The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Judiciary

  • Ogun judiciary staff suspends strike

    Ogun judiciary staff suspends strike

    Members of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) in Ogun on Tuesday said they have suspended their indefinite strike action which began on April 8.

    The union announced this through a statement in Abeokuta signed by its Publicity Secretary, Mr Adewale Adenekan.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the union had embarked on the strike over the non-payment of 40 per cent peculiar allowance by the state government.

    The statement said its National Officers and the Ogun JUSUN Executive Committee members had on Monday held a meeting with the Secretary to the State Government (SSG).

    It said the meeting also had in attendance the state Chairmen of Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC)and Joint Negotiation Council (JNC).

    “After the meeting with the representatives of the State Government, the authenticity of the union’s demand was established and the State Government realised its mistakes in the failure to involve the JUSUN executive in the negotiation process which led to the approval and implementation of the Peculiar Allowance.

    Read Also: EKEDC apologises to Lagos, Ogun customers over service disruption

    “The state government said this was because JUSUN is not a member of JNC.

    “However, the bone of contention is now the timing of the implementation of the union’s demand, putting into consideration the imminent announcement by the Federal Government of the new minimum wage which is expected on May 1.

    “This will be billed for implementation between May and June 2024 for both Federal and State workers,” Adenekan stated.

    “After much discussion on the matter, it was agreed that JUSUN’s demands should be treated together with the full implementation of CONJUSS alongside the minimum/living wage negotiation and implementation,” he added.

    The union further said it was equally agreed that JUSUN would be given a slot in the technical committee for the negotiation and implementation of the minimum wage in the state.

    It pointed out that this would give the union an opportunity to effect its dem ands, as well as the full implementation of CONJUSS and other benefits.

    “This is a very difficult moment for both the leadership and members of the union, but we believe this is a fair agreement that will benefit the union and its members in the long term.

    “In view of the above, the National Officers and JUSUN leadership of Ogun State, having reviewed the proceedings of the meeting, decided to suspend the indefinite strike action,” Adenekan said.

    The union thereby directed all its members to resume work by Wednesday.

    “The union will continue to engage the State Government towards the actualisation of its demands.

    “We look forward to continui;rovide our esteemed members with excellent and quality leadership,” it stated.(NAN)

  • Activists seek overhaul of judiciary

    Activists seek overhaul of judiciary

    There is an urgent need for an overhaul of the judiciary, some activists have said.

    To them, declaring a state of emergency in the arm of government would be a good start

    The groups urged the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Olukayode Ariwoola to take urgent actions “to pull the Judiciary from the brink of total perdition”.

    A pressing need, they said, is to ensure that judicial selection decisions are transparently and verifiably merit-based.

    The groups issued a list of demands in a joint letter by Access to Justice, represented by Joseph Otteh; Chairman, Human and Constitutional Rights Committee, African Bar Association, Sonnie Ekwowusi and the Fight Against Corruption in the Judiciary, represented by Bayo Akinlade.

    Others are FundELG Africa (Dominic E. Obozuwa), Open Justice Alliance (Prof. Chidi Odinkalu), Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) (Okechukwu Nwanguma) and Sterling Law Centre (Adedeji Ajare).

    The groups raised an alert over the state of the Judiciary under Justice Ariwoola.

    Read Also: Why we did not recover $69.4 million electricity debt, by NBET

    In the joint letter dated March 28 addressed to the CJN, the CSOs said that against the background of the decline the Judiciary suffered before his appointment, it was expected that he would be “acutely conscious of the extreme urgency of reforming the judiciary and its administration, arresting its downward spiral in public trust, and reinforcing its capacity to promote and protect the rule of law”.

    However, the groups noted, “the Judiciary remains unreconstructed and its public perception has not improved since then.”

    They said: “We are very concerned that the Judiciary has steadily grown worse since Your Lordship assumed its leadership.”

    The groups lamented that the CJN’s “personal actions – quite apart from the dysfunctionalities of the justice system – are harming the already fragile and enfeebled Judiciary, and whatever is left of its credibility”.

    The groups and campaigners noted that some areas where the CJN’s leadership had worsened the situation and caused the Judiciary more reputational harm.

    These include the reabsorption of judges dismissed/compulsorily retired over misconduct, which they said caused the judiciary embarrassment.

    “Counting the options available to the National Judicial Council (NJC), this demonstrates the council’s lack of commitment to the reputation of the Judiciary and its ineffectiveness as an oversight body and sends the wrong message to other Judges,” they said.

    Another issue raised is the alleged turning of a blind eye to issues of judicial integrity.

    The organisations noted that the CJN’s unresponsiveness to allegations bordering on judicial integrity and unethical conduct erodes public confidence in the judicial system.

    For instance, they said there were petitions against a recently-appointed Justice of the Supreme Court, which were ignored.

    “None of the two letters were even acknowledged.

    “Similarly, a letter written to the NJC to investigate allegations made by Hon. Justice Dattijo Muhammed concerning whether delays in filling Supreme Court vacancies was deliberate or not was acknowledged or acted upon by the NJC,” the groups said.

    On allegations of nepotism and illicit influence peddling, the groups said: “Mounting allegations of nepotism, and undue influence in judicial appointments against the CJN have fueled public cynicism of the integrity of the judicial appointment process and worsened public distrust in the judiciary.”

    They noted that there have been many (undenied) reports claiming the CJN may have promoted the appointments of family members into judicial and administrative positions in the Judiciary.

    They cited the appointments of his son, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola Jr as judge of the Federal Capital Territory High Court; his nephew Lateef Ganiyu as Justice of the Court of Appeal and his younger brother, Mr. Adebayo Ariwoola as Auditor of the NJC.

    They also wondered why there was a delay in appointing Supreme Court Justices, as ex-Justice Muhammed alleged, despite the Supreme Court “suffocating under the pressure of acutely-reduced bench numbers”.

    These allegations, the CSOs and campaigners say, have had a profound negative impact on public perception of Nigeria’s Judiciary, both domestically and internationally.

    They maintained that the Nigerian judiciary, which was once revered, has now “lost direction” and faces widespread distrust, disparagement and even name-calling, which all now threaten the Judiciary’s legitimacy.

    They also noted that notwithstanding the damning nature of public assessments and characterisations of the Judiciary, the leadership appears unruffled by them.

    According to them, the reputational harm is affecting and stigmatising many conscientious judges/justices who serve honourably and do not deserve the unfair tarring of the entire institution by the same brush.

    No respectable Judiciary, the groups maintain, “should afford to remain indifferent to the forms of public malignment and ridicule against it as we have witnessed in Nigeria”.

    The groups were of the opinion that the CJN’s “actions have plunged the Judiciary’s image further down the barrel”.

    The groups said the CJN must, therefore, “take urgent actions to pull the Judiciary from the brink of total perdition and overhaul the entire judicial system”.

    “Declaring a state of emergency in the Judiciary would be a good start.

    “Ensuring that judicial selection decisions are transparently and verifiably merit-based, is a pressing need at this time,” they said.

    The Director of Press and Information at the Supreme Court, Dr. Festus Akande, could not be reached on Sunday to react to the issues and allegations.

    His mobile phone was switched off and he was yet to respond to a request for his reaction sent to his WhatsApp as of the time of filing this report last night.

  • ‘Judiciary victim of politicians’ lawlessness’ – Justice Buba

    ‘Judiciary victim of politicians’ lawlessness’ – Justice Buba

    Nigerians have been urged to blame the current disorderliness in the nation’s polity on the politicians who have refused to play by the rules.

    Justice Ibrahim Buba, a retired judge of the Federal High Court, argued that the Judiciary is even a victim of the politicians who have consistently trampled on its right to independence.

    Justice Bubba spoke in Abuja on Friday while delivering a keynote address at a function conference organised by a group, Tap Initiative, with support from the Open Society Funds.

    The event has as its theme: “Judicial accountability: Impact on democracy resilience; public trust on the legal system.”

    Justice Buba said: “No amount of judicial activism by the judges can better society if the political class are not willing to play by the rules of the game, according to the constitution of their parties enacted by them and given to themselves, a fotiori the constitution of Nigeria.

    “Obedience to court orders is sine qua non to order and good governance, if judgments of courts and court orders go forth without respect and come back without effect, society and by extension democracy will be endangered.

    “Never in the history of Nigeria are the courts so inundated with pre-election matters and election petitions, as under the current dispensations, if politics are not played by the rules an ordinary matters that should not come to courts finds their way in court, the unwilling actors under the disguise of settling disputes could also want to rubbish the courts.

    “If we play politics of development, politics of advancement we will not waste resources in an inter-party fight, election petitions and by extension, dragging the Judiciary in the mud of the conflict of do or die, we will be better off.

     “Our experience has shown that there are no other areas of litigation that drag the judiciary into the conflict and try to splash mud on the judiciary than the political cases.

    “In the three arms of government, it is only the judiciary that has stringent conditions of qualification. Our judges must have a minimum of 10 years post call to be appointed a judge of a high court, while a school certificate whether pass or fail or its equivalent can attain offices in the other arms of government,” Justice Buba said.

    Citing past instances of attempts to subjugate the Judiciary both under military and democratic dispensations, Justice Buba said the third arm of government deserves more praise than vilification.

    He noted that “politicians and political actors, who cannot have their way undermine the independence of the Nigerian judiciary, not only starving it of funds but ensuring an erosion of the independence of the judiciary and having friction and try to remove the chief judges unconstitutionally.

    “Even agencies of government who cannot have their ways would want to have their judges and their courts, so as to act ultra vires their statutory powers and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Read Also:Why Osun judiciary paralysis lingers, by SAN

    “The Nigerian judiciary is undoubtedly is being overworked by politicians to sustain democracy, it is very easy for an outsider not to see the ‘cow’ on the head of the politician and political class, to quickly see the ‘lice’ on the head of the judiciary.”

    Justice Buba stressed the need for the Judiciary to assert its independence and stop the practice of depending on the other arms of government for its operations.

