The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Judiciary

  • How sabotage, blackmail, undue delays are killing the Judiciary (1)

    How sabotage, blackmail, undue delays are killing the Judiciary (1)

    The courts are supposed to be where justice is dispensed. But, with trials taking ages before they are concluded, the so-called ‘long-arm of the law’ appears to have been amputated. Relative to Nigeria’s population, the number of convicts per capita is extremely low. JOSEPH JIBUEZE discovers that sabotage, blackmail, corruption and undue delays are behind the snail speed of the justice system

    It has a beginning. It has an end too. But the end usually takes longer than expected. It takes so long that many believe it actually has only a beginning and no end. This is the story of Nigeria’s criminal justice system where criminal trials last endlessly. The result is that impunity reigns supreme. Shockingly, most times the pattern is the same: undue delays in trials, sabotage by state officials and blackmail of judicial officials by accused persons. A new dimension in the art of delaying criminal cases was witnessed in Ekiti State prior to the swearing in of Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose.

    Fayose was under trial for allegations of financial misappropriation during his first term as governor between 2003 and 2006 when he was removed from office through an impeachment. Contrary to reports, EFCC said it had not dropped the charges against Fayose, who won the June 21 governorship election.

    Prior to the swearing-in, a group, E-11, and others challenged Fayose’s eligibility to contest the election. In a determined bid to stop the case from being heard, all hell was let loose. Judges, lawyers, court officials, and journalists felt the brutality of thugs.

    The first attack occurred on September 22. Thugs allegedly loyal to Fayose invaded the Ekiti State judiciary headquarters where Justice Isaac Ogunyemi was to deliver a ruling on the case. The thugs beat workers black and blue while the presiding judge and lawyers had to run for dear lives. They smashed windows and furniture.

    In the words of the Chief Judge, Justice Ayodeji Daramola, “the policemen and other law enforcement agents deployed within and without the premises in large numbers were looking on completely uninterested and unconcerned while these thugs were on the prowl beating and maiming workers and court users.”

    On September 25, thugs invaded the High Court premises, beating judicial officers.

    Justice Daramola recalls: “The thugs invaded my court where I was to deliver a judgment in a land matter, tore the Record Books, beat the court officials and vandalised the furniture in Court No. 1. The political thugs descended on Hon. Justice J. A. Adeyeye the presiding Judge in Court No. 3, beat and dragged him on the ground.

    “The judge’s suit was also torn into shreds. I could not gain entrance into the premises of the court and had to hurriedly turn back on being alerted that I was the prime target of the hooligans.”

    Consequently, the Chief Judge ordered the closure of the court until the safety of judges, magistrates and staff could be guaranteed by the law enforcement agents.

    Unconfirmed sources said the Presidency directed the military and the police to ensure that the courts remain sealed until after Fayose’s inauguration as governor on October 16.

    Soldiers and policemen barricaded the court premises as from October 7, turning back judges, lawyers and litigants on the basis of an alleged “bomb” threat. The siege moved from courts in the state capital to all others within the state, including customary courts.

    On October 13, the NJC directed Justice Daramola to make a formal announcement to reopen the courts. He did on October 14, after two weeks of forced closure, even as workers stayed off. Two days later, Justice Daramola swore in Fayose as governor.

    There was outrage over the attacks. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), human rights groups, retired judges, senior advocates of Nigeria (SANs) were unanimous in their condemnation of the action.

    There are fears that a horrible precedent had been set. All the corrupt need to do is to sanction the disruption of a criminal trial by sending thugs to beat up judges and force a shut-down of the “helpless” judiciary.

     

    The case of the ex-bank chiefs

    Unlike the Ekiti sage, the trials of ex-bank chiefs have witnessed more civil means of prolonging adjudication.

    In mid August 2009, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) “hammer” fell on five bank chief executives, namely Sebastin Adigwe (Afribank), Okey Nwosu (Finbank), Erastus Akingbola (Intercontinental Bank), Cecilia Ibru (Oceanic Bank) and Bath Ebong (Union Bank).

    The CBN governor at the time, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, said they were sacked due to the banks’ high level of non-performing loans and non-adherence to best practices in risk management.

    The five banks were subsequently rescued in a N400billion government bail-out as they were found to have low cash reserves because of bad loans and corrupt practices.

    Three weeks after their sack, the sensational trial of the bank chiefs began. The news media celebrated their arraignment. Before their court appearance, journalists kept vigil at the Lagos office of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), giving updates on their interrogation by the commission. Reports of their arraignment were the leading stories in every media outlet.

    However, five years after their arraignment, the cases are still pending in court with no end in sight. The EFCC arraigned four of the bank chiefs at the Federal High Court in Lagos on charges of fraud, concealment and grant of loans without adequate collateral running into about N625billion. Akingbola, who was initially at large, later returned and was arraigned.

    Of the five bank chiefs, only the case against Ibru has been concluded – after she pleaded guilty in a plea bargain.

    On October 8, 2010, the court sentenced her to 18 months imprisonment for mismanaging depositors’ funds and granting credit facilities worth $20million and N2billion far above CBN’s approved limit.

    The jail term ran concurrently, so Ibru spent about six months in ‘prison’. She was allowed to continue with her treatment at a highbrow Reddington Hospital in Victoria Island after her sentence.

    Ibru forfeited assets worth N191billion comprising 94 choice properties in the United States and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. She also gave up shares in about 80 listed companies on the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) and in 20 unlisted companies. She was ordered to reimburse N1.29billion.

     

    The Akingbola case

    What many see as a deliberate ploy to delay trial through loopholes in the system has delayed judgment in Akingbola’s trial, for instance.

    While the case at Federal High Court was pending, the EFCC charged Akingbola and the others at the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, with theft of depositors’ funds.

    On May 31, 2011, Akingbola and an associate Bayo Dada were arraigned before Justice Habib Abiru on a 22-count charge bordering on conspiracy and alleged stealing of N47.1 billion belonging to the bank.

    After much delay, caused by preliminary objections and application for stay of proceedings, which were all dismissed, trial began. Witnesses testified. There was excitement that for once, a high profile criminal case was about to be concluded quickly. But there were twists.

    The defence counsel, which initially included three Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Messrs Felix Fagbohungbe, Deji Sasegbon, and Rickey Tarfa, tried to stop the arraignment. Even after the EFCC filed the charges, the matter suffered three adjournments before the arraignment took place.

    It did not hold when the accused were first produced in court on May 10, 2011 because the EFCC, which held the defendants in custody, did not bring them to court early enough. There were two further adjournments on May 16 and May 23, 2011, due to a motion by the defence challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the charges. The objection was on the basis that it was the Lagos State Attorney-General and not Attorney-General of the Federation through the EFCC that ought to file the charges.

    Justice Abiru, in a ruling on May 31, 2011, dismissed the application and ordered that Akingbola be arraigned. After he pleaded not guilty, the judge adjourned for trial and fixed three initial dates – July 20, 26 and 27, 2011.

    As the EFCC sought to open its case, the defence sought a stay of proceedings pending the determination of their appeal against his May 31 ruling.

    Justice Abiru dismissed it and held that Section 277 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Laws of Lagos State and Section 40 of the EFCC Act did not give room for stopping a trial in criminal proceedings before the delivery of judgment.

    The defence then sought adjournments on the ground was that the prosecution counsel, Mr. Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), served them a counter-affidavit to their pending motions late.

    They also sought an adjournment because the court was on vacation; therefore, the judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case.

    Besides, they said they had two applications, one which sought an adjournment pending the hearing and final determination of their appeal before the Court of Appeal and the other which sought to quash the charges.

    Justice Abiru heard the applications in October 2011 and struck them out for lacking merit.

    After these delays, EFCC called its first witness, Intercontinental Bank’s Chief Inspector Abdulraheem Jimoh, who testified that he led the bank’s investigation on five transactions by Akingbola involving £8.5million, £1.3million, N10billion, N2.5billion and N8.6billion.

