The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Judges

  • DSS has no power to try judges, say lawyers

    The Department of State Services (DSS) has no power to try suspected corrpt judges, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Sylva Ogwemoh, has said.

    He advised the DSS to allow the rule of law to prevail and avoid setting a dangerous precedent.

    “The Constitution is very clear on the institution that has the mandate to exercise disciplinary control over serving judicial officers. That institution is the National Judicial Council (NJC). The DSS should allow the Rule of Law to prevail and not set a dangerous precedent by its actions,” he said

    The learned silk, however, emphasised that his position on the matter did not mean that corrupt judges should be shielded from prosecution.

    He cited the case of Justice Auta of the Kano State High Court, saying: “The NJC did the right thing by recommending him to the Governor of Kano State for dismissal and at the same time requesting the Police to prosecute him after allegations of corruption and criminal infractions against him were investigated and found to be true.

    “Let us tread cautiously and not sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of fighting corruption.’’

    Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch Publicity Secretary, Mr. Emeka Nwadioke urged the DSS to face its constitutional and statutory duties  and core mandate of  guaranteeing internal security.

    He said: “It is not its duty to conduct police investigations or arraign and prosecute cases of corruption. It is not its responsibility to conduct sting operations on judges for corruption or professional misconduct in the middle of the night.”

    Nwadioke argued that there are clear disciplinary procedures in the Constitution to deal with judicial officers who abuse their office through corrupt enrichment and sundry misfeasance. ‘’It needs no emphasis that the NSA Act cannot override the grundnorm, to wit the Constitution,’’ he said.

    He said: “Part I of the Third Schedule to the Constitution provides that the Federal Judicial Service Commission shall (13)(b) “recommend to the National Judicial Council, the removal from office of the judicial officers specified in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph.”

    He contended that the allegations made by the DSS against the judges fall within “judicial misconduct or misbehaviour”, which the NJC could handle, especially in light of Rule 3(F)(1) of the Code.

    He said it was only after they had been adjudged guilty and sanctioned by the NJC that the appropriate agency might step in to deal with those found culpable.

  • Presidency insists judges must step down for trial

    Presidency insists judges must step down for trial

    Why DSS won’t give NJC evidence
    NJC to act before CJN’s exit
    Council bars judges from taking gifts

    The Presidency is insisting that two Supreme Court Justices and four others must step aside ahead of their trial for alleged corruption, it was learnt last night.

    It also faulted Chief Justice Mahmud Mohammed’s claim that the Judiciary had issues with the Department of State Services (DSS), not the Federal Government.

    It was also learnt that the DSS refused to release the evidence against the judges under probe to the National Judicial Council (NJC) in order not to prejudice their trial.

    Those under investigation by the DSS are two Supreme Court Justices -Justice Sylvester Ngwuta and Justice Inyang Okoro; the suspended Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya, who was picked up in Sokoto; Justice Adeniyi Ademola (Federal High Court); the Chief Judge of Enugu State, Justice I. A. Umezulike;  Justice Kabiru Auta of Kano State High Court;  Justice Muazu Pindiga (Gombe State High Court);  Justice Bashir Sukola and  Justice Ladan Manir, from the Kaduna State High Court.

    Of the nine judges, the NJC has recommended sanctions for Justice Tsamiya; Justice. Umezulike and Justice Kabiru Auta.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC) is investigating six judges of the Federal High Court. They are: Justices Mohammed Nasir Yunusa; Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa; Musa Haruna Kurya; Agbadu James Fishim; Uwani Abba Aji; and Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia.

    But the NJC has refused to suspend six of the judges because, according to the Judicial agency, the DSS is yet to submit petitions and evidence against them.

    The government however said the judges must step aside to clear their names instead of facing trial while on the bench.

    A top government source, who spoke in confidence, said: “The government has made its position known to the CJN. On why the judges should step aside ahead of their trial. The government will not yield ground on this.

    “If we go ahead to arraign them in court, the same CJN and NJC will accuse the government of desecrating the Judiciary. The right step now is to allow the judges to face trial and clear the allegations against them.