    “Members of the legal profession and our legal system must note that we are in the 21st century, and therefore the Constitution has guaranteed the independence of the Judiciary, and no Judiciary, whether state or federal, should go cap in hand begging for funding.

    “We have advanced so much in information technology and artificial intelligence and we are not in the 50s or 60s where judges are recording in record books and long hands and lose sheets of papers, courts like banks must be computerized, cases must be electronically managed.”

    Justice Buba said from his experience, as a widely travelled jurist, the Nigerian Judiciary and the justice system remain one of the best in the world despite the challenges and criticism they have been subjected to.

    “Being at home, you may think the food of your mum is not sweet and the one cooked outside may be better, again and again, having regards to the conditions and environment of work.

    “With all modesty, I say kudos to the Nigerian bar and the Nigerian bench, take away politics, where people differ on opinions and questions of law and both may be right, the Nigerian judiciary has given a very good account of itself.”

    Justice Buba faulted the implant that judges were facilitating the appointment of the relatives and children into the bench, arguing that there was nothing unusual about it.

    Citing the example of the United States where a father and son have been Presidents, Justice Buba argued that emphasis should be on competence and not undue sentiment.

    The jurist argued that judges and lawyers could no longer stand aloof, but should be involved in efforts to reform the society.

    “The Judiciary is part and parcel of the society, when the other arms of government are busy altering the constitution to get provisions on electoral matters, members of the legal profession should be interested in also amending the law, to repeal dead laws and laws that are not making the working of the judiciary possible.

    “It is only in that way that the legal system in your jurisdiction would be respected, will be certain, and anybody coming to do business with us should know the law in our jurisdiction and be certain of the result and how long it will take the case to finish,” Justice Buba said.

    The Executive Director of Tap Initiative, Martins Obono said the conference was intended to allow for a closer examination of the question of judicial accountability and how to improve public confidence in the Judiciary.

  • Why Nigerian judiciary is weak, by Agbakoba

    Why Nigerian judiciary is weak, by Agbakoba

    A former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president, Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), yesterday called for a holistic reform of the judiciary, which he described as weak.

    He faulted the continued exclusion of the Bar and the academia from appointments to the Bench, saying a law was needed to make their nominations mandatory.

    “They (the judiciary) have created a mafia by blocking the Bar and the academia,” Agbakoba said at a briefing in Lagos on “governance strategies for President Tinubu”.

    The senior advocate called for a “legitimate” constitution to be prepared through the involvement of the “original owners” of Nigeria.

    According to him, the 1999 Constitution lacks acceptability because it was imposed on the people.

    “The problem with the Constitution is that it lacks legitimacy, validity and is not autochthonous,” he said.

    He also believes it was important to redefine the co-existence of the ethnic groups.

    The SAN said: “Government needs to resolve critical national questions. Are we a country, state, or nation? Do we intend to live together as one country and how?

    “Once these questions are answered, it will set the stage for a new political arrangement that can be articulated in a new Constitution.

    “Government can engage sub-national ethnic leaders (Ohaneze, Arewa, and Afenirere). They have national appeal and can provide alternatives

    “The current National Assembly has powers to facilitate this process under the Constitution.

    “National Assembly can adopt wholesale constitutional replacement as suggested by Prof. Nwabueze under sections 4(1) and 315(1) (a) & (4) of the 1999 Constitution.

    “Massive devolution of powers from the Federal to state governments is needed. Strengthen institutions that support democracy. Guarantee local government autonomy.”

    Agbakoba, who said Nigeria’s governance structures are weak, stressed the need to strengthen them through critical laws and policies.

    Read Also: Ibadan explosions: 3 dead, 77 injured, 58 houses damaged

    On the judiciary, he said: “Expunge outdated laws from our statute books, using the Rwanda model.

    “Unbundle Nigeria’s unitary judicial structure to create federal, state, and local government court systems to decongest the judicial roadblock.

    “Legislate on justice administration especially qualification for appointment and composition of courts. This is not new.

    “The Federal High Court, Court of Appeal Act and Supreme Act already have provisions relating to qualification for appointment and composition of courts.

    “The Court of Appeal Act, for instance, provides that appeals from the Customary Court shall be heard by not less than three Justices of the Court of Appeal learned in customary law. 

    “Nothing stops the National Assembly from including in the Act that the Supreme Court shall be composed of Justices from bench bar and academia.” 

    Agbakoba said President Tinubu has set a very ambitious goal to grow Nigeria’s GDP to $1 trillion in seven years.

    He added: “The President has also taken tough decisions towards market correction like removal of fuel subsidies, floating the naira, and liberalising the foreign exchange market. This is a huge task.

    “To achieve these goals requires massive legislation and executive action.

    “Two countries that achieved major turnaround by enactment of major legislation and executive are the U.S. (Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal) and UK (Margret Thatcher’s Big Bang).

    “The primary tool Tinubu needs is governance. Governance is a critical tool in development planning. It is the equivalent of a building plan.”

  • Beyond Friday’s triumph of the judiciary

    Beyond Friday’s triumph of the judiciary

    I sympathise with the Nigerian judiciary. This is because, of all the state institutions, executive, legislative, the judiciary, the press and Civil Society Groups, it is by far the most vulnerable. It has in the last few years gone through great stress and strain as a result of the conspiracy of the executive and the legislative arms of government which with lacuna deceptively left in their laws, tie the hands of the judiciary they both regard as a stumbling block because quite often they are driven by selfish interest as against public interest.

    This perhaps explains why the political class and their political parties, according to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Olukayode Ariwoola “could not manage their affairs well and ended up having about 600 cases from the party primaries alones in courts” during the last election. Unfortunately, instead of putting their rancorous house in order, the judiciary which is often made to carry the can for the malicious actions of politicians, often become becomes the scapegoat. The fear until last week was therefore whether tarred with the same brush with the political class, the judiciary that is increasingly coming under threat of political sore-losers, their supporters, their sympathetic media and those pretending to be public intellectuals, can as a part of a whole, be holier than the whole.

    But the current leadership of Nigeria’s Supreme Court gave an indication of the direction it was headed when on Thursday October 22, 2023, it upheld President Bola Tinubu’s election through a unanimous judgment passed by seven Supreme Court judges, who threw out his challengers’ opposition which did not question the fact that he won the election ‘round and square’ with 37% of the popular votes at the expense of his warring opponents, but based on purely technicalities.  It last Friday further consolidated this position when it chastised the justices of the various appeal courts that had attempted to upturn victories of popularly elected governors including Lagos State governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, Alex Otti of Abia, Bala Mohammed of Bauchi, Cross River’s Bassey Otu, Abba Yusuf of Kano, Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau, Francis Nwifuru of Ebonyi and Dauda Lawal of Zamfara.

    With the Supreme Court’s last Friday judgment, hailed by the opposition as “representing the triumph of democracy…and reaffirming the sanctity of the ballot as the determining factor for democratic legitimacy,” came some relief for the embattled Supreme Court whose credibility had for years been under repeated assault of political gladiators.

    Its travail started when the Supreme Court nullified the election of Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as governor of Imo State and declared Hope Uzodimma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the March 9, 2020 governorship election even when the latter came a distant fourth during the state gubernatorial contest. The Supreme Court was to lose further credibility with the high-profile political cases of Lawan Vs Machina and Godswill Akpabio Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and others, in which the court endorsed Akpabio and Lawan as candidates for the senatorial seats of their constituencies even though they were not available for the primaries of their political parties.

    The cases according to a Punch newspaper editorial “have evoked excoriating public criticism and perceived somewhat as perverse… The decisions show that the Supreme Court is slavishly adhering to technical legalisms and formalism at the expense of substantial justice”. And for the same reason, Lasisi Olagunju of the Tribune accused the “the Supreme Court justices of abducting this democracy… and deciding who rules and who does not… They have evolved to become Bashorun Gaa of Old Oyo; they enthrone and dethrone as it pleases them.”(Nigerian Tribune Dec. 18, 2023).

    Read Also: CBN uncovers FX violations, vows to crack down on culprits

    The credibility of the apex court got further battered with “All eyes on the judiciary’ smear campaign led by sore losers – Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi and their supporters in the February 2023 presidential election. They openly expressed lack of confidence in the ability of the current leadership of the Supreme Court to guarantee justice and went on to claim without proof, that the judiciary under him was the worst in 45 years. Last week they swallowed their words.

    But there are others who were genuinely concerned about the fate of our country and that of our young democracy. Among such concerned Nigerian opinion leaders are ex-president Goodluck Jonathan and Femi Falana (SAN), a celebrated human rights lawyer).  For President Jonathan “the ballot paper should decide who holds any elective office from the councillorship to the presidency. That is democracy. “I am not saying the judiciary is not doing well. But my point is that our laws should suppress the issue of the judiciary returning candidates… If a candidate is declared winner after a flawed electoral process, what the courts can do is to annul the election and order a fresh one, where a winner will finally emerge through the ballot.”

    And for Femi Falana and others, “Judges are not suited to determine the winners of elections…determining winners of election is an exclusive reserve of the Independent National Electoral Commission” (INEC) if things are done properly”.

    Last Friday’s Supreme Court ruling must therefore be seen as a tribute to all those who campaigned for the sanctity of elections based on electorate’s votes cast at the polling booths and as much a tribute also to the current leadership of the Supreme Court that chose to listen to the people.

    It is on record that similar campaign carried out in the past was ignored by the past leadership of the apex court who was probably convinced that justice was better served by upturning victories of popularly elected candidates on technicalities to demonstrate the judiciary’s  zero-tolerance for disobedience of court orders as  was the case in Zamfara in 2019 when duly elected officials from governorship to state House of Assembly members lost their positions  and in Rivers where candidates and their supporters were disenfranchised.

     The current leadership of the apex court on the other hand, whilst not denying that there was disobedience of courts orders in Plateau State, was sensitive enough to protest by voters in both Plateau and Kano to come to terms with Lord Denning’s dictum to the effect that “Justice must be rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: “The judge was biased.”