    Jimoh alleged that Akingbola’s transfer of N2.1billion from the bank breached a number of banking procedures. The trial continued till April 15, 2012 when the EFCC closed its case with the testimony of its operative and second witness, Nkechi Ibekaku.

    Rather than open their defence, the defendants filed an application for a no-case submission (in which a defendant seeks acquittal without having to present a defence).

    It was adjourned for EFCC to file its counter-affidavit. After it was argued, it was adjourned for ruling. Justice Abiru, on May 30, 2012, dismissed the no-case answer.

    Eventually, the defence called four witnesses, including Akingbola and Dada, who denied all the allegations by the EFCC. Akingbola, who was the last defence witness to testify, denied allegations of theft against him, describing them as “false, incorrect and malicious”.

    On September 11, 2012, Fagbohungbe accused the judge of bias. His grouse was that the judge overruled his request for an adjournment to continue leading Dada in evidence on another day.

    Fagbohungbe said he wanted an adjournment to carry out investigation on “certain things”. He also complained that the judge was not writing down part of Dada’s testimonies. But the judge said the request for an adjournment was unnecessary.

    On October 22, 2012, the defence team sought an adjournment because they were unable to produce a witness they had promised to bring.

    Justice Abiru refused the prayer, and ordered defence to close their case. The judge said his order followed an undertaking by Fagbohungbe that the defence’s case would be closed if the witness was not produced in court that day.

    Justice Abiru then adjourned till November 15, 2012, for adoption of final written addresses by parties. A date for judgment would have been fixed that day, but it never happened. Instead, the unexpected happened.

    It was announced on November 2, 2012 that Justice Abiru had been elevated to the Court of Appeal. In effect, the case, which was almost concluded, would start de novo (all over again) before another judge.

    The Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Ogbunyiya vs Okudo (1979) All NLR 105 is often cited as the reason why a case cannot continue before a judge who has been elevated to the appellate court.

     

    More twists

    Akingbola and Dada were re-arraigned before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo on February 26, last year. Again, EFCC went through the process of recalling its witnesses. When it closed its case, Akingbola again made a no-case submission.

    On July 15, 2013, Justice Onigbanjo dismissed the no-case application, holding that it lacked merit and that a prima facie case was established against the accused. He directed Akingbola to open his defence.

    But there was a further twist in the tale. The judge was redeployed from the court’s criminal division to the commercial division. This development again cancelled previous proceedings in the case. The trial would begin de novo once again.

    The Chief Judge, Justice Ayotunde Philips (now retired) re-assigned the case to Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo.

    Akingbola was billed to be re-arraigned on December 9, last year. Curiously, the court’s registrars ‘erroneously’ failed to include Akingbola’s case in the list of matters for the day. This led to a further adjournment till March 24 this year. The re-arraignment never held.

    Akingbola, through his new lawyer, former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), challenged Justice Lawal-Akapo’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

    The defence counsel also sought to quash the charges on the basis that they related to banking and capital market issues which he said were within the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction.

    On May 2, Justice Lawal-Akapo dismissed the objections for lacking in merit and assumed jurisdiction in the case. On June 23, Olanipekun prayed the court to stay proceedings in the trial until an interlocutory appeal against the May 2 ruling is determined at the Court of Appeal.

    The appellate court, after hearing the case on October 16, reserved ruling on the interlocutory appeal.

    As at the time of filing this report, judgment has not been delivered, and there is no end in sight.

     

    The Abacha case

    The Federal Government charged Mohammed, son of the late Head of State Gen Sani Abacha at the Federal Capital Territory High Court with receiving receiving money stolen from the government’s coffers by his late father between 1995 and 1998

    The defendant sought to quash his trial on the ground that the immunity his father enjoyed while in office extended to the acts which constituted the offence for which he (the son) was charged.

    It took over 10 years for the Supreme Court to rule on the interlocutory appeal, numbered SC.40/2006. The case was to resume at the lower court, but it never did.

    On June 18, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) withdrew the N446.3billion theft charge instituted against Abacha.

    Adoke asked Justice Mamman Kolo to strike out the charges on the grounds of “fresh facts” that emerged concerning the case.

    In the nine-count charge, Abacha was accused of “dishonestly receiving stolen property” and was said to have “voluntarily assisted in concealing the money.”

    Following withdrawal of the charges, Abacha is now a governorship aspirant in Kano State on the platform of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

     

    The Joshua Dariye trial

    In September 2004, British authorities in London arrested then Plateau State Governor Joshua Dariye on allegations of money laundering and seized about £90,000 in cash from him. Dariye allegedly skipped bail and returned to Nigeria to resume office.

    In April 2007, an English court sentenced Dariye’s associate to three years in prison for laundering more than £1.4million of public funds found to have allegedly been stolen by the governor.

    When Dariye’s tenure expired, EFCC charged him with 14 counts of money laundering. Seven years later, the case is still pending.

    The EFCC’s frustrated effort to prosecute him is a perfect case study of the court’s ability to generate delays so extreme that they are almost a form of impunity.

    Soon after he was charged, the Federal High Court granted him bail, and his lawyers subsequently filed a motion asking that all of the charges against him be dismissed.

    When the motion was denied, Dariye appealed. The lower court halted proceedings until Dariye’s appeal could be heard.

    In June 2010, the Court of Appeal ruled against Dariye. As trial was to resume in January 2011, Dariye appealed to the Supreme Court, where cases last as long as five years or more.

    In April 2011 Dariye won election to the Senate. A final verdict is yet to be rendered in his case, and the last may have been heard of it.

     

    The unique case of an ex-governor

    In March 2007, then-Rivers State Governor Peter Odili obtained a remarkable Federal High Court injunction restraining the EFCC from investigating his tenure.

    Soon after he left office, he secured a “perpetual injunction” – widely condemned as a mockery of the judicial process – that permanently restrained EFCC from “arresting, detaining and arraigning Odili on the basis of his tenure as governor.”

    Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court, who made the order, added that the EFCC had no power to “in any manner howsoever investigate the account or financial affairs of a state government.”

    In March 2008, “for the avoidance of doubt”, Justice Buba issued an order that the EFCC could not “arrest, detain, arraign and/or prosecute (Odili) on the basis of its alleged investigations into the affairs of Rivers State” during Odili’s tenure.

    The judge declared that the “purported findings” of the EFCC’s investigations were “invalid, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.”

    It remains unclear why EFCC has not contested the ruling. It was learnt that an EFCC official claimed that through some unexplained error, the commission was never even aware that the 2008 injunction had been issued until the time to appeal it had expired.

    “These professions of total ignorance are hard to fathom considering that this was one of the EFCC’s most important cases,” a source said.

    It was learnt that EFCC appealed Justice Buba’s 2007 ruling in October 2008, but it is unclear what stage the case is at. When our reporter enquired, an EFCC spokesman in Lagos directed him to the Head of Media, Wilson Uwujaren, who declined comments.

     

    The Lawan/Farouk case

    A former chairman, House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy, Farouk Lawan and its Secretary Boniface Emenalo, were charged with collecting $620,000 as bribe from oil magnate Femi Otedola. It was in order to remove the name of his company from those indicted by the committee which probed monumental oil subsidy fraud and uncovered a defrauding of the country.

    They were arraigned on February 1, last year at the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Gudu, Abuja. There was an alleged video evidence of the bribery, in what the federal authorities claimed was a ‘sting operation’, which in the developed world would have made the trial fairly straightforward, so as to establish the culpability or innocence of the accused persons. But it never happened.

    Their trial started under Justice Mudasiru Oniyangi. As progress was being made, the judge, as in the Akingbola case, was elevated to the Court of Appeal. After the loss of several months, the case was re-assigned to a new judge, Justice Adebukola Banjoko on June 11.

