah, Adewunmi Adedeji Ogunsanya, Olatubosun Ola Olanipekun, Kalu Ikwuonwu Umeh and Adewale SundayAdesokan.

    Others are Fredson Chijioke Alexander Okoli, Olasheni Ibiwoye, Abdulhakeem Utman Mustapha, Mba Ekpezu, Edward Gyang Pwajok and Prof Chukwu Amari Omaka.

    Of the 22, 19 are from among the advocate category while 3 are from the academics. Only two women made it this year.

     

  • Agenda for judges in new legal year

    Agenda for judges in new legal year

    During the last legal year, the judiciary was the butt of criticism. The institution did not help matters with the conflicting judgments by some judges. As a new legal year began last Friday, the judiciary has a chance to redeem its image. Will it take the chance? ROBERT EGBE sought lawyers’ views.

    THE last legal year ended on a sour note  last July, for the third arm of government. Reason: The institution came under fire for corruption, poor work ethics and alleged obstruction of the anti-graft crusade.

    It also shot itself in the foot with conflicting decisions by some judges.

     

    Speedy justice delivery

     

    President Muhammadu Buhari was one of the judiciary’s critics. The President, who came into power with, among others, the promise to curb corruption, lamented on some occasions that corruption cases were not moving as fast as they should in the courts.

    At a workshop in Abuja titled: “Role of the judiciary in the fight against corruption”, on July 18, organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption in collaboration with the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Commonwealth Secretariat and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC), the President accused some lawyers of delay tactics.

    “The judiciary must fight delay of cases in court as well as fight corruption in its own ranks, perceived or otherwise. We expect to see less tolerance for delay tactics used by defence lawyers or even the prosecution in taking cases to conclusion,’’ he said.

    The President observed that these delays persisted despite the reforms introduced in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 to hasten criminal trials.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mahmud Mohammed, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and some senior lawyers have, on some occassions, spoken on the issue.

    Why have the ACJA reforms not taken root? To Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman, Prof Itse Sagay (SAN), it is because judges are “still learning and trying to come to terms with it”.

    He said: “Unfortunately, quite a number of them are still being influenced by the old law. When they think they’re complying, they’re mixing things up. One common area they’re still making a mistake is when someone brings an application particularly challenging jurisdiction. Some of them still think that they ought to take that application and give a ruling on the spot, which is wrong and contrary to the ACJA.

    “What they should do is to take the application, both the applicant and prosecuting counsel will address the court, the court will note everything down, and without giving a ruling, go on with the substantive corruption matter. At the end of it all, when witnesses had been taken, the judge then gives his ruling on the issue of jurisdiction as well as his judgment.

    “But, many of them are still under the impression that once it’s a matter that has to do with jurisdiction, they will say to themselves: ‘Without me having jurisdiction, I can’t handle this matter, so let me deliver a ruling’. No. They’re not supposed to deliver a ruling. If they do that, they’re breaching the law themselves.”

    • Adesina
    • Adesina

    Former NBA General Secretary Mr Dele Adesina (SAN) also addressed the “allegation that corruption cases are being delayed, that the judiciary is not a willing or ready collaborator with government”. He suggested that in the new year, delays could be reduced if the NBA applied its disciplinary powers.

    He said: “You see. It is important for us, as a people, to recognise the system, the procedure under which the judiciary operates. Judicial procedure cannot be short-circuited. The process is automatic and these procedures are duly contained in extant provisions of the law and must be followed.

    “That doesn’t stop us from sitting down and discussing how we can fine tune and fast track the process without compromising any other laws that I referred to. That does not stop us from using the disciplinary procedures of the Nigerian Bar Association to punish wrongful attitudes of practitioners of the law.

    “I believe if we look at these two areas, we can address the issue of delay without compromising standards and jettisoning our substantive and procedural laws.”

     

    Corruption-free judiciary?

     

    Allegations of corrupt practices against some lawyers and judicial officers were rife last legal year. Perhaps the most notable was the criminal trial of Rickey Tarfa (SAN) on a 27-count charge of offering gratification to a public officer, among others.

    The NBA recognised the problem and its President, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) last August 3, promised not to shield lawyers found wanting.

    He said: “Under my administration, we will not tolerate senior lawyers undermining justice administration in any way. The NBA will work hard to ensure that we flush out lawyers with integrity deficit. Most importantly, we are going to place emphasis on change of attitude.”