    But the current leadership of the Supreme Court and the NJC and the president must go a step further by ensuring those Appeal court justices chastised for ignoring Supreme Court’s earlier pronouncements and for presiding over cases in which they did not have jurisdiction in Kano and Plateau must be sanctioned.  In the corporate world, once there has been an infraction of corporate rules, the opportunity of getting to the apex of one’s profession by the erring officer becomes very slim. The problem with the judiciary is that judicial officers are hardly sanctioned for infractions or incompetence but promoted even when their fitness is in doubt.

     As argued by Abiodun Owoniko (SAN) while answering questions on ARISE Morning show last Tuesday, ‘there should be career progress delay’, before they are allowed to move to the next level which is the Supreme Court” because of the danger they pose to the health of the judiciary.

  • Let the judiciary breathe 

    Let the judiciary breathe 

    By Binzak Azeez

    SIR: Late last year, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Hon. Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, put the totality of the judgments and rulings delivered by the Supreme Court in the 2022/2023 legal year at 1, 271.  During the same legal year, the 20 Divisions of the Court of Appeal handed down 7, 295 judgements and rulings, according to Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, president of the court.

    In the same vein, Chief Judge (CJ) of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, put the decided cases of the court divisions to 12, 870. At the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the High Court Divisions adjudicated 4, 293 cases while the magistrate courts determined 7328 according to Hon. Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf, the FCT Chief Judge.

    Across the 36 states of the federation, the divisions of each state High Court must have recorded a great number of judgements though no unified breakdown of these decided cases are available.

    Read Also; Operation Rice for Rice

    The growing tradition of handpicking one or two sensational political cases within a plethora of decided cases as credibility test for Nigeria’s judicial institution amongst legal practitioners, revered columnists and veteran public-affairs analysts has continued to violate the basic principles of making a fair judgement. No democratic institution judiciary inclusive has immunity against criticism. There are no extant laws that criminalize the public expression of contrary viewpoints to court verdicts. And there could never be any reasonable justifications for considering the enactment of such laws.

    However, the casting of aspersions on the entire judicial institution by singling out a court verdict has no basis in advancing any good cause. The tradition of one-sided reviews has the tendency to hamper a fair and just legal process in the country. Judicial institution thrives on public confidence. The fear of public backlash from the strong voices within the society must not determine or sway the judicial decision-making process though judges are encouraged to listen to the voice of legal reason. 

    • Binzak Azeez, Onikan, Lagos.

  • The Judiciary and the “I’m not a lawyer” phenomenon

    The Judiciary and the “I’m not a lawyer” phenomenon

    In recent times, the Nigerian judiciary has been “bloodied but unbowed”. Could John Milton have imagined that this phrase in his famous poem “Paradise Lost” would have been so timeless in the sharpness of its imagery and the range of its rhetorical force? And could the forebears of today’s judiciary have imagined that much of the blood streaming from the judiciary’s head would be from strikes from the bar – their kith and kin? Some lawyers seem to perceive it as a badge of honour to demean the judiciary. But have these lawyers been sufficiently reflective? If they have, they would have known that as the Yoruba saying goes, “Tí a bá ta ará ilé ẹni lọ́pọ̀, a kò lè rí i rà ní ọ̀wọ́n mọ́.” (‘If you sell your kin cheaply, you may not be able to buy them back dearly.’) An equivalent of this proverb was rendered as follows in 2019 by the former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating: “if you pawn the crown it is incapable of being redeemed at the same value.”

    Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, described in a 6 November, 2023 interview in BusinessDay as “a Nigerian human rights activist, lawyer, professor and writer [and] the former Chairman of Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission” remarked as follows about the Supreme Court: “The court should be the last hope of the common man, I would agree with you. Are the Nigerian courts today the last hope of the common man? No sir. … It is no longer buying and selling of court judgement; it is that people are now planting their families in corrupt relationships with the judiciary system to make sure that down the road you cannot even get any idea of justice.”

    According to a BusinessDay report of 18 November, 2023, Olumide Akpata, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) magnified the denigrating views of Odinkalu at a meeting of the International Bar Association (IBA) when he said as follows: “there is a deliberate attempt by the political class to capture the judiciary and it has serious consequences for the rule of law in Nigeria. … Just like Chidi Odinkalu pointed out to us, a good Judge can only emerge through that process by luck. Their [judges’] kids want to go to Cambridge, Harvard, but they can’t afford it, but I want to assure you that their kids are in Oxford. Your guess is as good as mine: How did those kids get there?”

    In the case of specific judgements, especially on the electoral status of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, the condemnation of the judiciary has been quite strident. In a 3 March, 2023 edition of the TVC News programme “Journalists Hangout” (rebroadcast on 24 December, 2023), ace-commentator, Babajide Kolade-Otitoju who is not a lawyer, but a historian, noted that it had been decided at the Supreme Court that “you do not have to win the FCT to be elected. If you score the mandatory 25% in 24 states, even if you didn’t score 25% in the FCT, you’re good to go. But some people in this season think that they can simply hoodwink or lie to Nigerians. They are now making it look like no President can be validly elected until [they have] won Abuja or until  [they have] recorded 25% in Abuja, in the FCT … It is ignorance peddling and it’s a shameful, a very shameful level of ignorance peddling, because the idiocy in the argument is does it mean that … if you won election in 36 states but failed woefully in FCT would anybody be able to validly say you are not qualified to be validly elected just because you didn’t win a very small portion of our country?” This position accords with the views of a range of well-respected lawyers and that of both the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) and the Supreme Court.

    In the lead judgement of the PEPC on 6 September, 2023, it is noted as follows: “the futility of and hollowness in the argument of the petitioners that the votes of the voters in the FCT, Abuja, have more weight than other voters in the country to the extent [that] their votes purportedly have a veto effect on other votes is rendered bare.” This position is supported by a range of ranking lawyers such as elder statesman, Robert Clarke, SAN.  However, as bare as the point appeared to be, some senior lawyers seemed not to see it. So, even after the judgement, one of them, Mr. James Ezike in an Arise TV interview of 7 September, 2023, poohpoohed the PEPC judgement as “computer judgement” and insisted that it was mandatory for a presidential candidate to win 25% of the votes in the FCT, Abuja to be validly declared a winner.

    Read Also: Judiciary’s 2024 to-do list: The cases, tasks ahead

    Specifically, he said: “The weakest point in that judgement is their finding of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). That is very embarrassing because they were so sure of what they were saying, and they said [about] the Federal Territory, there is a provision in the constitution, that is a general provision in the constitution that says they should be treated as a state. If Abuja were a state, then Abuja should have its House of Assembly, but it doesn’t. It should have three senators, but it has only one.” He then opined that because the quality of the Justices on the Supreme Court had declined, it was not advisable for Peter Obi to appeal the PEPC judgement, because he could not hope to get justice. Eventually, the Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the PEPC.

    Even the well-known former President of the NBA, Olisa Agbakoba, declared variously that it was mandatory for a winning candidate to score 25% of the votes of the FCT, Abuja. The implication of this is that the views of some non-lawyers seemed to be of higher quality than those of some lawyers, even senior lawyers, not just on 25% of Abuja votes, but on other issues related to the 2023 elections. This draws attention to the preface, “I’m not a lawyer” (IANAL) and its variants. These variants include “He is no a lawyer” and “Those of us who are not lawyers”. 

    Senator Dave Umahi, Honourable Minister of Works, after the PEPC judgement, noted as follows on Arise News, on 10 September, 2023: “I advise him [Peter Obi] not to go to any appeal. I am not a lawyer, but the Governor of Ebonyi State is a lawyer and he has interpreted the judgement and it has left no hope for any appeal. Those judges are spirits. They went into everything and dissected them just like getting a coconut and breaking it. You will get the water and everything and get the nut.”  

    Dele Momodu, said as follows in his “Pendulum” column in Thisdayonline of 13 October, 2023, prior to the Supreme Court judgement on Atiku and Obi’s appeal of the PEPC judgement: “’Fellow Nigerians, I’m not a Lawyer.  But I’m surrounded by friends who are Lawyers … Many Nigerians seem to have given up on our Judiciary. … The Judiciary today can restore instant global prestige and adulation to our country. The Judges can automatically improve our economy by not kowtowing to the overbearing appurtenances of power, by not delivering technical judgements but being seen to ensure real justice. They can bring back the sinking influence and relevance of their profession.”

    It is not certain whether Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu ever told Professor Osinbajo, SAN, “I am not a lawyer”, but the former Vice-President himself said something that made that a possibility. At the 11th Bola Tinubu Colloquium in Abuja on 28 March, 2019, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo said about Asiwaju: “He’s not a lawyer, as many of us know, but there are few Nigerians who have provoked so many legal controversies and constitutional challenges resulting in several landmark judicial rulings … But how about electoral reform?  In 2007, when our party then the ACN was rigged out of elections in Osun, in Ekiti, in Ondo and in Edo States … he invited me to his residence at Bourdillon and he said to me, ‘The only way we can possibly reclaim the states that have been taken from us … is going through the courts.’ And he said to me that the only way is by proving that there was multiple voting. … I said to him, … Asiwaju, ‘Nobody has ever proved an electoral case, an electoral petition by forensic evidence. There’s just no history of it.’” Professor Osinbajo noted that in spite of telling him it was unrealistic, Asiwaju insisted that he should go and look for how to get it done. Professor Osinbajo complied and eventually 63 UK policemen were contracted to carry out forensic analyses to prove multiple thumb-printing of ballot papers. In the end, Asiwaju’s visionary and unprecedented legal propositions worked and the states wrongly taken over by the PDP were returned to the ACN through the court.