    On November 18, Justice Banjoko surprised a packed courtroom when she announced that she was withdrawing from the trial and would no longer adjudicate the case.

    Her reason: to stem an unfounded allegation that sought to impugn her integrity. The judge ordered the casefile to be returned to the FCT Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Bukar.

    Earlier, Lawan, through his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), filed an application dated October 29, asking the judge to quit the case.

    Apart from the application, Lawan also petitioned the FCT Chief Judge, accusing Justice Banjoko of likely bias based on an alleged close relationship between her and Otedola, a proposed witness and the accuser in the case.

    “In my 17 years on the bench, six years as a magistrate and 11 years as a judge, I have never been confronted with a scandalous challenge of my integrity,” the judge said bitterly.

    According to the judge, “justice is rooted in confidence,” therefore, she could no longer continue to hear the case since the accused had first exhibited his lack of confidence in her.

    “In the prevailing circumstances, I do find it difficult to continue this case. This case is returned to the honourable Chief Judge for re-assignment,” Justice Banjoko ruled.

    The case, when re-assigned, will be handled by a third judge and will begin all over again.

     

    Judicial cover for criminal suspects

    In May 2007, a number of governors completed their eight-year terms of office. Having lost the immunity conferred on them by Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, EFCC invited them for questioning on the basis of petitions alleging diversion of public funds running to billions of naira by them.

    Some reported for interrogation while others sought interlocutory and perpetual injunctions restraining the EFCC from arresting, investigating or prosecuting them in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.

    Among those who were charged to court, only two have been convicted and given sentences which many consider as “slaps on the wrist.”

    The criminal justice system has been unable to conclude the trials of others.

    Senior lawyers have continued to approach the courts to halt the investigation and prosecution of high profile criminal suspects.

    In Bukola Saraki v. Inspector-General of Police (Unreported Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/231/2012), the plaintiff sought to restrain the Special Fraud Unit (SFU) of the Nigeria Police Force from investigating an allegation of N9 billion fraud leveled against him. After reporting for investigation, Saraki filed a fresh suit seeking to stop the police from prosecuting him.

    “Apart from Nigeria, I know of no other country which allows criminal suspects to have criminal cases suspended or adjourned sine die on flimsy grounds,” Lagos lawyer Femi Falana said.

    While criminally orchestrated delays may top the list of the commonest abuses of court process, the levelling of unfounded allegations against judges, which turn out to be mere smokescreen to buy time or seek a more pliable judge, is one tactics that has been described as nauseating.

    Critics have described as worrying the fact that some judges fall for lawyers’ tricks without exercising their powers to punish for contemptuous conduct committed before them.

    Many accused persons, without any iota of proof, resort to writing frivolous petitions against judges, accusing them of bias. The National Judicial Council (NJC) would summon the judge and parties in the petition while the trial would be suspended, which is the petitioner’s aim.

    Most of the judges, such as Justice Banjoko, are cleared of any wrongdoing, and when the heat raised by such serious allegation is in the public domain, the accused or their lawyer simply apologises, while the judge most times withdraws from the trial, which is what the accused merely wanted to achieve. Criminal cases are thus frustrated and derailed by the use of blackmail.

     

    Lessons from abroad

    Several cases swiftly concluded abroad have exposed the Nigerian judiciary as being fundamentally weak. Some of these include those of Akingbola, former Delta State Governor James Ibori and the Halliburton case.

    While Akingbola’s trial for theft drags on, a civil suit was instituted against him in a British court by Access Bank Plc.

    A High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, London, in August 2012, ordered Akingbola to pay the bank £654million (about N212billion) allegedly diverted from the bank illegally. It was learnt that Akingbola had refunded £9 million out of the total sum.

    On April 17, 2012, the Southwark Crown Court in London sentenced Ibori to 13 years after he pleaded to 10 counts of money laundering and conspiracy to defraud, having been accused of stealing US$250million from the public purse.

    However, in Nigeria, 171-count charge of money laundering, fraud and corruption filed against Ibori at the Federal High Court, Kaduna was discontinued in his favour.

    The Court of Appeal also held his trial in Kaduna was illegal as the alleged crime was committed in Delta. As there was no Federal High Court in Asaba, the Delta State government reportedly donated two buildings – one to house the court and the other to house the judge.

    Upon his arraignment, Ibori pleaded not guilty and raised a preliminary objection against the charge. The trial judge, Justice Marcel Awokulehin, struck out the charge and freed Ibori. However, as EFCC took steps to re-arraign him, Ibori fled to Dubai where he was arrested and deported to London.

    In the Halliburton bribery scandal, several investigation panels indicted three former heads of state, a former Inspector-General of Police, former ministers, permanent secretaries and other officials of the Federal Government. Although some of the suspects indicted in the inquiry made confessional statements, they were never charged to court.

    Some of the privies of the principal suspects, who were eventually arraigned, were let off the hook for want of diligent prosecution. In exasperation, the trial judge struck out the charges.

    The official connivance in sweeping the scandal under the carpet has since exposed the nation to underserved ridicule at home and abroad.

    It was found that Halliburton and its officials who bribed the indicted Nigerian officials pleaded guilty to the charges of bribery and corruption before criminal courts in the United States and were accordingly convicted.

    While Halliburton was ordered to pay fines of millions of dollars, the convicted officials were sentenced to prison terms. But in Nigeria, their accomplices walk about free.

     

  • Fashola approves appointment of four new judges

    Fashola approves appointment of four new judges

    Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN),  on Wednesday approved the appointment of four new high court judges for the state.

    According to a statement issued by Mrs. Grace Alo, spokesperson for the Lagos State Judiciary, the newly appointed judges would be sworn-in on Friday.

    The statement further disclosed that the approval followed the recommendation of the National Judicial Council headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mukhtar.

    The judges are – Mrs. Iyabo Akinkugbe, Mrs. Serifat Sonaike, Mr. Abdulfattah Lawal and Mr. Abisoye Bashua.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the appointment brings to 54, the number of judges in the state judiciary.

     

  • Administrator challenges judiciary on online fraud

    Administrator challenges judiciary on online fraud

    The Administrator, National Judicial Institute (NJI), Justice R.P.I Bozimo has called on the judiciary to be well prepared to tackle the challenges posed by electronic banking.

    Speaking at the 14th National Seminar on Banking and Allied Matters for Judges held in Abuja and organised by the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN), he said the introduction of electronic banking system in the country came with its myriad of challenges.

    Some of these challenges, he said, include malfunctioning of ATM machines, network failures, online theft and non-availability of financial services, payment of hidden costs of electronic banking such as short messages services (SMS) and other numerous hidden charges.

    Other challenges, he said, are lack of disclosures, errors in operating the machines, lost or stolen ATM or debit cards.

    In some cases, he insisted, billions of naira are lost electronically from customers’ accounts by third parties who are scammers. Fraud and money laundering are perpetrated through electronic transfers accentuated by trans-border banking. Scammers steal customers’ identities, forge signatures and siphon depositors’ funds.

    All these challenges, he said, usually lead to legitimate legal claims between the banks and customers, especially when they are occasioned by lack of cyber security. It is when these claims are presented in court for proper adjudication or determination, as the case may be, that the success and importance of this seminar is most evaluated and appreciated.

    He said the the theme for this year’s seminar is “Banking in Nigeria in the Electronic Age: Pertinent Issues for the Judiciary.

    This theme, he added, is fitting for two reasons. “The first reason is that the focus of the National Judicial Institute’s programmes for this year is information and Communication Technology (ICT). The second reason is that electronic banking system in Nigeria has taken off full blast culminating in the cashless/cash-lite policy of the Nigerian government. It can, therefore, be seen that there is no better choice of theme than the one we have and now is the most appropriate time for this discourse,” he said.

    He said that while the National Judicial Institute is the intellectual arm of the Nigerian Judiciary, the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria equally facilitates the intellectual and academic programmes of the banking profession in Nigeria.