    “It is unfortunate that what the CJN told the government on how to handle the case of the judges was different from the statement he issued.

    “We are suspecting that the CJN might be under pressure from his colleagues or he wants to leave the fate of the judges to his successor.

    “He cannot rationalise by making a distinction between the Federal Government and the DSS. The government was in support of the sting operations of the security agency. So, the DSS did not act unilaterally.

    “We will not take up issues with the CJN because the Nigerian Bar Association(NBA), some former Supreme Court Justices and the Body of Benchers have supported the position of the government that the judges should step aside.”

    The source added: “Some of the judges in their letters to the CJN admitted having huge cash at home as if their houses are banks. In some jurisdictions, no judge can have up to $5,000 dollars at hand.

    “We have a case of a judge who had never withdrawn a kobo from his salary account. How does he feed? Yet, the CJN was put into confidence on some of these issues at a meeting with some government officials. In what other way can the government respect the Judiciary?

    It was learnt at the weekend that the NJC might meet this week or before the November 10 exit date of the CJN on the petitions against some judges.

    It was gathered that the NJC session scheduled for Saturday was suddenly shifted following pressure from some quarters.

    A member of the NJC said: “Yes, our meeting was postponed at the last minute because of certain circumstances. We are hopeful that we may meet this week, depending on the disposition of the CJN.

    “What is however clear is that we will hold a meeting before the exit date of the CJN. We have to take a decision on some petitions against some judges before the council. One of the petitions is a high profile one.

    “It is also statutory that we meet to bid the CJN a farewell and ratify some recommendations on some judges.”

    It was gathered that the DSS refused to release evidence against the embattled judges to the NJC in order not to lay all the cards on the table before their trial.

    The DSS suspects that there is no way the judges will not be privy to the evidence against them and they may begin to frustrate their trial with preliminary objection.

    The agency prefers encounters with the judges in court instead of the NJC, which is a disciplinary body.

    A security source said: “With the suspicious manner the  NJC threw away some cases/ petitions  against some judges, the DSS cannot take such a risk to make all its evidence available to the body.

    “Take the case of a judge who was implicated in a N500million bribery, the Petition Review Committee of the NJC cleared him. This is a judge who admitted on tape to have collected bribe.

    “It took some persistence by a petitioner before the NJC could accept to sanction the Chief Judge of Enugu State. He was retired after about four petitions against him.

    “Another judge accused of demanding N200million was retired by the NJC when the law is explicit on what should be done.

    “To give evidence to NJC will amount to prejudging the judges. The DSS conducted sting operations in some judges’ quarters; it believes the law should take its course through trial.

    “Once the evidence are made available to the NJC, the trial of the judges will suffer a setback from the outset because they will know what the government has against them.”

  • NJC bars judges, court officials from accepting gifts

    NJC bars judges, court officials from accepting gifts

    •To launch new National Judicial Policy today

    Judges have been barred from accepting gifts from other arms of government.

    Also barred are other court officials, according to the National Judicial Council (NJC), which has also outlawed lobbying of other arms of government by the Judiciary or any of its institutions.

    It has also outlined new measures to curb corruption and other unethical conduct among judicial officers and other court staff.

    These are part of the provisions in a new “National Judicial Policy (NJP)” to be launched in Abuja today by the NJC.

    The policy seeks to merge and improve on the existing NJC National Judicial Policy and a similar policy by the National Judicial Institute (NJI).

    The existing Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers provides that “a judge and members of  his/her family shall neither ask for nor accept any gift, bequest, favour, or loan on account of anything done or omitted to be done by him in the discharge of his duties.”

    But, the provision in the new policy particularly bars judges and other court staff from accepting gifts from other arms of government. Compliance is mandatory.

    Section 2(3)(2) of the new policy states:” The Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers and Code of Conduct for Court Employees, with the amendment discouraging acceptance of gifts from other arms of government, should be such as would be adequate. Compliance with their provisions shall be mandatory.”

    Further on its relationship with other arms of government, it is prescribed that “the Judiciary shall not resort to lobbying in ensuring that the Legislature and the Executive perform their constitutional responsibilities”.