    As Stephen R. Williams observes, “when my non-legal colleagues preface their statements with ‘I’m not a lawyer, but…’, it’s a nice way of saying, ‘Look, I know you went to law school and all, and have spent countless years of your life practicing in this area, but I am pretty sure you’re wrong and I’m right.’ In five small words, they attempt to dispatch of a lifetime of education and experience as they champion their simple idea they assume we [lawyers] overlooked.” By their conduct in the turbulent 2023 Nigerian electoral season, many lawyers have substantially demystified themselves. Growing up in the Yoruba society, a popular adulating expression was “Barrister, Lawyer, akọ-níwájú-adájọ́” (‘The bold lawyer before the judge.”) It was never imagined that a time would come when these mythical legal personages would become justified targets of epithets and expressions such as “frivolous”, “vexatious”, “fishing expedition”, and be subjected to heavy fines for incompetence and/or abuse of court processes.

    In fact, like the “I will tell my father for you” tantrums of spoilt nursery school kids, some senior lawyers approached the Supreme Court lamenting that the PEPC Justices abused Obi and Atiku’s lawyers. Are many of our senior lawyers turning out to be legal luminaries with feet of clay? The judiciary-denigrating lawyers seem not to be aware of or appear to ignore the admonition of the Yoruba proverb, “Ẹní bá na ìka kan sí ọmọnìkejì, mẹ́sàn-án yòókù tirẹ̀ ni.” (‘If you point one finger at another person, the remaining nine are pointing at yourself.’) These judiciary-insulting lawyers also discountenance the perversity underscored in the proverb, “Idà ń wólé ara rẹ̀, ó lóhun ń ba àkọ̀ nínú jẹ́.” (‘The sword is demolishing its own house, but thinks it is making the scabbard miserable.’)

  • 2023: action-packed year for judiciary

    2023: action-packed year for judiciary

    The outgoing year has been one of the busiest for the Judiciary. 

    Being an election year, the courts were active with pre-election and related litigations, while the tribunals buzzed with post-election petitions, many of which are still pending.

    For the Judiciary, it was also a significant year in which it gained financial autonomy and had 11 Justices confirmed for the Supreme Court Bench to make up the constitutionally required 21.

    It was also a year in which the Judiciary played a key economic role in ameliorating the hardship occasioned by the naira redesign by holding that the old and new naira notes remained legal tender.

    Here are the major judiciary events that made news in 2023.

    The naira case

    One of the cases that dominated 2023 was the one on naira redesign, a policy which foisted social chaos and hardship on citizens.

    In consolidated lawsuits by states, the plaintiffs argued that the naira redesign policy was unconstitutional and should be voided.

    On March 4, the Supreme Court held that the old and new notes remained legal tender.  

    The Supreme Court slammed former President Muhammadu Buhari for disregarding an earlier order made on February 8 on the validity of the old notes by making a broadcast eight days later that only N200 notes were legal tender.

    “The rule of law upon which our democratic government is founded becomes illusion if the President of the country or any other authority or person refuses to obey the orders of the court,” the Supreme Court said.

    On November 29, the Supreme Court extended the lifespan of the N200, N500 and N1000 notes, ruling they are to co-exist as legal tender with the new/redesigned ones.

    The court reviewed its order that the old notes should cease to be legal tender on December 31.

    Supreme Court affirms Tinubu’s election

    On October 26, the Supreme Court affirmed the election of President Bola Tinubu.

    It dismissed the appeals by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)/its candidate Atiku Abubakar; the Labour Party (LP)/its candidate Peter Obi and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).

    They had challenged the September 6 judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).

    A seven-member panel presided over by Justice John Okoro, held that the appeals were without merit and that Tinubu won the February 25 election.

    Efforts to disqualify the President over certificate and drug-related allegations failed.

    Obidients almost killed me, says Apapa

    There was drama at the PEPC during one of the proceedings.

    Before the court commenced sitting, members of the two factions of the LP led by the acting National Chairman, Lamidi Apapa and the suspended National Chairman, Julius Abure, clashed over where to sit.

    Shortly after the court adjourned, loyalists of the opposing faction prevented Apapa from speaking with the press.

    Apapa was physically assaulted, with his cap removed.

    He said: “They pounced on me, removed my cap and I am very sure that if not that you people (journalists) were there, I would have been dead by now.”

    ‘E-transmission of result not mandatory’

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos voided a Federal High Court judgment that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to electronically upload results of the governorship and state of assembly elections from the polling units directly to the Results Viewing Portal (IReV).

    A three-man panel of the court, comprising Justice Abubakar Umar, Justice Olukayode Bada and Justice Onyekachi Otisi, held that the law gave INEC “very wide discretionary powers” to determine how it transmits or transfers election results.

    The panel described the suit filed by LP as an abuse of the court process.

    Supreme Court reverses Nnamdi Kanu’s acquittal

    On December 15, the Supreme Court reversed the October 13, 2022 decision of the Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu on the case of treasonable felony brought against him by the Federal Government.

    A five-member panel, presided over by Justice Kudirat Kekere-ekun, held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have discharged and acquitted Kanu because the prosecution acted illegally in the manner the IPOB leader was brought back from Kenya to face trial after jumping bail.

    In the lead judgment written by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, but read by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the Supreme Court held that although Kanu was illegally brought back from Kenya, his trial was not illegal.

    The Supreme Court held that under Nigerian law, evidence obtained as a result of the violation of the right of an accused person to privacy and the evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search is valid before the court.

    Supreme Court fines Ozekhome N40m 

    On December 5, the Supreme Court came hard again on another senior lawyer. It slammed a N40million cost against Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) for aiding the PDP and its candidate in the 2019 governorship election in Imo State, Emeka Ihedioha, to file what the court termed a frivolous motion.

    This comes three years after it fined Aare Afe Babalola (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) N30 million each for filing a frivolous application.

    In a ruling, Justice Tijani Abubakar dismissed the motion by Ihedioha and the PDP.

    The applicants had prayed the court to set aside its January 14, 2020 judgment replacing Ihedioha with Hope Uzodimma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the governor.

    In their motion, Ihedioha and the PDP argued that Uzodimma was not validly nominated by the APC to contest the 2019 election.

    They urged the court to invalidate the years Uzodimma spent in office as governor.

    Ihedioha and the PDP also urged the Supreme Court to give effect to its 2019 judgment that disqualified Uche Nwosu on the ground that he had dual nomination, having been nominated by both the Action Alliance (AA) and the APC for the same governorship election.

    They argued that since the apex court recognised Nwosu as a candidate of the APC, there was no legal basis for the judgment sacking Ihedioha and declaring Uzodimma (who it also found to have been sponsored by the same APC and for the same election) as the actual winner.

    The applicants urged the Supreme Court to restore Ihedioha to office since the APC could not legally sponsor two candidates for the same election.

    Rivers Assembly crisis

    Before President Tinubu intervened in the Rivers crisis, the Judiciary was in the news for an ex-parte order granted by Justice Monina Danagogo of the High Court of Rivers State. 

    Based on the order, Governor Siminalayi Fubara presented the 2024 budget to four lawmakers of the 32-member Rivers State House of Assembly. Other counter-orders were granted recognising both camps.

    Ehie Ogerenye Edison had urged the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt to jail his counterpart, Martin Chike Amaewhule, for allegedly disobeying a court order.

    The applicants, in the suit numbered FHC/PHC/CS/240/2023, alleged that the respondents disobeyed the order made on November 7 by Justice Phoebe Ayuba.

    Read Also: Sore-losers’ assault on our judiciary

    The judge had ordered that none of the parties on record should take any action that would be sub-judice.

    Emefiele charged with fraud, abuse of office

    On August 17, the Federal Government filed a 20-count charge bordering on procurement fraud, abuse of office and conferring corrupt advantage on a junior colleague against former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Godwin Emefiele.

    The charge was filed at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja.

    On the same day, the Federal High Court in Lagos struck out the illegal firearm possession case against him.

    In the new charge, the prosecution said Emefiele conspired with Ms. Sa‘adatu Ramalian Yaro and Aprill1616 Investment Ltd in 2019 to use the CBN governor’s office to confer a corrupt advantage on Ms. Yaro, a staff of CBN.

    The Federal Government said Emefiele used his influence to award a contract for the supply of 37 Toyota Hilux Vehicles at the cost of N854.7million to April1616 Investment, a company in which Ms. Yaro is a director despite being a CBN employee.

    DSS, Prison Service and Emefiele

    Perhaps one of the most shocking incidents in recent Nigerian judicial history was the July 25 brawl at the Federal High Court in Lagos between the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) over Emefiele.

    That day, in public glare and on live television, hooded, machine gun-toting DSS operatives re-arrested Emefiele after a tussle with officials of the NCoS over who should retain custody of the bank chief.

    Emefiele’s re-arrest occurred on the hallowed ground of the court after Justice Nicholas Oweibo granted him for N20million.

    The judge also ordered that Emefiele be remanded at the correctional centre pending the fulfilment of the bail conditions.

    This followed the banker’s arraignment by the Federal Ministry of Justice on a two-count charge of possessing a single-barrel shotgun without a licence and possessing 123 rounds of live ammunition without a licence.

    In a move that shocked the nation, shortly after the judge rose, hooded DSS operatives bundled Armed Squad Commander of the NCoS, Williams Udom, out of the courtroom, after he attempted to take Emefiele into custody as ordered by the court.

    The DSS officials roughed him up, pushing and dragging him by his shirt and singlet down the staircase until they cut the buttons off his uniform.  

    Other angry NCoS officials maintained restraint as their boss was manhandled. One of them brought out his pistol but did not use it.

    It took the intervention of a senior female DSS official, who arrived at the scene hours after the standoff and had a brief chat with NCoS officials and her operatives to douse the tension.

    Having won the muscle-flexing battle, the DSS whisked Emefiele away.

    The incident caused public outrage with many Nigerians calling for the head of the DSS’ Director-General.

    NJC nominates 11 Justices for the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court will soon attain the constitutionally prescribed full Bench of 21 Justices with the nomination of 11 Justices of the Court of Appeal for elevation to the apex court.

    The Senate confirmed them on December 21 a day after President Bola Tinubu sought the upper legislative chambers’ action in the nominated Justices.

    They are likely to assume office either during the last days of this year or early next year when the court resumes from its annual Christmas vacation.