  • Ekiti: Our judiciary is endangered, says group

    Ahuman rights group, the Access to Justice (AJ) has said the recent closure of courts in Ekiti State amounted to one arm of government (executive) shutting down another (judiciary) and showed that the judiciary is under threat.

    It said the situation may have been seen as “fair politics to a lawless government”, but it was “crude politics” capable of wrecking incalculable damage to democracy.

    “By doing this in Ekiti, the Goodluck Jonathan administration has gradually ingratiated a virulent and pestilent form of executive lawlessness into our political and governance culture, the effect of which will endure for a long time to come,” the group’s statement signed by  Chinelo Chinweze, said.

    It continued: “The forced closure of courts by security forces under the control of the President is a blatant, troubling trampling on the judicial branch of government. Closing courts under any circumstances has huge and severe consequences for governance, and the rights and obligations of a lot of other people.

    “What has happened is that a branch of government effectively shut down the operations of another branch of government. One arm of government is now deciding when, and under what conditions another branch of government can operate.

    “This is an existential threat to the judicial function and is clearly a tyrannical use (or abuse) of state power. In capriciously blocking physical access to courts with force, the Jonathan government has corruptly conscripted state power for illicit ends and has done incalculable damage to the rule of law.

    “Blocking access to courts of law will gradually become an attractive option to governments who fear adverse decisions from courts, and the replication of this practice will practically render courts redundant and powerless to effectively adjudicate disputes or exercise judicial functions.”

  • For a better judiciary

    For a better judiciary

    Stakeholders in the justice sector usually gather every year to celebrate the new legal year. The occasion provides them with a platform to review activities in the previous year and develop an action plan for the new year, ADEBISI ONANUGA and JOSEPH  JIBUEZE report.

    After a long lull in judicial activities, the courts are back to life. The long vacation is over. As it is customary, the federal and state courts held religious services to begin the new legal year. Others added exciting activities such as football games involving judges and lawyers. Welcome to the 2014/2015 new legal year.

    In Lagos, activities began with special prayer sessions, which held simultaneously at the Cathedral Church of Christ, Marina and Lagos Central Mosque, Nnamdi Azikwe, Lagos.

    The Chief Judge of Lagos (CJ), Justice Oluwafunmilayo Atilade, who was sworn in on August 20, made her first official appearance at the legal service held in the church, leading other 50 High Court judges in their ceremonial read and white robes.

    Also at the Cathedral were the state’s 114 magistrates, members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the court’s principal officers, their counterparts from the Ministry of Justice, Senior Advocates of Nigeria, among others.

    Governor Babatunde  Fashola (SAN), explained why it may be difficult for the judiciary to enjoy full financial autonomy,  saying  that the complete release of the annual budget  to the state judiciary is not visible.

    He, however, said there was never a time the state government  opposed the independence of the judiciary.

    Fashola, who spoke through the state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr Ade Ipaye at the special prayer at Lagos Central Mosque to mark the legal year said, “the idea of judiciary autonomy is a welcome development to the system, but in reality, it is not achievable due to the fact that Internally Generated Revenues (IGR) are not paid to the government in advance.

    “Besides, complete implementation of court judgment on the matter will cause another legal firework because others will perceive it as preferential treatment and it will not augur well,” he said.

    Speaking on the proposed industrial strike by judicial workers,  the governor  urged all the trade unions to always be diplomatic in fighting their cause, stressing that whatever action they might take may have negative consequence on the masses and be bad for democracy.

    Stakeholders also gathered to extol the virtue of the former Chief Judge of the state,  Justice Ayotunde Philips at a valedictory service organised as part of the new legal year activities.

    Governor Fashola described Justice Phillips as a brilliant judge, who consistently demonstrated sterling qualities of dedication, discipline, integrity and sincerity. According to him, these qualities characterised Justice Philips’career both at the bar and on the bench.

    The governor, who was represented by Ipaye said Justice Phillips  displayed uncommon virtues and innate understanding of issues of law, adding that her era  was glorious in the annals of Lagos Judiciary.

    “Her judgment were lucid and authoritative. There is no gainsaying the fact that My Lord belonged to the class of judges, who knew the law and would not be persuaded by merely clever and technical arguments of counsel in deciding the merits of a case.

    Buttressing his comments,  the governor cited the case of Adeyemi vs Abayomi, where he noted that Justice Phillips  observed that it took  over seven years to reach the end of the matter in the High Court and for this delay she apologised saying, “the wheels of justice grind very slowly in this country of ours”. However, she did not throw up her hands helplessly in the face of these daunting challenges. Justice Phillips went on to proffer solutions.

    He recalled that the former CJ has a landmark record of freeing over 700 inmates awaiting trial from various prisons in the state during her two-year tenure.

    Justice Atilade promised to continue on her predecessor’s path. According to her, she would fulfil the promises she made at the new legal year service that she would continue with the various reforms initiated by Justice Philips.

    She said; “Today, we celebrate our own legal icon and quintessential jurist for her meritorious service to the Lagos State judiciary. She introduced various innovative ideas, which helped in reforming our justice delivery system and also imparted a lot of us positively.”

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch Chairman, Yinka Farounbi said Justice Phillips distinguished herself as a hardworking, bold and honest jurist.

    “She is amiable, social, jovial and generally free and friendly with people, but that did not in anyway colour her sense of justice nor tainted the oath of office she took as a judicial officer.

    “Socrates, the classical Greek Philosopher listed four qualities of a Judge to be: hearing courteously; answering wisely; considering soberly and deciding impartially. I can say confidently, convincingly with all sense of responsibility and without any fear of contradiction whatsoever that my Lord, Hon. Justice A. A. Phillips possesses all these qualities and more. My Lord left giant footprints in the judiciary of Lagos State both as a Judge  and as a Chief Judge,” he noted.

    NBA Lagos Branch Chairman, Alex Muoka lauded the retired CJ, praising her for establishing a quarterly bar-bench forum, which helped to foster relationship between judges and lawyers in the state.

    Mrs Funke Adekoya (SAN), who represented Body of SANs  also praised her for various legal reforms.

     

    Clerics new legal year messages to judges

    The Chairman, Lagos State Pilgrims Board, Dr. Abdul Kabir Paramole, who delivered the Suratun-Nisai at the legal year service urged judges to have the fear of Allah when  discharging their duties.

    “Verily, Allah commands that you should render back the trusts to those whom they are due; and when you judge between men, you judge with justice,” he said, adding: “This is the only way that the common man can have hope in the judiciary.”

    The Diocese of Lagos West Bishop , Anglican Communion, Rev. Olusola Odedeji, admonished judges to always exercise their powers with utmost care in order not to incur God’s wrath.

    He said they are God’s representatives on earth and must be without reproach, adding that  they must seek divine wisdom as Solomon did when faced with a challenging case.

    “You are God’s representatives among his people. It does not matter whether the people are good or bad, God has given you a dedicated authority to guide them.

    “We all as leaders of God’s people need wisdom to act, just as King Solomon had a chance to demonstrate the wisdom of God in resolving the issue between two women in the Bible.

    “The request for wisdom is not a want, but a need and as leaders, we must realise that whatever we do or neglect to do, will affect the people.

    So, we must mind our action and inaction,” he said, adding: “You are representatives of God among his people. You are standing in the place of God.”  He urged them to always judge with the fear of God, saying: “A request for Godly wisdom is not a want, but a need. We’re men of influence, so we’re expected in the midst of people without hypocrisy.”

     

     

     

     

  • Ekiti: Wither the future of the judiciary?

    Ekiti: Wither the future of the judiciary?

    For two weeks, the courts in Ekiti state have remained locked ostensibly on the order and in support of the presidency to prevent the hearing of the integrity suit filed by the E-11 against the  governor -elect, Ayo Fayose. The development has left observers worried on the future of the judiciary, writes ADEBISI ONANUGA

    In the last two weeks, the courts in Ekiti State have  been under lock and key.