    “All arms of government should respect the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution.”

    The policy has also introduced measures to further keep complaints against judges and other court staff from the media and public domain. Provisions in this regard are contained in Section 2(2)(4) to 2(2)(9).

    “It shall be the policy of the Judiciary on complaints of misconduct against judicial officers or employees of the Judiciary shall not be leaked or published in the media.

    “Where complaints on allegations against Judicial Officers and Court employees are submitted for investigation, the complainant or complainants shall be made to give an undertaking not to do anything to prejudice investigation or actions that may be taken.

    “The Institutions of the Judiciary concerned with investigation or and implementation of decisions taken on such complaints shall be obliged to cease further action where such complaints are leaked or discussed in the media.

    “Where such a leakage is occasioned after the submission of a complaint then all investigations on the complaints shall be suspended, the leakage investigated and if such leakage is from the complainant or through other parties known to such a complainant, such a complaint should be discarded.

    “Where such leakage is occasioned prior to the presentation of the complaint and the source of the leakage is found to be the complainant or through other parties known to and connected with the complainant then such complaint shall not be accepted, upon submission, by the appropriate disciplinary body.

    “Upon the conclusion of any investigation, the judicial disciplinary bodies may allow public disclosure of their findings, subject to following the proper channels for such disclosure.”

    The NJC explained that the new policy was intended to enhance the performance of the Judiciary in the face of mounting public complaint and dwindling public confidence on its ability to deliver justice.

    “In recent times, there has been much concern by the public about the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the judicial system.In particular, there has been waning confidence in the performance of the superior courts in regard to justice delivery.

    “Such concerns make it imperative to identify issues and problems militating against a credible justice delivery system that would command the confidence of the citizen.

    “The need to put in place a judicial policy is borne out of the realisation that the most efficient and realistic way to deal with the identified issues and problems is by way of a judicial policy that would guide and provide principles and guidelines for tackling, and dealing with the issues and providing actions for objective and durable solutions to the problems.

    “In the final analysis, the objective of the National Judicial Policy is to promote and ensure the highest possible standard of qualitative justice delivery,” it said.

  • Senior lawyers fault NBA on fate of arrested judges

    Senior lawyers fault NBA on fate of arrested judges

    Some senior lawyers have disagreed with the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) that the judges arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS) should proceed on compulsory suspension.

    NBA President Abubakar Mahmud (SAN), at a function in Abuja on Thursday, called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to act fast to save the ebbing reputation of the judiciary in the eye of the public.

    He suggested the suspension of the arrested judges pending establishment of their innocence.

    But NJC, in a statement on Friday, argued that the NBA was wrong in calling for the judges’ suspension, having earlier supported the council’s decision to condemn the arrest, which it described as an attempt to cow the judiciary.

    The NJC said, in the statement by its Acting Director of Information, Soji Oye, that it could only exercise disciplinary powers over judicial officers, where due process was complied with.

    Senior lawyers, including Professor Yemi Akiseye-George (SAN), Selekeowei Larry (SAN) and Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) agreed with the NJC. Norrison Quakers (SAN) agreed with the NBA.

    Akinseye-George said: “The allegation against the judges must be proved. You cannot just accept the words of the investigators, particularly that they have reasons to be unhappy with the judges.

    “For example, DSS has a case before Justice Nnamdi Dimgba (of the Federal High Court, Abuja, whose house, the DSS said, was mistakenly invaded by its men).

    “They have made allegations against Justice Dimgba, but which are not proved. So, would you now ask them to stop sitting simply because some people have made allegations against them? No!

    “A process must be put in place by the NJC to investigate those allegations. An independent committee must be set up by NJC to sit publicly (not secret committee) and investigate the allegations, in the full glare of the media, so that it will be obvious to Nigerians whether the DSS people were abusing their powers or attempting to intimidate the judiciary.

    “Some of the affected judges have written to the CJN, stating their sides of the story. So, it is an embarrassment for the NBA to say that the judges should stop sitting simply because allegations were made against them.”