    The NJC shunned the Bar and academia. In June, Chief Justice Ariwoola had asked the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Yakubu Maikyau (SAN) to send names of lawyers for appointment to the Supreme Court.

    Maikyau subsequently called for expression of interest from eligible lawyers to fill eight vacancies on the highest court bench, but none was eventually considered.

    P&ID case

    Nigeria secured a landmark victory in overturning a $10 billion judgment awarded against it in the controversial Process & Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID) case.

    Judge Ross Cranston of the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales granted Nigeria’s application for sanction relief.

    Suspended REC tackles NBA

    On July 10, the Federal High Court in Abuja halted the move to prosecute the suspended Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in Adamawa State, Hudu Yunusa Ari.

    The ruling was on a motion ex-parte filed by Binani’s lawyer, former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) Mike Aondoaka (SAN).

    Ari, a lawyer, courted controversy during the re-run governorship election.

    He declared Aisha Binani as the winner while the collation of results was ongoing.

    INEC overturned his declaration, concluded the collation, and announced Ahmadu Fintiri as the winner.

    The court was of the view that since issues relating to the conduct and outcome of the election were before a tribunal and parties have submitted to the law, parties should maintain status quo ante belum.

    Ari had also urged the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) not to refer him to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

    In a letter to Maikyau, he contended that issues relating to his conduct during the last governorship election in Adamawa are the subject of a case before the state’s High Court in a charge numbered HC/ADSY/15/2023, filed on July 5.

    The suspended REC argued that it would amount to double jeopardy for the NBA to probe him despite the pendency of the case.

    Appeal Court gets nine new Justices

    The number of Justices of the Court of Appeal rose by nine on September 20.

    The Justices are Hannatu Azumi Laja-Balogun from Kaduna State; Binta Fatima Zubairu from Kaduna State, and Peter Chudi Obiora from Anambra State.

    Others are Justices Okon Efreti Abang from Akwa Ibom State; Asma’u Musa Mainoma from Federal Capital Territory; Lateef Adebayo Ganiyu from Oyo; and Jane Esienanwan lyang from Cross River State.

    The rest are Hadiza Rabiu Shagari from Sokoto State; and Paul Ahmed Bassi from Borno State.

    Justices Nweze, Mallong die

    Justice Chima Centus Nweze of the Supreme Court and Justice Peter Hoommuk Mallong of the Federal High Court were among the judicial officers who died this year in service.

    Justice Nweze died on July 29 while Justice Mallong died on July 30. 

    Justice Mallong was until his death, serving in the Kaduna division of the Federal High Court.

    Justices retire 

    Justice Amina Augie retired from the apex court Bench on September 3, while Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad retired on October 27.

    Federal High Court gets 23 judges

    On October 4, 23 new judges of the Federal High Court were sworn in by Chief Justice Ariwoola, raising the total number of the court’s serving judicial officers to 95.

    Supreme Court affirms Mbah’s election 

    The Supreme Court on December 22 affirmed the election of Peter Mbah of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the Governor of Enugu State.

    A five-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice John Okoro, unanimously dismissed two appeals filed by the Labour Party (LP) and its candidate, Jonathan Edeoga.

    Justice Mohammed Garba, in the lead judgment, held that the appellants failed to prove their case

    Justice Garba resolved the five issues identified for determination in both appeals, against the appellants.

    Parties in the disputes over the last governorship elections in Kano, Plateau, among others are currently waiting for the apex court’s decisions which have been reserved.

    Medical doctor jailed for rape

    Justice Rahman Oshodi of an Ikeja Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court sentenced Dr Femi Olaleye to double life imprisonment for defiling and sexual assault of her wife’s niece.

    The convict was arraigned on November 30, 2022.

    Justice Oshodi convicted Dr Olaleye of the two-count charge offence bordering on unlawful sexual intercourse and sexual assault by penetration.

    Justice Oshodi described the medical director as a dangerous offender who did not show any sign of remorse.

    “You acknowledged that you are a sex addict in your confession, but came to this court and told lies. You showed no remorse, and it shows that you are a dangerous man.

    “The survivor, to your knowledge, is a child but you forced her to watch pornography, rub her breasts and put your pen*s in her mouth,” the judge held.

    ASP Vandi to die by hanging for killing lawyer 

    On October 9, a High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square held that Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Drambi Vandi is to die by hanging for killing lawyer Omobolanle Raheem last Christmas day in Lagos.

    Justice Ibironke Harrison found Vandi guilty of a one-count murder charge brought against him by the Lagos State Government.

    “I hereby pronounce that you Drambi Vandi shall be hanged by the neck until death. May God have mercy on you,” the judge held.

    It was the culmination of a 10-month trial in which the prosecution called 11 witnesses, including a pathologist, eight police officers and two eyewitnesses.

    Vandi’s lawyers opened the defence on May 16 and closed it on May 31, with the convict the only one to testify.

    The policeman, attached to the Ajiwe Police Station in Ajah, Lagos State, shot and killed Raheem, an expectant mother, in the presence of her family on their way from worship.

    Justice Harrison held that although none of the eyewitnesses saw the defendant pull the trigger, the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming.

    The judge said: “The court finds that the ammunition of the other officers who were on patrol with the defendant remained intact but two of the defendant’s ammunition were missing.”

    Justice Harrison dismissed the defendant’s claim that the shortfall in his ammunition was because it was counted in his absence.

    Debt case saga

    The last has certainly not been heard in the ongoing debt saga involving businessman Oba Otudeko, his Honeywell Group, and Ecobank.

    In one of the multiple suits, Ecobank had Otudeko, Honeywell and Barbican Capital by the scruff of the neck over an alleged N13.5 billion judgment debt.

    Ecobank, through its solicitors Kunle Ogunba & Associates, clarified its position in a July 7 letter, claiming four entities linked to Otudeko owed the bank the sum as of 31 January 2023.

    This was stated in a letter to the CEO of FBN Holdings, asking the financial services group not to approve the 4.8 billion shares acquired by Barbican Capital, an affiliate of Honeywell Group until the debt is cleared.

    The other three companies mentioned are Anchorage Leisures Limited, Honeywell Flour Mills Plc and Siloam Global Services Limited, a company dominantly owned by the Otudeko family and which holds a 75 per cent stake in Honeywell Flour.

    In a July 12 rejoinder to FBN Holdings’ Managing Director, Honeywell Group and Mr Otudeko, through their solicitors, Wole Olanipekun, urged the financial services group to disregard all the requests made by Ecobank.

    They insisted the sum of N13.5 billion is not contained in the Supreme Court decision or any extant court decision in Nigeria.

    In a twist on July 18, the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos awarded N72.2 billion in damages in favour of Honeywell Flour Mills Plc, against Ecobank.

    Justice Mohammed Liman’s judgment opened up a new front in the long drawn-out legal tussle between both entities. 

    The judgment was for the harm allegedly caused by the bank’s freezing of its assets in 2015.

    The legal dispute started when Ecobank obtained ex-parte orders from the Federal High Court to freeze Honeywell Flour Mills’ assets, including its bank accounts.

    Ecobank has appealed the judgment in a case that had earlier been decided by the Supreme Court.

    Seplat CEO case

    Another corporate lawsuit that hugged the headlines in 2023 was the travails of Seplat Energy, its CEO Roger Brown, and Basil Omiyi, the chair of its directors’ board.

    Justice Chukwujeku Aneke of the Federal High Court, Lagos, in early March, granted an injunction restraining Mr Brown from taking part in the running of the company.

    The injunction followed an application by some aggrieved members of the firm’s shareholders accusing Brown of favouritism for expatriate workers, racism, discrimination and breach of corporate governance.

    The judge had also granted the prayer of the petitioners, including Moses Igbrude, Kenneth Nnabike, Sarat Kudaisi, Ajani Abidoye and Robert Ibekwe, requesting that Mr Omiyi and all independent non-executive directors be disallowed from running the company’s affairs “in an illegal, unfairly, prejudicial and oppressive manner pending the hearing and determination of the petitioners’ motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”

    Things took an international dimension when, in the same period, the Ministry of Interior revoked Brown’s work permit, visa, and residence permit over the allegations of racism and discrimination.

    Refuting the claims, Seplat Energy said that Nigerians had been appointed to the company’s most important positions, including Chairman, Senior Independent Non-Executive Director, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer since Brown became CEO in 2020.

    The Board stated that the allegations levelled against it were reactions to its enforcement of corporate governance standards and a determination to continue to uphold its fiduciary duties to the company.

    But on April 6, 2023, the Federal High Court in Lagos vacated the ex-parte orders against Brown and Omiyi.

    The court, on May 16, struck out the suit and fined a petitioner N1million.

    On April 30, the Federal High Court in Abuja struck out a criminal charge brought by the Nigeria Immigration Service against the company and some of its officers including Brown.

    The court fully discharged all named defendants.

    The charge had earlier been withdrawn by the Nigerian Immigration Service on the 20th of April (RNS Number: 9385W) and was in relation to the immigration status of Mr. Roger Brown and the withdrawal of his immigration visa by the Ministry of Interior.

    Similarly, the Federal High Court in Lagos, on May 17, struck out the suit against Brown and Omiyi, bringing the saga to an end.

    Brown and Omiyi are back in the saddle at Seplat.

    Respite for Ifeanyi Ubah

    Respite came the way of Senator Ifeanyi Ubah on October 18 when the Federal High Court in Lagos struck out an eight-count charge filed by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) against Senator Ifeanyi Ubah and his firm, Capital Oil and Gas Limited, over an alleged N135b debt.

    Justice Nicholas Oweibo made the order following an application by AMCON’s counsel, Oluwaseun Onabowu, seeking the withdrawal of the suit.

    Ubah, who represents Anambra South Senatorial District in the upper chamber was absent in court.

    The ruling ended the several years-long running battle between AMCON and Ubah in connection with the debt.