    The National Judicial Council (NJC), led by Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Aloma Mukhtar, met to review the development which has been widely condemned.

    NJC directed the police to re-open the courts, protect the judges, and to arrest and prosecute all those who attacked the courts  and beat up a judge.

    But the police, which is supposed to be subservient to the NJC, ignored the directive. Rather, soldiers and the police cordoned off the state High Court premises and turned back judges, lawyers and litigants, including the Chief Judge, Justice Ayodeji Daramola.

    The police told the Chief Judge that the court premises were not safe for them and that they found a bomb within it.

    Another account had it that the police informed the judges that the courts would not be opened until the height of the fence must have been raised to protect them better.

    It was alleged that the police and the military were acting on a directive from the presidency that they must keep the courts locked up to prevent it from sitting to  hear an integrity suit filed by a group, the E-11, against the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governor-elect, Ayo Fayose, until his October 16.

    However, observers of political developments saw the situation in Ekiti in the last two weeks or more as a script that was tenaciously written and playing itself out.

    This group described the development as unfortunate for the fact that the judiciary, as the third arm of government, is not being accorded it rightful place.

    Analysts see the attacks on the judiciary as a signals that the country is degenerating into a ‘banana’ republic. They also viewed police’s disregard to the directive that they re-open the courts as an affront against the rule of law.

    The developments show the judiciary is far from being independent. It depends on the corporation of the exective to function, because it is the executive which controls the armed forces. It portends danger for democracy. If the courts can be shut because of one man, then the consequences for the future are better not imagined.

    Analysts say it could get to a time when members of the ruling party or those in power, threatened by the possible outcome of a case, would simply go to court to disrupt proceedings, beat up the judges, and withdraw the security.

    Trouble started in Ekiti when the court presided by  Justice Isaac Ogunyemi declared that his court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the E-11 challenging Fayose’s eligibility to contest the June 21 election, which he won.

    Suspected political thugs believed to be loyal to the governor-elect threw caution to the wind as the courtroom was turned upside down.

    Chanting war songs, the miscreants took the law into their own hands, smashing furnitures and windows, while the police failed to act, beyond protecting the judges from physical harm.

    The police who was to maintain peace  stood watching as mayhem was unleashed on the court. Not done with the court, the political thugs returned a few days later  to the High Court, broke into the Courtrooms, ransacked offices and  destroyed records. Justice Adeyeye was beaten up and had his suit torn. Justice Daramola’s office was invaded; record books were destroyed and proceedings disrupted as judges, lawyers, litigants and court clerks ran for dear lives.

    The development forced the Chief Judge to order a closure of the courts to safeguard the life of the judges.

    A week later, the NJC directed that the courts  be re-opened to complete hearing in the case before the October 16 inauguration.

    However, rather than the courts been re-opened, the police locked them up, including the Court of Appeal, thereby bringing judicial activities in the state to a halt.

    While  all of these lasted, the presidency so far kept quiet and has not offered any word nor made any attempt to reproach the military and the police for dis-respecting the NJC and for failing in their duty to protect the judges.

    The incident in Ekiti courts, according to observers, pointed to the fact that  the rule of law has completely collapsed in the country and that it is capable of making the common man to lose hope of getting justice.

    They also believe events in Ekiti reflects a steady decline the regard held for the judiciary. Rather than being held in awe, it is now being ridden roughshod over. Analysts say such treatment of an important arm of government is dangerous for democracy’s survival.

    However, pundits are worried about the future of the rule of law and the use of federal might to subvert  the Constitution when it pleases those in power.

    They are also worried about the future of the judiciary in a situation where a court could  be shut down because of one man, simply to prevent a case from going on by all means.

    They are worried whether a truly independent judiciary can be achieved when the executive that’s supposed to provide security is not cooperating to assert the independence of the judiciary as the third arm of government.

    More importantly, they are worried about whether the judiciary is still the last hope of the common man after the latest act of impunity.

     

    Ex-judges, lawyers react

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) said it was alarmed by the continued closure of the high court and other courts in Ado-Ekiti.

    Its President Augustine Alegeh (SAN) said there was no basis for the court’s blockade, which has prevented hearings in the suit cases filed by the E-11 and the Citizens Peoples Party (CPP) against the governor-elect Fayose, among others.

    “NBA is alarmed at the barricading of the High Court of Justice Complex, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State by security agencies on the basis of an alleged bomb threat to the complex.

    “Judicial officers, staff and litigants were not allowed access. NBA believes that any alleged bomb threat must have been effectively neutralised by the security agencies utilising their bomb disposal units”, he stated.

    A former Lagos State High Court judge, Justice Ebenezer Adebajo said the Ekiti signals the beginning of anarchy in the state.

    “The judges are there doing the work that is over and above the calling of ordinary human persons. Dedication, integrity, all these are being applied every day by the judges. The work means keeping off the ordinary life of  human beings. It is a tensed work. The judges formed the bedrock of the development of democracy because they embodied the rule of law. If a judge is assaulted, the rule of law is assaulted”, he said.

    Justice Adebajo urged Nigerians to resist any attempt to suppress the judiciary.

    “Every right thinking Nigerian, this is above party politics, must stand up, must stand against that kind of behaviour, they must stand up against the derogation of our social norms, derogation of our social order and prevent it from going into a state of anarchy. We cannot be behind the world.

    “My view from the word go is that the CJN, as chairman of the NJC, should ask the judges to withdraw from the courts and then we wait to see who would swear in the people who assaulted the judges”, he stated adding that he finds it difficult to believe that the police locked up the courts against the judges.

    “I do  not see it as a stand off between the Police and the Judiciary. It can never be. The Police are subject to the judiciary. Whose instruction or directive should they be carrying out? Is it that of the out-going governor or that of the governor-elect who is yet to assume executive power or that the police have been instructed from Abuja? he asked.

    Professor of law, Itsay Sagay said that developments in Ekiti just confirmed the fact that “what we have is a civilian government but we don’t have a democratic government or a democratic system.

    “The rule of law does not really exist in Nigeria and we have totally not a democratic set up in which those who control physical power don’t really care about democracy and would do anything that they think would promote their continued hold on to power”, he said.

    According to Prof. Sagay, ‘some of those in government, the powerful in government, they feel that they need Fayose in government for their power over the country to be complete and they are ready to do anything to make sure that he is in power”.

    A member of the Ogun State judicial Council, Abayomi Omoyinmi described the situation of courts in Ekiti as pathetic and very worrisome for the judiciary in view of intimidation from the government by the non-compliance with the order of the NJC on the reopening of the courts.                                       According to Omoyinmi, the judiciary independence is been eroded by the actions of the executive and real anarchy is looming in Ekiti judiciary and Nigeria if the concept of separation of power is lost in our governance.

    He argued that there is no rational behind the use d use of force against the judiciary and no right thinking government or executive should take the judiciary for granted or a ride as it is been witnessed in Ekiti presently. The different shades of opinion notwithstanding, there  have been demands to bring the perpetrators of the attacks on the Ekiti High Court and its judges to justice.

    Way  Out

    Justice Adebajo (rtd.) insisted in  that the judges should be withdrawn for one legal year in Ekiti “and we would see how Fayose would be sworn in. Because it is only the Chief Judge of a state that can swear in the governor of a state. Nobody else can swear in the governor of a state. That is what the constitution provides”. He said if any other chief judge comes in to swear in a governor from another jurisdiction or outside of that state, that would be challengeable in court. “I believe the judges should be withdrawn from the court and this must be understood by all and sundry that judiciary is a sacrosanct institution. Nobody should mess up with it”, he stressed.

    Prof. Sagay said all now depends on the judiciary themselves.  “The judiciary is very powerful if they would stick to their principles and are determined to sustain the rule of law, eventually, they would succeed because justice  would be on their side, they would be the ones who are right. So it all depends on the judiciary.