    Larry said: “I don’t know where they (NBA) got that idea from. It is a wrong one.

    “There is no authority that can do that. Nobody can just wake up in the morning and say I have suspended a judge.

    “The procedure for appointing and disciplining judicial officers is contained in the Constitution. For the NBA, I think that was just an oversight. It was not a well thought-out position.

    Kehinde said: “The position of the NBA is grossly untenable. Because, it means that whenever you are presiding over a matter as a judge and any security agency that is not happy with the way you are handling it, the next thing is that they will arrange to put some money in your house and get television cameras to film it and claim that you have taken money. And as a consequence, you will have no choice, but to step aside.

    “This is a dangerous precedent that we want to set. I repeat, this is a very, very dangerous precedent. Why has NBA not advised all its members, who have been accused in the Harliburton fraud to step aside from practising? Why is the NBA president himself, whose election is being challenged, did not step aside until the matter is decided by the court?”

    Quakers said: “If the Bar has now informed the NJC, as the body responsible for the appointment and discipline of judges to suspend the judges, I think, as joint stakeholder in the administration of justice, the wise thing to do is for those judges to step aside.

    “How would you explain that a justice of the Supreme Court is being arraigned in a court for a criminal trial, and that same judge will now go back to his regular court to sit?

    “Where things are done properly, in such a situation, whoever is concerned, should step aside for the time being until the issue is determined.

    “Will a litigant have respect for a High Court judge, who is arraigned in court for criminal culpability or criminal trial? Even, for the psyche of the judge, it is not good.

    “For me, I believe that, yes the Constitution provides that everyone, who is charged with criminal culpability is innocent until proved guilty.

    “Mind you, if you are being investigated, part of the requirements, when you are

  • ‘Legislators lack powers to summon judges’

    A rights’ group, Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP), has faulted plans by the Senate Committee on Judiciary to summon judges arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS).

    It said the legislature had no oversight powers over judicial officers in line with the principle of separation of powers.

    In a statement by its National Coordinator Mr. Chinos Obiagwu, LEDAP said only the National Judicial Council (NJC) was empowered by the Constitution to discipline judges and justices of superior courts.

    The group said any interference by the legislature or the executive in the affairs of the judiciary would be unlawful.

    LEDAP said: “The 1999 Constitution, unlike the legal framework of past military regimes, has consolidated the independence of the judiciary and established the NJC as the only body responsible for management of the judiciary.

    “There are a lot of corruption issues and corrupt politicians in the legislature and executive, which should preoccupy the senators. The scandal arising from the padding of the budget, which has been going on for many years in the legislature with connivance of the executive, as well as bogus and secretive huge allowances and emoluments claimed by legislators are more damaging economic crimes against the people that the Senate should address rather than intimidating a few judges alleged to be corrupt.

    “There are several court orders directing the National Assembly to disclose salaries and emoluments of its members, and details of constituency allowances claimed yearly by legislators. It has refused to obey these judgments of the courts.

    “The legislators appropriate nearly a quarter of the national wealth to themselves and account to no one. Nigerian legislators, adjudged as the most corrupt and most expensive in the world, has no legal or moral right to superintend over alleged corruption in the judiciary.”

  • And dem judges… dem a changing….

    When the Nobel Prize for Literature for was awarded to a non-literary poet who had nothing but contempt for formal poetry like Bob Dylan, the first thought that came to snooper’s mind was that Dele Giwa, had he lived, could also have won it with his musical prose and brilliant poetic cadences. Confirmation came later when a member of the jury in response to a query from the purists of the profession simply retorted. “The times… they are a changing!!”Meanwhile for the first time in its history, the Nobel jury is still looking for its latest Literature laureate. Times are changing indeed.

    The times are changing in Nigeria too, but for the worse or the better depending on how you view it. Who would have thought that we would live to see the day when revered judges would be trading allegations of enticement and corrupt inducements?

    But one man’s meat is truly another man’s poison. After searching in vain for a judge to grant him a perpetual black market injunction to restrain the police from searching the kitchen for contraband rice, Okon collapsed in tears.