    Fayose’s unending trial 

    The EFCC, on November 22, 2012, re-arraigned Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Peter Fayose, on a 27-count charge of conversion of public funds amounting to N416,138,360.75 at the Federal High Court, Ado-Ekiti.

    The EFCC accused Mr. Fayose of stealing the state’s funds during his first stint as governor between 2003 and 2006.

    The agency called three witnesses in the case before Fayose was sworn in as governor in October 2014.

    But the case was struck out due to the immunity Fayose enjoys as governor under Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.

    Eleven years later, Fayose is on trial at the Federal High Court in Lagos for a related allegation, this time for allegedly laundering N4.6billion.

    On November 30, the case resumed before Justice Chukwujeku Aneke.

    The judge, following the end of the day’s proceedings, adjourned till January 26, 2024, for the defence to cross-examine a witness.

    EFCC and Lagos Speaker, Obasa

    The long-running saga between the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Speaker of Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Ajayi Obasa over alleged money laundering came to an end in September following the agency’s withdrawal of the suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    The agency did not give any particular reason for its application for withdrawal. 

    It did, however, reference the Constitution and the EFCC Act.

    Following the withdrawal, Justice Nicholas Oweibo discharged the ‘lien/Post No Debit’ placed on Obasa’s three accounts in Standard Chartered Bank.

    The accounts are (US Dollars) 0001852063; (Current) 0001852056 and (Saving) 5002309624.

    The judge also set aside the ex-parte orders he made on September 15, 2020, which led to the freezing of the accounts.

    The court on September 15, 2020, granted an interim order freezing Obasa’s accounts following the EFCC’s application in a suit marked FHC/LCS/1064/2020.

    The agency had said it was investigating the Speaker for the alleged offences of conspiracy, diversion of funds, abuse of office and money laundering.

    But Justice Oweibo, on August 16, 2023, heard the application to unfreeze the accounts in his chamber.

    DSS’ siege to EFCC’s Lagos office

    In an incredible turn of events, DSS operatives fired warning shots from within the barricaded premises of No. 15 Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, after it forcibly seized the property from the EFCC on May 30.

    The premises, formerly shared by both agencies, thus came under the exclusive control of armed DSS operatives.

    Operatives of the government secret “police”, armed and with two armoured vehicles, prevented EFCC personnel from gaining access to their offices on the premises.

    The shots were fired just as journalists from the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) approached the locked gate of the premises to get close-up video shots.

    The shots appeared to have been fired in the air as a warning.

    None of the journalists and EFCC operatives hanging around outside was hurt.

    There had been a 20-year silent dispute between both agencies over usage of the premises.

    The premises, originally exclusively used by the DSS, had been shared by both agencies since the EFCC’s establishment by former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2003.

    The siege was resolved following the intervention of President Bola Tinubu.

    In a ruling, a seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice John Okoro, ordered that the old notes remain legal tender until necessary facilities are put in place for their replacement.

    Governors elections 

    The last is yet to be heard on governorship election petitions as the cases are pending at the Supreme Court.

    On November 15, the Court of Appeal Court dismissed the appeals by the PDP/Olajide Adediran and LP/Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, challenging the victory of Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu.              The three-man panel, Justice Yargata Nimpa, Justice Samuel Bola, and Justice Paul Bassey, unanimously affirmed the September 25 decision of the Lagos State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal.

    It held that the appellants failed to prove their allegations of forgery and non-qualification against Sanwo-Olu and his deputy Dr. Obafemi Hamzat.

    ‘Justice for MOHBAD’ 

    On September 12, Nigerian pop star, Ilerioluwa Aloba a.ka. MohBad died in Lagos, at the age of 27.

    His death threw up controversies and protests, with his fans demanding justice.

    The Lagos State Police Command invited Ms Feyisayo Ogedengbe, an auxiliary nurse, as well as Naira Marley, Sam Larry, Primeboy and others in the course of the investigation.

    The Lagos State government set up a coroner inquest under Magistrate Adetayo Shotobi to unravel the cause of Mohbad’s death.

    Those who have given evidence before the coroner sitting at High Court, Ita-Elewa, Ikorodu include the father of the deceased Joseph Aloba; his wife, Omawunmi; brother Adura, among others.

    Naira Marley, Prime Boy and Sam Larry have also been summoned to appear before the Coroner Court at its next sitting.

    At its last sitting, the court heard that the autopsy report was not ready as the toxicology, examination of the internal part of the deceased was being done in the USA.

    DSS releases Bawa 134 days after

    The State Security Service (SSS) finally released the immediate-past EFCC Chairman Abdulrasheed Bawa 134 days after taking him into custody.

    The agency, which calls itself the DSS, said in a statement: “DSS confirms release of former EFCC chairman, Abdulrasheed Bawa, a few hours ago (today 25th October 2023).”

    The secret police did not state why it held Bawa for so long without charge, nor did it say charges would be filed.

    Bawa was arrested on June 14.

  • ‘How America’s complex judiciary works’

    ‘How America’s complex judiciary works’

    Prof. Noah A. Rosenblum of the New York University School of Law, at a briefing hosted by the New York Foreign Press Center, breaks down the complex American judiciary. United States Bureau Chief OLUKOREDE YISHAU reports.

    U.S. court system

    There is no such thing as the single U.S. court system. There are several court systems, plural, and they intersect at various points. The critical distinction to keep in mind is that between state courts and federal courts. Federal courts are courts whose authority ultimately flows from the government in Washington, D.C. They trace their legal existence back to the United States Constitution and to laws passed by the Congress. So for example, the United States Supreme Court, which is often described in the newspapers, is a federal court. It sits in Washington, D.C. It is created by Article 3 of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the entire federal system. 

    State and federal courts

    State courts, on the other hand, trace their authority to the government of the state of which they are a part – not the United States Constitution, but to that state’s constitution. So, for those of you who are in the room with me right now, we are in New York State, right? The highest state court in New York is not the United States Supreme Court – that’s a federal court – the highest New York State court is the New York Court of Appeals. That court sits in Albany, and it is – it traces its existence to the New York State Constitution. Weirdly, in New York, there is a court known as the Supreme Court, but the New York Supreme Court is not the highest court for New York. In fact, it’s one of the lowest courts. It’s the general trial court. It’s the court of general jurisdiction. 

    Okay, so key point, right – state courts and federal courts are different. They have different rules, they have different powers, they trace their authority to different sources, they have different judges, and they are part of different systems. 

    But state courts and federal courts are not completely isolated. As I said a minute ago, they intersect at various points. So, this gets us into the complicated question of how the two systems relate to each other. In fact, they have a bunch of overlap, which can make things very confusing. As a threshold matter, state courts and federal courts have overlapping jurisdictions. Nearly every square foot of U.S. territory falls in the jurisdiction of both the state court system and the federal court system. So here, in this building, we are in the jurisdiction both of the Southern District of New York, which is a federal court, and the New York County Supreme Court, which is a state court. 

    Also state courts and federal courts can apply the other system’s law. The exact circumstances in which they do this are complicated, but state courts can apply federal law, and they do it all the time, and federal courts can apply state law, and they do that all the time, too. 

    However, this is not true of every legal issue. There are some legal issues that are exclusively creatures of federal law and some issues that are exclusively creatures of state law, and there are some cases in which you have to be in a federal forum. So, for example, if you’re a business that declares bankruptcy, you have to go to federal bankruptcy court. There is no state bankruptcy court. There is no state bankruptcy law, only federal law. Same thing with immigration law or matters of military justice, right? If those are the legal issues you’re dealing with, you must be in a federal forum. 

    On the flipside, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Basically, the way you should think about it is that in general – your default place is going to be a state court. You need a special reason to go to a federal court; you need a special hook to be in a federal court. If you don’t have the hook, your only option is to go to a state court. State courts, by contrast with federal courts, are courts of general jurisdiction. 

    Read Also: The judiciary and electoral fisticuffs

    So as a result of this, of the fact that state courts are courts of general jurisdiction and you need a special hook to be in a federal court, the vast majority of cases are heard in state courts, not federal courts. So, there’s something like 300,000 civil cases filed last year in the federal court system in 2022, according to the Federal Judicial Center. By contrast, there were more than 700,000 cases in – civil cases filed in New York State alone, according to the Court Statistics Project. 

    Number of state courts

    The state court numbers are hard to track down for a variety of reasons… There were more than two times as many cases, civil cases, filed in New York State Court alone – just New York State, more than two times as many civil cases – than in the entire federal system. And that discrepancy is even greater when it comes to criminal cases, because federal criminal law is much smaller and more limited as compared to state criminal law. 

    Circle back to what I said a minute ago, about the fact that you need a special hook to get into federal court, right. Your default forum is going to be a state court, unless you have a special reason to be in federal court, which means that as a legal matter you can’t be in federal court unless Congress has passed a special law authorizing you to be in federal court, but the United States Constitution limits the kinds of matters that Congress can legislate on. Moreover, federal courts have interpreted the Constitution to put additional limits on what it is that federal courts can do, regardless of what it is that Congress might say. 

    Advisory opinion

    Federal courts are not allowed to issue what are called advisory opinions, interpreting a law before it goes into effect. But state courts, on the other hand, might be allowed to do that. You have to go state by state to figure that out. 

    As a general matter, federal courts will hear cases about matters that cross state lines or that affect the whole country, but not much more than that. State courts will hear almost everything else, so most criminal law will be state court, although some big drug cases that involve crimes that cross state lines will be in federal court. Similarly, most tort claims, like defamation, will be heard by state court, although in very unusual circumstances you might be able to bring your case into federal court. 

    Okay, two last things to keep in mind on this score. First, since each court can apply the other’s law, the forum often matters less for the law than for the things like personnel and procedure that the choice of forum get you. So suppose that your defamation case is being heard in state court. Because each court gets to apply the other court’s law, just because you’re in a state court doesn’t mean federal law doesn’t apply. You don’t lose your federal constitutional rights just because your defamation case is being heard by a New York State court. Because federal law is supreme, state courts have to follow federal law, even if there’s a conflict between that state’s law and the federal law, okay. 