    ‘The judiciary should insist that all matters are going on in the court should continue  to completion and not be intimidated because the judiciary itself is a separate arm of government, they have to stand and refused to be intimidated and ensure that all legal process that have been started are continued to their logical end”, stated.                                                                                                                                            Omoyinmi  stated that  the judiciary must condemned the forceful act of oppression in its totality and must insist on reopening of d courts in Ekiti without further delay.

    The NBA  insisted  that the courts must be re-opened to enable the judiciary carry out its adjudicatory functions.  Said Alegeh,  “NBA demands that the High Court of Justice complex should be opened immediately to allow for resumption of work by the courts.“The security agencies should provide a safe and conducive environment for the effective administration of justice and should not create a situation that makes it totally impossible for courts in Ado-Ekiti to carry out their constitutional roles of providing justice for all,” he said.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Graft in judiciary

    Graft in judiciary

    •It’s the CJN’s duty to flush out the bad eggs across-the-board

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mariam Aloma Mukhtar, made the right observation when she asserted that corruption in the judiciary is not limited to magistrates and judges, but a common thing among members of staff of the entire judicial process.  The chief justice made the observation at the opening of a national workshop organised by the National Judicial Institute (NJI). According to her, corruption is rampant among court registrars, process clerks and bailiffs.

    “Now more than ever, the public has become more critical of the conduct of the judicial staff, perhaps buoyed by public outcry against unwholesome conduct of the judicial staff like leakage of judgments before delivery, demanding bribes before the preparation of records of appeal, acting as go-between for some overzealous litigants and some corrupt judicial officers, ostentatious lifestyles beyond legitimate earnings, and a host of other activities”. It is good that the CJN admitted again that cases of massive corruption in the judiciary throughout the country are real and not mere speculations.

    Indeed, we appreciate her concern for fighting corruption in the system. It is rather frustrating that while many judges have been sanctioned over one malfeasance or the other, corruption persists in the judiciary, with the connivance of senior lawyers, some of whom have also been sanctioned. On this matter we cannot but agree with the CJN who suggested a change of attitude among lawyers as well as judges, and even called for a review of the pattern of assessing the performance of judges, to which we must include the performance of lawyers as well. This is necessary because corruption in the judicial system would continue to thrive with the connivance of lawyers with judges, and vice-versa.

    Cases of frivolous adjournments to whom judges readily concur but from which lawyers benefit illegally, frivolous and midnight injunctions and some other corruption-induced activities arising from connivance of judges with lawyers, like the case of the reported telephone conversation between a lawyer and a judge at an appeal case before an Osun election petition tribunal and many such misconducts have almost succeeded in reducing Nigeria’s courts to kangaroo courts.

    As Justice Mukhtar rightly observed, we have had cases of some judicial staff that had solicited and collected huge sums of money from unscrupulous litigants on the pretext that they were acting on behalf of some judges. As a result of this, “many judges and magistrates have been violently attacked by hoodlums on the mistaken belief that they did not perform even after money had been given to them through their staff”, the chief justice said. Although many of such staff had been apprehended and disciplined, many have so far escaped detection. This is not good for the system.

    Therefore, Justice Mukhtar must ensure that her threat that “If you indulge in any misconduct and you are caught or reasonably suspected to have done so, you will not only be disgraced out of the judiciary but will also be made to face the legal consequences of your ignoble and nefarious action”, is not an empty one.

    The judiciary is the last hope of the common man. And, to justify this assertion, the judiciary should be seen to be above board. When judicial staff collude with litigants to leak judgments and judges compromise themselves for pecuniary gains, the judiciary can no longer be the last hope of the common man but a veritable architect of his hopelessness and misery. This is why we applaud the CJN’s warnings. She should not relent in her efforts to clean up the rot in the system in the interest of Nigerians.

  • Godfatherism bane of judiciary

    Godfatherism bane of judiciary

    Though he was born in Mushin, a suburb of Lagos,  Olukayode Enitan has shown that something good can come from the area. He has spent 25 years in the profession he dreamt of since he was 10. In this interview with ADEBISI ONANUGA, Enitan speaks on how to appoint credible judges, stem corruption in the judiciary and probe suspected corrupt officials by the EFCC, among other sundry issues. 

    Twenty-five years after being called to bar, how has the journey been?

    The journey has been eventful and there have been ups and lows. There are smooth times, but it has been very eventful. We’ve done all manner of cases. There was a time we were doing cases of land grabbers. And then you go in and find all kind of antics and tactics being played by the opposing counsel and all that. There were cases that we did that you had to more or less cue in. There was a time we were doing a case of recovery and for some reason, the recovery gets aborted. The man was telling us that we should not worry, and that he would meet us in court, but he never did. That was the report that we had until we met him that day. He said the same thing that we can go and that he would meet us in court. But there was this boldness that came upon me and I said ‘no, Alhaji, we are not going anywhere. We are here today and we would settle the matter.

    I said to him: “Omo agba l’emi. Ise to’ba ti ya, kii pe mo. Ise ibi bayi ti ya, a ma se lo’ni.” Apparently, he had been putting charms in his mouth to talk to people. But he found out that it was not going to work with me. It was a very funny occasion.

    Must a lawyer take every case that comes to him?

    For me, it doesn’t mean anything because before taking any matter, I would be sure that my client has a right. I, personally, and on the basis of that right, I can say God, I am going out, back me up. You don’t have to take all cases. If a client comes to me and says he has a case, I would review whatever fact he has. If you don’t have a right, I would tell him prompt and plain. And I would not follow someone to fight for what is not right.

    From the beginning when I started law practice, I maintained that position because there is no point working and running about for what is wrong. You must make sure that whatever you are doing is fair and just to your side and to the other side. I usually advice my client on another alternative to any matter if the other side has a better case. I would say why don’t you look at it from this perspective and then let us reach an agreement.

    I have an instance. There was this old woman, who should be about 90 years now, and this happened in 1996. She said a property belonged to her and that she built it and had its conveyance traded for C of O in 1978. She said some people came and wanted to take it from her. She said they got a judgment, which she was not a party to its suit and wanted to take possession of her property.

    I said let me see the judgment. I read the judgment and its records. I said to the old woman that on this one, your predecessor in the title has been declared not to own the land. That your foundation and the C of O, do not give you anything. I told her that she had no case. She said no and sent somebody to me to collect the judgment. I sent the whole file instead. I said I knew she wanted to go and sought opinion, so go and seek opinion and that she should go and get an interim injunction.

    She came back and I said you can go and get an injunction, but you will lose the case with good reasons. I said look, we can approach them because they have written a letter that you should come and pay N500,000 per plot. Let us go and approach their lawyer. So, we approached the lawyer, who is also an elderly person. We explained the situation and the issues in the matter. At the end of the day, what we were supposed to pay N1million for, we ended up paying N100,000. But if we had gone to court as she was advised by some people, she would lose the land because she would lose the case. So, if I feel that there is nothing to pursue, there would always be an alternative and I advise client to seek the alternative.

     

    The EFCC Chairman said it was conducting investigations into the activities of some highly placed judicial officers. What is your take on this against the backdrop of reforms taking place in the judiciary?

    The EFCC is empowered to investigate economic crimes, regardless of who is suspected of having perpetrated it, whether the person is a civil servant, a judicial officer, a member of parliament or a member of the executive or even an ordinary citizen. If judicial officers are suspected validly, not witch-hunted and it believed that the judicial officers have committed some economic crimes, the commission has the right to investigate. But my fear is that investigation will it be in the regular way that the EFCC does its things. And this is where they also need to be more innovative. Investigations that we are used to in Nigeria are not really investigations. They would want the suspect to provide them with evidence with which they would indict him.