    “Oga he be like if say demBuhari man don strike the fear of dem lord into dem lordship”, the mad boy jeered.

    “Ha Okon, dem judges dem a changing”, Baba Lekki intoned with Nobel sagacity.

    “Baba make dem keep dem change and give man him change”, the crazy boy hollered as Baba Lekki chanted: “ As it pleases their lordships!!!!!”

  • What is wrong with judging the judges?

    SIR: In a discerning society – ‘human beings are born equal’ and are treated as such irrespective of their social stratification. In such enclave, sanity is a way of life, while decency is the mother and guardian of such entity. In such defined boundaries, laws are made for every Tom, Dick and Harry; your status notwithstanding. Their laws are observed in strict compliance in defense of their value systems and institutions and not in breach like in ours. Their leaders in return replicate such feat by diligently submitting themselves to the course of law and order; leading to resignations and impeachments of major leaders across the world.

    But in Nigeria and Africa in general, even though we have seen a couple of politicians paraded and sanctioned for their indulgence in criminal activities, the arrest, arraignment, trials and prosecution of the heavy weight here still generate opprobrium and commotions as many still believe some personalities are simply above the law.

    In their reasoning, such highly placed Nigerians ought to be treated preferentially differently from the rest of us with dignity, unfettered respect and love even when suspected to have committed crimes against the society.

    That is the feeling with the current invasion of some homes of some judges in the country, their arrest and eventual release on bail by the Department of State Security services (DSS). The DSS had few days ago, in the middle of the night, swooped on four of the Judges in the country, while carting away suspected packages of bribery, amounting to millions of naira in different currencies. And in addition, went forth to arrest their suspects, interrogated them for hours and then released them to their families, while warming up to arraign them for a possible prosecution soon.

    In all the angles and sides to the story, one thing is undisputable: every Nigerian believes the popular notion ‘corruption is official in Nigeria, and officials of government here, are corrupt too.’ It is also unarguable; corruption has permeated into the fabrics of the society, the nation’s judiciary inclusive.

    So if these grounds are strongly established and the Nigerian Judicial Commission, NJC has confirmed so with their recent wielding of the big stick and sacking of three prominent judges namely: Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya, presiding justice of the Court of Appeal Ilorin Division; Chief Judge of Enugu State, Justice I.A. Umezulike and Justice Kabiru M. Auta of the High Court of Justice, Kano penultimate week over bribery and corruption, why the hues and cries about the recent development in the war against corrupt judges in the country?

    One is really worried Nigerians have been reduced to a chessboard in the hands of the political class here. We are made to think the way they want us to think, and act the way they want us to think. Otherwise, why the mounting opposition to the search, arrest and release of judges suspected to have committed crimes against you and I here? So it is now widely believed arrest, detention and convictions can only be done here with the poor alone?

    What is actually wrong with judging the judges anywhere in the world? As a matter of fact, the DSS, having acted based on a tip off, and having dully secured search warrants to invade those homes, now have a burden of proof hanging on their neck, having been aided with the materials collected from those scenes.

    Nigerians should therefore, allow the normal course of law to take its toll as conviction in any democratic society is a long journey. Democracy is a setting and set-up that allows fairness and fair hearing in times of accusations and counter accusations like this. It does not sieve from what it hears or entertains, but rather draws its strongest values and strength from its ability to discern between what is proper and what an aberrant act is. It is then it would release its harmer sledge on the guilty.

     

    • Gwiyi Solomon,

     Abuja.

  • Kudos for DSS on judges’ arrest

    A pressure group, Concerned Abians for Good Governance and Justice (CAGGJ) has praised the Department of State Services (DSS) for the arrest of some senior judges across the country and their subsequent arraignment for alleged corrupt practices.

    The group also criticised the role played by Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike in the failed attempt to arrest a federal High Court judge in Port Harcourt by operatives of the DSS.

    In a statement by its chairman, Egwu D. Uwa, CAGGJ said Nigerians have for years be yearning for a day like this, when men no matter how highly placed would be made to account for what they have done with what was entrusted in their care.