    And the second thing to keep in mind is that you can often pull a case from one forum to another forum. In particular, if a case involves a federal issue, than even if you begin the case in state court or even if the case is heard in the state court system, you might be able to pull it into a federal court, maybe right at the beginning if the real issue is a federal legal issue, or at the very end of the hearing by an appeal to a federal court to get the federal legal issue heard. 

    How the systems are organised

    Each court system is different, but they all have the same general structure. So in general, the U.S. court systems have some kind of a trial court, and then you have at least one appeal as of right to an appellate court, and then maybe you get another appeal or maybe not. And in the final instance, if there’s a federal issue, you can get that case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    Okay, that’s a little bit abstract. Let’s make it more concrete. So here in New York, like I said, the lowest general trial court is known weirdly as the New York Supreme Court. So, if you commit a felony to a serious crime or if you’re one big business and you’re suing another big business, that’s where your case is going to start, in New York Supreme Court. And if you’re here in the room with me, the New York Supreme Court that we would go to is the Supreme Court for New York County down at 50 Center Street, downtown. 

    Now you should know that there are some other trial courts below New York Supreme Court in New York State that are special for certain small issues, like a small civil case for example, like a small claims case or something like that. But basically, your court of general jurisdiction is New York Supreme. 

    All right, from New York Supreme you have one appeal as of right to the appellate division. For historic reasons, in New York State, the appellate division court is technically known as the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, which is a little confusing, but whatever; welcome to New York. The appellate division in New York State is divided into four different geographic departments. Each department covers a different part of the state. Here in New York County, your appeal goes to the first department. And whereas at New York Supreme your case was heard by a single judge, at the appellate department – or excuse me, at the First Department of the Appellate Division, your case is going to be heard by a panel of five judges who are drawn from all the judges who sit on the First Department Appellate Division. 

    After that court hears your case, you’re probably done. But you can try to appeal to the highest court in the state, the New York Court of Appeals. That court has seven judges, they sit in Albany, New York, the chief judge is Rowan Wilson. But in New York, our highest court has what’s called a discretionary docket.

    They don’t have to hear every case that you try to appeal to them; you have to ask them for permission, and they have to decide whether or not to hear your case. But not every state has a discretionary court of last resort. That’s just true for New York State. 

    Whether the New York Court of Appeals takes your case or not, that’s the end of the line for your case unless there was a matter of federal law embedded somewhere in your case. If there was, then you can try to get your case appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but they will probably say no. The United States Supreme Court also has a discretionary docket, and they only hear something like 70 cases a year, and they’re not supposed to hear cases that have already been decided on independent and adequate state grounds. In practice, in the last few years the United States Supreme Court has taken barely any cases out of the state court system. They mostly take their cases from the federal court system. 

    So, like the state court system, the federal system starts with the general trial courts. Those courts are called district courts, and as I mentioned a little while ago, the lowest district court is known as the Southern District of New York, here in New York City, where we are right now in this building. Just as with the state court system, there are some courts below the district courts that work in partnership with it, like magistrate judges and bankruptcy courts, but we can talk more about those later if you’re interested. 

    Just as in the state system, in the federal system you have one appeal as of right. Those appeals go from the district courts to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. And just as with the New York State system, the circuit courts of appeals are divided geographically across the whole country, for the most part. There are 12 geographic circuits. There is one special circuit known as the federal circuit, which doesn’t have geographic jurisdiction, it has thematic jurisdiction. So, the federal circuit takes, for example, all intellectual property cases, all patent cases. Those go on appeal to the federal circuit. 

    Okay. And just as in the state system, at the appellate level your case is heard by a panel of judges. First it goes to a panel of three judges, and then if you don’t like the answer you can try to get it heard by the rest of the judges on that circuit court in a process known as en banc review. Here in New York State, in New York City, you would go from the Southern District of New York to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and you could then try to get en banc review from the second circuit. 

    Okay. Finally, you can petition the Supreme Court to hear your case if you’re already within the federal system. Since you’re already in the federal system, that means there is definitely some kind of a federal hook, so you probably don’t have to worry about whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to take your case. Like I said, they will probably say no because they only hear 70 cases a year. 

    Two systems 

     The reason we have two systems in the United States is because we don’t think of ourselves as having a single sovereign. There are two sovereigns. And if we think about different kinds of especially criminal legal matters, what we’re dealing with in a philosophical way is an offense against the sovereign. The ultimate sovereign is the people, but when you commit a crime, you may have violated federal law, in which case you committed a crime against the United States, but you may have also violated state law, in which case you committed a crime against the state.  

    And so, each of those sovereigns has an independent interest in seeing its law enforced. So, if you have committed a single act but the act offends two different sovereigns, then there are two different wrongs that trace back to the same act. 

    And if you want to think about it conceptually, right – if I commit fraud, so this is – would be civil as opposed to criminal, but if I commit fraud against you in a single act, I may nevertheless have violated many of your interests and caused many different wrongs at the same time. And so you might want to vindicate those different wrongs even if they all trace back to a single transaction. 

    So that’s sort of like the quick answer about why the system allows this. It gets more nuanced and complicated because there are questions about when jeopardy attaches, and there are disagreements among law professors over whether this kind of subsequent prosecution for the same act should be allowed or not. But what I’ve just given you is the kind of philosophical explanation and the underlying legal explanation for why we allow it. 

    The last thing you asked about is a little bit different, though, which is about how sentencing works, and in the United States sentencing and guilt are separate from each other. So, the sentencing phase of a trial follows upon the guilt phase of a trial, and there are different considerations that attach. So, you can have concurrent sentences, but you can also stack them and have cumulative sentences, and that question is independent from the question of the double jeopardy – like the prosecution in two different court systems. So even in a single court system, a judge could decide that you need to serve your sentences concurrently or cumulatively even if that’s just a state sentence. 

    Training and selection of judges 

    The selection of judges in the federal system and state system is radically different, and the question of training is also really different. It’s hard to speak about the state system as a whole because there is no state system, right, there are 51 – at least – different state judge systems, the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Territorial judges are a whole separate issue; military judges are a whole separate issue. Territorial and military judges are technically federal, but okay. And D.C. judges are complicated because the District of Columbia is a federal territory, but it’s organized sort of like a state system. 

    Each of the state judicial systems has a different way of going about selecting its judges. As you alluded to, the vast majority of state court judges are elected. So, we can say that as a general matter state judges are often elected, but how the elections work are really different state by state. In some states the judges run for election across the whole state. I can’t remember if any states have partisan judicial elections where you run as a Democrat or Republican, but in a lot of cases even if its nonpartisan people know that you are sort of connected to a party. 

    In New York state, even though you get to vote for your state judges, the judges are selected by the parties before the election, and that party selection happens through judicial delegates who you vote for at a different election, and then the delegates come together to select the judges. So you don’t get to vote for somebody who has campaigned across the state the same way that you vote for governor, so even there the election is actually – looks a little bit different. And in New York State, not all of the judges are elected. The supreme court judges are elected. The appellate division judges are selected by the governor from the elected judges at supreme court, and the judges on the highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, are selected by the governor from a short list produced by an independent nominating commission whose members are made up of gubernatorial and state legislature appointees. Right, so it can get really complicated really quickly. 

    Federal selection procedure 

    The federal selection procedure though, that’s very different and we all know about that because it’s in the Constitution. The President nominates an individual who then must be confirmed by the Senate, and that’s true for judges to the district courts, to the circuit courts of appeals, and to the United States Supreme Court. There are lots of other considerations that go into that. So for example, there are all kinds of informal procedures that allow states – that allow senators to block the nomination of judges to the district court, more complicated for the appeals court, not allowed at the Supreme Court level. The Senate has changed its rules around the filibuster to make it impossible to filibuster Supreme Court nominees, but I think you can still filibuster district judges, although actually I can’t remember that. Somebody who’s a real law professor should double-check that one. 

    But none of that is in the Constitution, right? Those are all just norms about how the Senate rules operate. Same thing with the blue slip process. So that’s like a whole separate thing to talk about. But as a general – oh, and then the last thing is that federal judges have life tenure. So once they’re on the bench, they are in that position as long as they’re not impeached until they decide to resign or until they die. Their salary cannot be diminished while they’re in office, and no mandatory retirement. Whereas state systems each do their own thing. 

    Term limits

    Many state judges have term limits. So if you’re on the New York Court of Appeals, you’re there for a 14-year term, not for the rest of your life. If you’re on New York Supreme Court, I think it’s a 10-year term. Meanwhile, many states have mandatory retirement. So in New York, when you hit 70 years old, regardless of how many years you have left in your term, you have to retire, although you can ask for a special dispensation. 

    So very different, very different in the kinds of personnel that end up operating those systems, right? If you’re – if you’ve got life tenure and if you want to entrench your ideology in the judiciary, you nominate really young judges with the expectation that they will be there for many decades. And indeed, it’s routine in the federal system to see people serve for 20 years, 30 years. Whereas in the state system, if you’ve got mandatory retirement at 70 and you serve a 10- or 14-year term, yeah, sure you can nominate somebody who’s 60 years old. You don’t get any – if you’re trying to entrench your political party in charge, there’s no benefit to nominating a 30-year-old. They’ll still do the same 10-year term. So big differences there. 

    There’s a sociological difference too, but I’ve already gone on too long on that question, so I want to say something brief about the other two points. So is there overlap? Some, but not as much as you might think. And that’s a bit about the sociological point. In general, state judiciaries are perceived to be less prestigious than the federal judiciary. 

    National legal elites 

    In general, national legal elites in the United States tend to be nominated to federal positions, and in general, you see fewer national legal elites within the state system. That’s not universally true. So the chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals Rowan Wilson is by any description a national legal elite. He graduated I think from Harvard Law School, he was a partner at Cravath, which is one of the most storied firms in American legal history, and he clerked for federal judges, which makes him look very much like the kinds of judges that you would see in the federal system. Similarly, the judge that I was a law clerk for, Judge Rivera, was a law clerk to Sonia Sotomayor, who is now a Justice on the United States Supreme Court. So very much like the federal system. 