    If somebody is alleged to have taken money that he should not take, how do you handle that? It is not for you to first go to carry the man and ask him to give you his account. EFCC should have access to everybody’s account in Nigeria. Money, I believe, has footsteps. Its footprints are very large. You have the person’s name, so go round the banks. You don’t have to talk to him. Ask Banks if the person has account with them. They would supply you with information. Before you accuse a person, particularly because they are judicial officers, before you go and pull him in, you must have built up what you need by way of account, property, everything owned by that person you’ve already identified and documented.

    By the time you are bringing that person in and you failed to do certain things and asked the person, did you do this? Of course, he or she would most likely deny everything you are saying. Then you begin to confront him or her if a certain account in so, so bank belongs to him? By the time there is overwhelming evidence already sourced without recourse to the person, you can be sure that the journey would be minimal. If you invite a judicial officer and then say to him that nothing is found and you let him go, you have already tainted that person’s image. You have put a question mark on his standing as a judicial officer. So, for him and every other person, EFCC needs to get his acts together. They should work at the level they are meant to work. They have to be scientific and forensic in their investigation and detection of facts.

     

    How can we sanitise the judiciary?

    If you have a pool of water that is dirty, the only way you can clean the dirty pool is to ensure a free flow of water from that pool. And if you are running clean water into the pool, you have to keep doing it until the water cleans the pool because there is also an easy flow out of the pool. Bring this in perspective. People keep saying the judiciary is dirty and needs to be cleaned. What are the hard evidences that have been brought?  How many judges have been indicted or dismissed for corruption? They are not up to 10 per cent of the judges’ population. Let’s not make such a whole system faulty, but use what is there, go back to appointment.

    When you ensure that men and women of integrity are appointed, you will have a better judiciary.

     

    What is your take on the appointment of judges?

    Appointment should be done on merit. This nation needs to move to the realm of merit and not sectional or federal character. Whatever is not obtained by merit is usually lacking in experience. If someone wants to be a judge, set the criteria. If everybody meets the criteria, then set other things that show some to be better than others. Let us stop all these things about somebody’s godson or godfather or this is the candidate of this person. If we don’t, a person may owe his allegiance to the man he believes gave him an appointment. And these are areas where people got influenced unduly.

     

    Giving these backgrounds, what reforms would you like to see in the judiciary to guarantee the hope of the common man?

    The reform would begin with lawyers because we are the ones that the common man comes to.  What advice do we give to people when they come? Like what the Supreme Court did recently when Dr. Odili brought an application before the Supreme Court to re-visit Ogboru and Uduaghan, the governor of Delta State. In respect of his election, the case had run to the Supreme Court the first time and it was dismissed. They raised another argument and it was dismissed. They wrote again, using another counsel, to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, look, this matter has been here twice. Gentleman, you should not be here. This also should not be here. The counsel to Ogboru withdrew and it was struck out. That was the third time. Then he came back the fourth time to say that the ground of the amendment used was not properly filed and therefore, the Supreme Court should reverse itself because that act was not properly filed. And they said, we are not the legislature. If you have a problem with what we have done, you either go to God or you go back to Federal High Court if it is about what the National Assembly has done, don’t come to us.

    When he insisted, they dismissed the application and awarded cost against him. We, as lawyers, need to tell our clients when they don’t have a case. I was reading somewhere about a situation in the UK where a barrister has been discharged for bringing all sorts of frivolous actions. So, we start with the lawyer. Let us reform ourselves. Then we will move to those that appointed judges. Even if somebody helps you to get there, once you become a judge, you owe allegiance to your oath, to God and to your conscience.

    And of course, there must be training and retraining of both lawyers and the judges. Then you also need to go to the registry. What are the registrars doing in the court room, in the filing room, the cash office, the probate section? In every section, you need to go there and ensure that people that are getting there know what it is about.

     

    Of late we have seen President Jonathan deploying soldiers in elections. Is this a duty of the President?

    The Nigerian Army is not set up for monitoring elections. The Nigerian Army is set up to defend the nation against external aggressions and internal insurrections. Election is not an insurrection and it is not an act of aggression by an external body. The Army has absolutely nothing to do with it.  It is the responsibility of the Police to maintain peace, law and order within Nigeria and every section of the country. When election is to be held, it is still the Police that have the manpower. We have sufficiently empowered the Civil Defence Corps. Why don’t we draft them to join the police? There is Boko Haram insurgency everything. The soldiers brought for election, were they pull from that place? Nobody has told us. Were they brought from their barracks? If we do not have enough men to fight insurrection, where are we drawing them from to do election? It is totally unconstitutional. I want to believe that there is no written mandate for those soldiers to be deployed. I am of the considered view that these things were done without recourse to the proper process of deploying soldiers.

     

    In what context do you see the plans by the state assembly to impeach the governor of Nasarrawa State, Alhaji Tanko Al-Makura?

    The state house of assembly has the constitutional power to do this where they found out the governor has  misconducted himself. Since they cannot  impeach him, the state house of assembly, has the constitutional power to ask the CJ to set up a panel that would investigate and confirm if those allegations are true. And how does this work? Once it is the CJ that appointed the panel, they would invite the man who would say these are the offences  and as in the regular court, substantiate the allegations and the governor of the state who is the accused person in this case, he too would also come and state his own side of the case. The panel would look at it and if the panel finds out that the allegations are not true, they would send a report to the house and that is the end of the matter and there is no appeal to say that we are not satisfied. If they found out that the allegations have been established against the governor, again they send their report to the house and the house would remove him. He has no recall once he has been impeached properly. Al-Makura, they said has done a, b, c, d etc. crimes.

    The CJ Sets up a panel, the house said ‘No. They don’t like these people, some of them are card carrying members. Which of them has written in the papers that, even the counsel to the house came to the sitting of the panel and said there that you people here are card carrying members of PDP and that another one is a civil servant or public servant or so. At that point, he should specify among members of that panel who and who are the card carrying members, who is a public servant, who is what and who is not. They did not specify, they did not come to prove what they have alleged. And it is a very basic principle of our adversarial system of the legal system. Whoever attack must prove. As far as I am concerned it is the governors who are in a position to stop the wind and do they stop it, do what you are supposed to do which is work for your people.

    Don’t begin to spend money you are not supposed to spend, because nine out of ten, they have.  appropriated it. Don’t begin to spend the money belonging to the state. Because nine out of ten, it is usually that they have stolen, they have mis appropriated. Those are usually the allegation. Be clean as a whistle, do the right thing. Even at that, if they said that the allegations have been established, he stood removed. So, the house going around  saying they should set up another panel, there is no provision for that just as the court cannot stop the house from commenting on that move to impeach a governor by asking the CJ to set up a panel. In the same manner, the house cannot say we want to go to court to challenge what the Chief Judge has done. We all seem to be forgetting that there is check and balances and that these arms are there deliberately.

    Some of these things in the constitution were put there to ensure that no arm of government goes to town to do whatever they want. So on these particular allegations, Al-Makura stands vindicated. If they want to impeach him, as they still insist they want to do, they have to go and find other grounds because you cannot charge a man twice for the same offence.

     

     

     

     

  • ‘Executive must accord fiscal autonomy to Judiciary’

    ‘Executive must accord fiscal autonomy to Judiciary’

    The courts were shut for about three weeks – July 11-31 – because of what workers under the aegis of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) called the persistent refusal of the Executive, particularly in the states, to accord financial autonomy to the Judiciary. JUSUN President Comrade Marwan Adamu speaks with Eric Ikhilae on the strike and other issues.

    What is your take on the situation in Rivers State judiciary?

    We have been pushed to the wall. That was why we took the decision to go on strike in Rivers. We had embarked on strike in Rivers even before the nationwide strike.  And even with the suspension of the nationwide strike, we are not going to suspend the strike in Rivers until the problems created by the two elephants are resolved. The two elephants are the state (JSC) Judiciary Service Commission and the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    We at JUSUN, have no power over the appointment of Chief Judges and whoever is appointed as the Chief Judge, we will accept him,  we will work with him, we have no problem with that.