    Uwa said as far as his group was concerned, what the DSS operatives did was  what Nigerians had been yearning for over the years, stressing that it was only those who benefitted from what have been happening in the judiciary over the years that would condemn the action.

    CAGGJ regretted that most of the politics-related judgments delivered after the 2015 general elections were cash induced, saying no nation would grow politically if this anomaly was not checked.

    “It was glaringly clear that most of the politics-related judgments delivered since after the 2015 general elections were cash and carry judgments,” the statement said.

  • Arrest of judges: Justices Ademola, Dimgba resume duties

    Justices Adeniyi Ademola and Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja resumed works Monday, about a week after their houses were raided and Ademola arrested by men of the Department of State Services (DSS).

    Both judges conducted court businesses Monday in their courtrooms – Courts 7 and 11.

    While Justice Dimgba heard a case – the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/788/2016 by a governorship aspirant of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Olusegun Michael Abraham, Justice Ademola attended to 12 cases.

    Justice Ademola sat from a little over 9am to 10. 44a.m. Among the cases he attended to were two filed against the DSS by two individuals currently being held by the agency.

    The first was the one marked: CS/518/2016 filed by Olusegun Komolafe against Director General, SSS (also DSS) and another; and the second marked: CS/498/2016 by Engr Chidiebere Onwudiwe v. SSS.

    The DSS did not attend proceedings and was not represented; following which Justice Ademola ordered the issuance of hearing notices on the DSS before the next date.

    The Nation learnt that the judges were encouraged by the court’s authorities to resume duties in the absence of any query and suspension notice issued to them by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    “A judge’s conduct could only be queried by the NJC. He can only be suspended from office or recommended for either retirement of dismissal by the NJC.

    “In the case of the judges arrested by the DSS, they still remain judges and will continue in that capacity until they can no longer do so.

    “As it is now, they have neither been suspended not recommended for removal. So, they remain judges, who are liberty to perform their judicial functions and act in the capacity of a judge,” a senior official of the court said.

    In the suit by Abraham, Justice Dimgba ordered the service of court documents, in relation to the case, on APC’s National Chairman, John Odigie-Oyegun and the party’s purported governorship candidate, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu through substituted means.

    The judge’s order was informed by application by plaintiff’s lawyer, Prof Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), in which he complained of his client’s inability to effect personal service on the two defendants.

    He said service has been effected on the other two defendants – APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Abraham’s suit is, among others, challenging the competence of the last APC’s governorship primary election in Ondo State held on September 3 this year.

    The plaintiff, who raised eight questions for the court’s determination, is praying the court to among others, declare that the primary election was held in violation of provisions of the APC’s Electoral Guidelines for Governorship primary election 2014 and the party’s constitution and therefore invalid and incapable of producing Akeredolu as a candidate.

    He also seeks an order setting aside the primary for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the party’s primary election guidelines and constitution.

    Abraham, who emerged second in the primary election, equally wants the court to set aside the purported submission of Akeredolu’s name to INEC by Odigie-Oyegun and the electoral body’s acceptance of the name as the APC’s candidate for the forthcoming governorship election.

    He also seeks an order compelling INEC to extend time within which the APC could conduct a fresh primary based “on the congress and congress appeal committee’s delegates’ list 2014 and in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, the constitution of the APC, the party’s electoral guidelines 2014 and the Constitution of Nigeria.

    A date will be fixed for the hearing of the case after the plaintiff reports compliance with the order for substituted service.

  • Judges’ arrest: ‘DSS fully complied with the law’

    Judges’ arrest: ‘DSS fully complied with the law’

    The arrest of two Supreme Court Justices and others last week by the Department of State Services (DSS) complied with the law, a top government source said yesterday.

    According the source, after a high level legal review of DSS’ actions, it was found that the agency acted in accordance with the extant laws and in line with its policing powers.

    The report followed a critical examination of the extant laws with regards to raids, sting operations, issuance of search warrants, arrests and the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and the powers of the National Judicial Council (NJC), among others.

    After the review, it was found that “the actions of the DSS in the arrest and search of the premises of judges and justices can be placed firmly within the ambit of the law, sentimental and emotional considerations notwithstanding.”