    However, some lawyers warn that care must be taken to not paint all of the judiciary with the brush of corruption.

    Adesina opined that despite the allegations, Nigeria’s judiciary remains one of the best in the world.

    He said: “That is not to say that there can be no room for improvement. I cannot claim to be unaware of criticisms against the judiciary. One of them is that the judiciary is corrupt. This is the most uncharitable statement that can be made of the Nigerian judiciary.”

    Adesina challenged “the people who made this allegation, this generalisation,” to go a step further and identify the courts or judges that are corrupt.

    “The stigmatisation of the entire judiciary will not do this nation any good. People approach the courts because they have confidence that they will have justice. If we continue to stigmatise our judiciary, this confidence and trust will be eroded. If that happens, there will be a question mark on the efficacy of our judicial system and anarchy will not be far from such a system.

    “So, my advice in the new year is that anybody that will make an allegation of corruption must go further and name those that are corrupt and such judges should be made to face the full wrath of the law.

    “If there is a desire to carry out a sanitisation process, let it be done, but the manner of generalising allegation against the whole system is not good enough,” Adesina added.

    Former secretary, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos branch, Mr. Seth Amaefule, blamed corruption in the judiciary on, among others, a ‘weak system’.

    Amaefule said: “One of the things that encourage corruption in the legal profession is a weak system whereby people live above their means and no questions are asked. You may find a judicial officer living and acquiring property well above his income and nobody asks any question. That’s a weak system that encourages corruption. If I know I can do it and get away with it, then why not?”

     

    End to conflicting judgments

     

    During the yearly conference of Justices of the Court of Appeal (JCAs) in Abuja, a few months ago,  Mohammed cautioned judges against giving conflicting judgments.

    He said: “Such judicial contradictions only result in untold hardships to litigants in their quest for justice. They further cast your lordships in an unfavourable light and leave the judiciary at the mercy of innuendos, crass publications and editorials.”

    The ‘innuendos, crass publications and editorials’ the CJN warned of came fast last August when Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court in Abuja and Justice Ibrahim Watila in the court’s Port Harcourt Division gave ‘rival’ decisions on the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) convention slated for August 17.

    While Justice Abang stopped the convention, warning that there would be consequences should his order be flouted, Justice Watila gave the greenlight for the convention to hold, directing the police to provide security.

    Also while Justice Abang ordered the suspension of the PDP convention because it was being held in contravention of his order, Justice Watila ordered it to go on because there was no application  seeking to stop it.

    Amaefule urged the judiciary to get its act right.

    He said: “Before you take a decision on a matter, you find out from your brother judges about any similar matters going on and there is nothing wrong for a judge to call parties and say ‘there is a matter in which issues similar to the ones we are dealing with here are being litigated in another court. So as not to have conflicting decisions let us await the outcome of the matter in the other court.’

    “There is nothing wrong with the judge taking that position. This issue of conflicting decisions exposed the judiciary to a lot of public disrepute and I don’t think it speaks well of the judiciary, so a lot needs to be done to clean up the act of the judiciary.”

    Amaefule observed that it would be unfair to judge the judiciary in the outgone legal year on the basis of the conflicting cases.

    He said: “It is just a few cases that have thrown up all this dust. Take note that these decisions that have thrown up dust are essentially political decisions or decisions affecting political parties, so they are bound to be sensational, but it is not enough to use that to judge the performance of the judiciary.”

    •Ukamba
    •Ukamba

    Lagos lawyer Ugochukwu Ukamba, urged the courts to find a way to synchronise their decisions in real time.

    He said: “Traditionally, it is not uncommon to have incidents of conflicting decisions from the Court of Appeal. In my opinion, this is due largely to the fact that the Appeal Court hasn’t found a way to, in real time, synchronise its decisions from its various divisions.

    “A case in point is the divergent views of the Court of Appeal on the proper parties to a Garnishee Proceedings – there are decisions from the Court of Appeal suggesting that the judgment debtor is not a necessary party to the proceedings, there are other decisions suggesting that the judgment debtor is a necessary party.

    “These conflicts are not healthy for the polity as litigants are at a loss as to which of them to follow.”

    Ukamba also urged the judiciary to take more advantage of “the efficiency that technology offers to automate some of the processes that clog the expeditious conclusion of cases”.

    He continued: “The Lagos judiciary is taking a bold step in making provisions for electronic filing of court processes. This can be replicated in other states.