    But historically – and again, in people’s perception, I think this is bad. I’m not endorsing this. I’m just describing it. And I’ll just reiterate that I’m not an employee and I certainly don’t represent the position of the United States on this one. You’re just getting Professor Noah Rosenblum’s hot takes. But I think the – and like I said before, I think this is terrible. I think our state judiciaries are critical and they don’t get the respect that they deserve. But there’s a perception that they are less prestigious than the federal judiciary. 

    So there are lots of cases of state judges who are then nominated by the President to the federal judiciary and leave the state court system to become federal judges. Judge Ed Wesley was a judge on the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court judge, and he was picked I think by President George H.W. Bush, although maybe it was W. Bush, to become a judge on the Second Circuit. I think President Donald Trump similarly nominated a judge from the Texas Supreme Court to become a Fifth Circuit federal judge. So that happens. 

    The reverse happens less frequently – that a federal judge leaves the federal bench to become a state court judge, although there are some interesting examples. So Judge Caitlin Halligan, who is now a judge on the New York Court of Appeals, had been nominated to be a D.C. Circuit judge, was not confirmed, and then became a judge on the New York Court of Appeals. Similarly, I think in California, Judge Goodwin Liu had been nominated to a federal judgeship, was not confirmed, and then became a judge on the California Supreme Court. 

    Election of judges 

    We have an incredibly powerful and partisan judiciary in the United States at the federal level even though our judges are not elected. So you said to me, Noah, hey, doesn’t the election of judges contribute to creating a partisan judiciary? And I push back and say, actually, when you have nomination by president and confirmation by senate, you can have an incredibly partisan judiciary. So it’s not obvious that election is the reason why the United States judiciary is so different from judiciaries in other countries. 

    I think a better explanation is in most other countries the way you become a judge – and I’m speaking to foreign journalists so you guys know this better than me – is through a separate professionalized training process. So I think in Germany, for example, the way that you become a lawyer is different from the way you become a judge. But in the United States we have a single, unified bar. So the way you become a judge is the same way you become a regular lawyer. And then in order to become a judge having been a lawyer, you have to participate in this partisan political process, right – nomination by president, confirmation by senate. And there’s a whole informal process that has been around since the 19th century in which state – in which senators, who are often connected to their political parties within their home states, vet and select the nominees for those offices. So whether you have election or nomination, if the selection of judges happens through a political process, and if you give a lot of political power to judges, you’ll have a really partisan judiciary. 

    In the 19th century, the judiciary was if anything even more partisan than it is today. So federal judges routinely weren’t just members of political parties; they actually ran presidential campaigns. So Judge David Davis, who became a Supreme Court justice, he got there because he was Lincoln’s campaign manager when President Lincoln was running for office, right? Where else in the world do you become a Supreme Court justice having been a campaign manager? Similarly, there was a prominent 19th century district judge who had been Stephen Douglas, the Democratic candidate’s right-hand guy, and he did that while he was also a federal judge. And there was nothing wrong about that. People were very open about how once they become judges, they would remain in partisan political activity. 

    District attorneys 

    District attorneys are separate because they are elected, right? And they are elected as part, in most states, of a political process. But again, you have to go state by state. So district attorneys are often elected, but in some states the attorney general is elected, and in other states the attorney general is appointed. 

    In the federal system, the U.S. attorneys are appointed, and there’s much – there’s a much longer tradition there of nonpartisanship. So the federal Department of Justice, probably since the very beginning but certainly since the late 19th century, has been very professionalized along administrative lines in a way that’s very different from many of the state systems. In general – there are exceptions obviously – but it is not uncommon in the United States for people to run for district attorney as part of their political rise to then want to become governor, right, or do some other partisan political position. That’s much less frequent in the Department of Justice and especially for the lawyers right below the United States attorney, the career civil servants in the DOJ.  

  • Sore-losers’ assault on our judiciary

    Sore-losers’ assault on our judiciary

    For those who have taken the pains to study Nigerian politics and political process, the outcome of the 2023 presidential election was predictable. With PDP fractionalized into four, it was apparent the party was doomed. Unfortunately, leading lights of the party including Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, Rabiu Kwankwaso and other warring groups who out of greed for power unwittingly ceded the coveted price to a more versatile politician with a better brinkmanship on how to cope with party intrigue and ambition of party and non-party members and reconcile private affluence with public squalor, blamed everyone except themselves.

    First the target was Bola Tinubu, the winner of the election who from his party intra primary to the general election battled power and principalities to achieve what most people have come to regard as a miracle. After losing to a better prepared candidate, they embarked on sterile argument about his Chicago University certificate, his health status and his true identity. Then the battle shifted to INEC accused of not transmitting result by Irev. Obi, despite coming a distant third, claimed his victory was stolen. Atiku who ought not to have featured in the electoral contest claimed victory without proving how the victory was secured.

    And finally it was the turn of the judiciary for dutifully interpreting the electoral law and the constitution when approached by sore losers sworn to undermining the integrity of the judiciary if they could not have Tinubu’s victory over-turned on technical grounds.

    While Atiku and Obi may justified their assault on the judiciary by the fact that all is fair in war as in politics since politics is war by other means, I think both by their short-sightedness are unpatriotic. Destroying judiciary which defines humanity only takes us back to Hobbesian state of lawlessness and chaos where life is nasty, brutish and short.

    Read Also: No noise, please

    Of course our judges are Nigerians. It can therefore be argued that a part cannot be holier than the whole. But comparing our judiciary with other institutions of state will be odious. Beyond etymology, judges are called justices because it is envisaged they will dispense justice to ensure a just society. And a just society is where a person gets what he or she deserves. For a society, it should be an article of faith that their judges will dispense justice, protect citizens human rights and a nation’s constitution.

    Unfortunately, instead of promoting faith in our judicial system, those who should know better, precisely because they are sore losers have done everything to undermine the integrity of our judiciary.

    Let us start with last week’s open letter to Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Olukayode Ariwoola by elder statesman, Chief Edwin Clark asking him to reorganize the judiciary because of alleged corruption and the malpractices. Unfortunately, his intervention was ill-timed because Nigerians who are aware of where he stood in the last February election cannot but lump him together with supporters of Obi who because they see only the picture in their heads have become the greatest threat to the judiciary.

    Pa Clark’s case was not helped by the fact that except ‘conflicting judgments by same courts in different states of the country’, all the other cases he cited to support his allegation of corruption in the judiciary including the inhumane treatment meted to the former CJN, Justice Walter Onoghen; the illegal raiding of judges houses at midnight; socialization between the judiciary and some senators who are facing criminal charges;” all happened before the current CJN assumed office.

    Pa Clark who admitted he has been in the judiciary for 59 years knows Nigerian judiciary has come a long way from the First Republic when judges complained “their “hands were tied”, when the NPC/NCNC coalition partners engineered a midnight retroactive law to oust the jurisdiction of the Privy Council, the then highest judicial body in the country and during Buhari, Babangida and Abacha military misadventure when the judiciary was used to wage wars against Nigeria. He was alive and had influence on political actors of the fourth republic including President Obasanjo who without restraint freely used the judiciary to fight his political foes.  For Pa Clark to therefore insinuate just like the ‘Obidient’ that the judiciary today is the worst in our nation’s history will be a hard sell to those who live in Nigeria.

    Pa Clark also seem to have a problem with the chief justice’s declaration that judges are not moved by public opinion in the determination of cases before them but by facts’ as a response to Labour Party’s “all eyes on the judiciary” media campaign which many saw as attempt to intimidate the judiciary to see only their own truth no matter how jaundiced.  But with the outcome of the election, it has become apparent, results of polls after polls masterminded by Obi’s sympathisers which predicted his landslide victory in the February election could not have had universal applicability. And with members of Human Rights Groups accusing each other of partisanship during public presentation of what was supposed to be a joint report, the CJN’s apprehension or uneasiness with public opinion as determinant of court cases cannot be faulted.

    Attack by Atiku Abubakar on the judiciary that threw his case of alleged ‘banditry perpetrated by the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on October 26, 2023 and upheld the election of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has remained vicious. But this was just as his party’s governors’ forum led by Bala Mohammed, and his party’s National Working Committee (NWC) including the acting National Chairman, Umar Damagum distanced themselves from his attack by declaring “As a forum, (they) believe and restate our faith and confidence in the judiciary to do justice in political and other cases before the courts” adding that “the judges should be commended for doing a good job.”

    The judiciary also came under severe criticism following the Court of Appeal’s ruling by the three-member panel led by Justice Elfrida Williams-Dawodu that sacked the Governor of Plateau State, Caleb Mutfwang and declared APC candidate Muntawe Goshwe as the winner of the March 18 governorship poll in Plateau state.

      Again they ignored the precedents. In 2019, APC was unable to present candidates for the governorship, Senate, House of Representatives, and House of Assembly elections in Rivers State following bungled party primaries.

    It was the same story in Zamfara where the APC lost three senatorial seats and the seven seats in the House of Representatives they won during the February 23, 2019 presidential and parliamentary elections, the APC governorship election won with 534,541 to Bello Muhammad Mutawalle of the PDP’s 189,452 and all the 24 seats in the Zamfara State House of Assembly. APC lost all the positions to the opposition PDP because according to Centus Nweze, who spoke on behalf of a five-member panel of the apex court, “it is clear that the respondent (APC) was in grave disobedience of two lawful court orders and It is a serious matter for anyone to flout a court order”.

    Governor Abdulaziz Yari Abubakar who admitted APC breached the provisions of the law that mandates the party to conduct ward congresses, accepted the Supreme Court verdict, urged APC members to be law-abiding while directing security agencies to ensure adequate protection of lives and property of his people.

    We cannot afford to destroy our judiciary because of all the institutions of state, it is the only one that can ensure government accountability, fair resolution of dispute, uphold rights and bringing culprits to justice and sustain the democratic culture.