    The team of legal experts, the source said, concluded that Nigeria is not the first country to investigate and prosecute judges suspected of committing crime.

    “The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States of America (a body similar to DSS) has at various times, prominently in January 2013, May 2014, and November 2015 arrested a number of judges for bribery, corruption and other similar offences; subjected the Judges to trial at the end of which the convicted judges were imprisoned. Nearer to home, neighbours like Ghana and Kenya had also cleansed their respective judiciaries through investigation and prosecution of Judges suspected of commission of corruption,” the team said.

    The source, a member of the team, said while a particular federal judge had alleged that he complied at gunpoint, the judge was not arrested until his lawyer came on the scene on his request and affirmed that the search warrants were in order.

    Besides, the source added that while some of the judges in their statements said the foreign currencies found on them were from their unspent estacode, a claim said to be untenable considering the sums of money involved, another judge was said to have explained the huge sums of money away as proceeds of his rice selling business.

    According to the source, it was discovered that the DSS followed sections 148 of the ACJA, which states: “A search warrant may be issued and executed at any time on any day, including a Sunday and public holiday.

    Section 149 (1) (2) ACJA states: “Where any building or other thing or place liable to search is closed, a person residing in or being in charge of the building, thing or place shall, on demand of the police officer or other person executing the search warrant, allow him free and unhindered access to it and afford all reasonable facilities for its search.

    “Where access into the building, thing or place cannot be so obtained, the police officer or other person executing the search warrant may proceed in the manner prescribed by sections 9, 10, 12 and 13 of this Act.”

    The provisions, said the source, are similar to sections 7 and 112 of the Criminal Procedure Law and followed by the DSS.

    “By section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Law, a search warrant may be issued and executed on any day including a Sunday or public holiday. It shall however be executed between the hours of five (5) o’clock in the forenoon and eight (8) o’clock at night but the court may, in its discretion, authorise by the warrant the execution of the warrant at any hour.

    “Where the court authorises the execution of a search warrant at any hour other than between the hours of 5 o’clock in the forenoon and 8 o’clock at night, such authorisation may be contained in the warrant at the time of issue or may be endorsed thereon by any magistrate at any time thereafter prior to its execution.”

    On who can execute search and arrest warrants, the source said section 4 of the Police Act 1967, which outlines the general duties of the Police to include “the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders,” did not preclude other agencies.

    “Whereas Section 2 of the Police Act defines a Police Officer as ‘any member of the Force,’ the ACJA defines a police officer to include ‘any member of the Nigeria Police established by the Police Act or where the context so admits, shall include any officer of any law enforcement agency established by an Act of the National Assembly.’

    “The bone of contention in the public discourse hinge on whether the DSS has the power to undertake the operations it undertook in relation to the arrested judges/justices. To determine whether the action of the DSS was intra or ultra-vires, it is important to consider the mandate of the DSS as enshrined under the law.

    “By section 2 (3) of the National Security Agencies Act 1986, Cap. 278 LFN 1990, the State Security Service is charged with responsibility for: (a) the prevention and detection within Nigeria of any crime against the internal security of Nigeria; (b) the protection and preservation of all non-military classified matters concerning the internal security of Nigeria; and (c) such other responsibilities affecting internal security within Nigeria as the National Assembly or the President, as the case may be, may deem necessary.”

    The source said the experts found that “in the discharge of their responsibilities as they relate to searches and arrests, staff of DSS are conferred with the powers of Superior Police Officers.”

    According to the source, it was also found that in the conduct of searches and arrests, staff of DSS are conferred with the powers of Superior Police Officers, as reference to police officers in any law in Nigeria, in relation to searches and arrests, also refers to DSS staff.

    On who should issue a warrant of arrest, the source said it was found that by ection 36 (1) (c) ACJA, a warrant of arrest is issued by a Judge or a Magistrate on any day.

    The team of experts said the judges, unlike governors, were not conferred with immunity from arrest, adding that the National Judicial Council (NJC) “is not a court or a law enforcement agency.”