    “It is sad that in 2016, judges and magistrates still take down court proceedings in long hand thereby considerably slowing down the adjudication process. I believe that concerted efforts should be made in installing electronic recorders in court rooms.

    ”We need to take a holistic look at the ACJA, find out the loopholes that are being exploited by the high profile cases that are presently being prosecuted under it and find a way to plug those holes.”

  • Angry judges endure tough governmental challenges

    Angry judges endure tough governmental challenges

    FOR some time to come, Nigerians will remember the Muhammadu Buhari presidency for, among other things, its uneasy relationship with the judiciary. The times are unusual, and to remedy the damage done to the country by those who have exploited loopholes to destroy the country’s financial system, the government and its law enforcement and anti-graft agencies have felt impelled to enact and execute desperate remedies. In its response to these desperate remedies, the judiciary perches on the horns of a dilemma. They are aware of the popularity of the government’s desperate measures, but they are also sworn to dispense justice in accordance with the law, whether that law is weak or not, adequate or not. The government is not similarly discomfited. As this column noted many months back, its leading lights know how popular their measures are and have remained. More keenly, they also recognise that many provisions of the law, which they privately scorn, are unable to accommodate the strong-arm tactics needed to compel suspects to disgorge the loot they have ferried away with freakish, cartoonish delight.

    How the judiciary and the Buhari presidency resolve this irritating dilemma will determine how successful the campaigns against financial malfeasance are, and what lasting impact they would leave on the future of Nigeria in terms of social, financial and political stability. So far, if signals are not misread, there is little to indicate that the impact would be lasting or salutary. Both arms of government would therefore need to find common grounds anchored on the constitution and the law to develop and fine-tune approaches that would have such salutary impact. If they do not find that common ground, the conflict between the two arms will continue, and probably fester to the point of damaging the polity and encouraging self-help, an attitude already evident in most parts of the country among various competing and conflicting ethnic and religious groups.

    In July alone, three judges demonstrated how angry they were at the manner some government agencies were carrying out their constitutional responsibilities. Case one involves an aide of Governor Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State, Abiodun Agbele who was detained between July 1 and July 21. Arrested around June 27 by the EFCC for his alleged role in laundering N1.2bn on behalf of the Ekiti governor, according to reports, he was awarded five million naira as damages for wrongful and illegal detention. An angry Justice Olukayode Adeniyi of the Federal Capital Territory High Court condemned what he described as EFCC’s ‘gross abuse of powers’ and ‘arrogant display of executive might’. The EFCC in turn described the judgement as curious.

    Case two involves retired Air Commodore Umar Mohammed who was ordered remanded in prison custody by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal Capital Territory High Court. The retired air force officer, who was a member of the presidential committee on arms procurement, had been arraigned for money laundering and other charges. But instead of keeping him in prison custody, the Department of State Service (DSS), which arraigned him, kept him in their own custody for days presumably to complete some paper work. An incensed Justice Dimgba lashed out at the DSS, saying: “I take a strong exception to this type of behaviour; when the court orders that someone be kept in prison custody, the person ought to be kept in prison and not in the office. If the people at the DSS want to become judge and do their job as well, I am ready to vacate my office for them, but as long as I am still here, I take an exception to them flouting the orders of the court. Once processes have been filed in court, it is no longer in their hands, and the order of the court must be obeyed.” There was no punishment meted out to the DSS operatives who flouted the order, not even a censure, nor a query, nor a slap on the wrist.

    Case three is strictly speaking not a part of the arms scandal trials. It was a regular corruption case which drew the ire of the trial judge, Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye of a Lagos State High Court, Ikeja. She also had very harsh words for the EFCC and the commission’s lawyer, Babatunde Sonaiki. “It appears that you are keen on taking the laws into your hands,” she told the EFCC counsel. “Why would you go before another court for this kind of order (a forfeiture order) when the matter is before me? This kind of action is what is giving the judiciary a bad name.” The EFCC had recklessly engaged in what the judge described as forum shopping to get an order it was unable to secure from her court.

    Another earlier case involving Col Nicholas Ashinze, an aide of the former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col Sambo Dasuki (retd), outraged a judge. This column drew attention to it last May. The colonel had been admitted to bail, but the EFCC ignored the order and kept their quarry. Furious, Justice Yusuf Halilu, the trial judge, blurted out: “The EFCC is a creation of the law. The court will not allow it to act as if it is above the law. It is remarkable to note that the motto of the EFCC is that nobody is above the law, yet they are acting as if they are above the law. The EFCC Act is not superior to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The respondents in this matter have not behaved as if we are in a civilised society. They have behaved as if we are in a military dictatorship, where they arrest and release persons at will. The respondents, I must be bold to say  the EFCC and the Army  have behaved like illiterates.”

    The anger of the judges is not surprising. They were not wrong to feel besieged by the government’s brusque manner of relating with a judiciary they had at various fora and in trenchant words described as equally corrupt as the suspects they were defending. If lasting and impactful progress in the anti-graft war is to be achieved, the government must find a better way to fight the war lawfully. After all, the executive arm has the leeway to propose a welter of reforms in the judiciary to expedite court processes, engender efficiency in the courts, and remunerate judges in such a manner as to sustain them above the proverbial suspicion of Caesar’s wife. The government can’t hope to put the cart before the horse and expect a miracle.

    Just as the legislature is not perfect and is in need of urgent reforms and cleansing, both the executive and the judiciary also share in the blame of poor justice delivery and destabilisation of the country’s economy and politics. Rather than engage in blame game, the Buhari presidency must be persuaded to recognise the limits of throwing caviar to the general as it has unwisely done so far. With the people on its side, sensibly or otherwise, and with the legislature fairly amenable to passing relevant laws to quicken the pace of justice delivery, the government should seize the opportunity to formulate policies and programmes that are capable of sustaining the effort to bequeath a better and cleaner judiciary to future generations. But should the government and its agents keep on seeing the struggle with the judiciary as a sanctimonious fight for the upper hand, they would only succeed in passing the nuisance on to coming generations.

  • Judges cannot react to national issues – Lawyers

    Some Abuja-based legal practitioners have said that it is unethical for serving judges to comment on national issues.

    They made this known in separate interviews with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja.

    According to them, when a judge reacts to national issue he assumes position and cannot be saddled with any matter that may arise from the issue.

    One of the lawyers, Mr. Collins Ndubuisi, said that “judges cannot react to national issues because of the sensitive nature of their office.

    “When they react to an issue they assume a position in that matter. So, it becomes impossible for them to detach in presiding over such an issue if it is litigated upon.

    “When you trace it to the symbol of a woman blind folded with a scale and a sword of justice meaning that she does not look to either side.

    “When a judge comment on a national issue the judge become partisan,’’ Ndubuisi said, and adding that it was trite rule that “you can’t be a judge in your own cause. “When judge comment on a national issue he becomes an interested party and thereby disqualified himself from presiding over any dispute that touches on any such issue where he has commented.

    Ndubuisi said that judges by adjudicating on disputes plays stabilising role in the polity, adding that they were isolated from politics.

    He said in law justice should not only be done but seen to be done and done properly.

    “So, if the man sitting in the court leaves the court with the impression that the judge is biased in law that judge will be said to be biased.’’

    Another lawyer, Wilson Edet corroborated Ndubuisi and described a judge as umpires who should not take sides in a matter that he was a judge.

    “When an umpire or a referee starts reacting or playing game or politics, he ceases to be a good referee because when he presides over such game he would be biased because he is already compromised.

    “A judge cannot react to national issues even when he has enough information about the issue by virtue of his office.
    “He is to adjudicate and allow fair hearing not to take sides and deprive people that came to seek redress or justice from his court,’’ he said.

    Another lawyer, Ms Christie Nwaka, reasoned that a when a judge comments on issues and such issues are brought before him, he is bound to be biased and sentimental.

    “This is capable of causing a stir in the nation and that is not good enough for the judiciary system as a whole and justice delivery too,’’ Nwaka said.

    Like judges, Mr Ahmed Yusuf, said that it was unethical for lawyers to comment on matters pending in courts.

    “It is not good for any lawyer to discuss an issue that is before the court, I mean outside the court.

    “The ethics of the profession dictates that you don’t discuss such issues. It is not for media trial but a trial in the court of law,’’ Yusuf said.

    Yusuf, however, said that a personal opinion on any issue is quite different from discussing the issue that was before a court.

    “On a personal note if you ask me to discuss an issue that is of national interest as it concerns the law, I may have my own opinion that is different from discussing what is before the court.

    In his reaction, Mr Joel Ali, a lawyer, shared Yusuf’s views, adding that no one precisely knows the direction the judgment would go.

    “It doesn’t speak well of lawyers when they grant interviews to show they are in charge,’’ Ali said