    So, why are your members on strike in the state?

    In Rivers, NJC appointed an administrative judge, they said we must work with him. We have no problem with that, we can work with him. But after the NJC’s appointment, another circular came from the state’s JSC and we, from the Chief Registrar down to the least person in the Judiciary are employed by the JSC of the state. So, if the JSC issued another circular, saying if anybody worked with this administrative judge, the person was on his or her own, and that such person would face disciplinary actions, there is a problem. Are we going to work with two masters at the same time?

    That was why we withdrew our services, coupled with the problems of security. You are a living witness to this. A particular court was bombed three times. On an occasion, the police confirmed a parcel found in the premises of the court as explosives. They did not remove it until it exploded and our members who reported it were arrested and detained for 21 days.  When NBA and JUSUN took the matter up, our detained members were taken to court and terrorism charges were instituted against them.  Up till now, the matter is still before the court.

    How do you think the logjam in Rivers’ Judiciary can be cleared?

     The way out is that both parties should do the right thing, which means they should do what the constitution says. There is no way you are going to appoint a Chief Judge in a state without the inputs of the NJC, state governor and the state House of Assembly. Let them do the right thing.

    Why did JUSUN embark on the nationwide strike?

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja delivered judgment on January 13 this year in our favour in the case in which we sought the interpretation of sections 81(3), 121 (3) and 162(9) of the 1999 Constitution.

    The court ordered that the Accountants-General of the state and federation, Auditors-General of the states and the federation, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be served with that court order for them to ensure compliance with those provisions of the constitution. We did. They were all served.

    Sometimes in February this year, the union had a NEC (National Executive Council) meeting and issued a 21-day ultimatum to embark on strike. Before the expiration of the ultimatum, we were invited to a meeting by the Minister of Labour and Productivity, who I must acknowledge and appreciate for his efforts in this matter. He has put in his  best to ensure that this matter is resolved.

    At that meeting, we were persuaded not to embark on the strike on the understanding that we should give them time to study the court order and comply with it. We agreed. Towards the end of March, we issued a fresh 21-day ultimatum. The same thing happened. We were invited to a meeting. The NJC (National Judicial Council), the FJSC (Federal Judicial Service Commission), Wages and Salaries Commission and the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, were invited.

    When we saw they were still foot-dragging on their promise to abide by the judgment, we decided to go on strike.

    Do you mean most states are yet to obey the judgment?

    All the states are in default. None of them has complied with the judgment. Why we delayed before going on strike was to show that we are mature and not that we have interest in going on strike. We were interested in the amicable resolution of the issue.

    Before the federal judicial workers joined the strike, the Minister of Labour and Productivity called a meeting. The NJC was in attendance, with some directors and the Accountants-General of the Federation and we were asked to suspend the strike. We said JUSUN would suspend the strike if we get a cogent, concrete, presentable commitment from the government

    We are not saying you should pay the money now. But let us assume that if both the representatives of the Federal and State governments say that we agree there is a court judgment, give us one week, give us two weeks, give us one month, to comply with it, that is acceptable.

    The commitment should be in written form. It can no longer be in verbal form because we have had a number of verbal assurances which have failed.

    We were even given written memorandum which failed and more importantly the Accountant-General of the Federation caused about 25 per cent of the problem. Because the Constitution, in Section 162(9) provides that he (the Accountant-General of the Federation) should deduct the funds standing to the credit of the Judiciary in the budget from the source and pay same to the NJC for onward disbursement.

    Was that what the court judgment of January 13 said?

    Yes, the judgment affirmed it. That was what we went to court to seek interpretation for and the court ruled in our favour, upholding the provisions of the constitution. Even, if the Accountant General of the Federation feels that there is a clash in Section 121 or whatever, it is not for him to say it because he is not a court. If he is contesting the judgment, the right thing for him to do is to go back to court to challenge the judgment.

    In as much as he did not challenge the judgment, he has no moral right not to comply with the court order. If he deducts the money from the state governments’ funds from the source and any governor complains, he only has to say that he is relying on the court order.  It is now for the state governors to accept it or go to court to challenge the judgment. If anybody is not happy with the judgment, the person should go to the Court of Appeal and if the court says stay action, so be it.

    Has the Attorney-General of the Federation been involved in this matter?

    He is affected directly and his representatives have been coming to all our meetings with the Minister of Labour, and the position of the Ministry of Justice is one. It is that since there is a court order, it must be complied with if there is no appeal.

    That is the position of the Ministry of Justice. Maybe what the Attorney-General of the Federation should have done is to go further to invite his colleagues in various states, the Attorneys-General of the states, with a view to resolving this problem. But right now there are some few states, two or three, who are making contacts with the union on how to resolve the problem.

    Have representatives of the states been involved in your earlier meetings to resolve the problem?

     They have not been participating. None of them has been participating. The Minister of Labour kept mounting pressure on the union to call of the strike, to show how concerned we are,we said the Commissioners of Finance have a forum, and  they have a chairman; the Accountants-General of the states have a forum and they have a chairman, invite these two chairmen, let them come to the meeting. Let us meet with them and make a commitment.

    But we learnt that the Accountant-General of the Federation, because of the pressure on him, wrote a letter to the state governors, asking them  to comply with the court order. My problem with this letter, though the content of the letter sounds good and looks beautiful, but the question remains, which, between the court order and the letter of the Accountant-General of the Federation has the greater binding effect?

    If a judge of competent jurisdiction makes an order and nobody is willing to respect it, should I as a unionist now rely on the letter of the Accountant-General of the Federation?

    What is the Accountant-General of the Federation expected to do as ordered by the court?

    What the Accountant-General of the Federation should do is to deduct funds meant for the judiciary directly from the state government’s allocation before releasing it to them. That is the position. Whether the court is correct or wrong, it is never my business, it is not the business of the Accountant-General of the Federation.  It is the business of the person whose money is deducted to go to court to challenge it. It is a simple issue.

    Were you bothered about the impact of the strike on litigants and awaiting trial inmates who are in custody and in need of court services to secure their freedom?

     We have been thinking of them and that is why for the last 10 to 15 years, whenever the situation of this nature came up, we were asked to consider them and we have been considering them. And nobody after the suspension of our strike is looking at our situation to ensure our demands are met.

    There is no way a judge can work effectively and deliver a sound judgment without a conducive environment. My problem is that people have failed to understand that it is not only the superior courts are courts. Go and see our magistrate’s courts, see our Area Courts, our Sharia Courts, or our Customary Courts, they are using rented shops and parlours.

    In what states do we have courts using rented apartments?

    That is the situation in virtually all the 36 states. I challenge anybody to contradict me; that is what is happening in virtually all the 36 states.  People do not even appreciate magistrates in the magistrate’s courts or sharia courts, and these are the people who can attend to 17 to 20 cases in a day. These are the people who take the cases of the ordinary men in the society.

    Do we then say that by this strike, the judicial workers are fighting the cause of judges and magistrates?

    We are not  fighting for anybody. We are fighting for the system. We are in this struggle because we are employed as staff of the judiciary.

     So, how are your members going to benefit from the fruit of the struggle if the Executive eventually comply with the judgment?

     Our members will benefit from the fruit of the struggle immensely. We desire a conducive environment to work where we can give the best. The service I am delivering will be improved. I will do my work with sincerity, honesty and with the best effect. Again, if we achieve the financial autonomy or financial independence in the judiciary, my welfare will improve.

    When the environment where you are working has all that qualify it to be called a good office, especially a court, you will discharge your duties effectively and with joy.

    Today, a litigant comes to court, the court is being rented in the house of the person suing him, and you are expecting him to get justice.

    We are not fighting for our pockets; we are fighting for the system, for the structure, for the judiciary to be a strong institution that it is supposed to be. The issue has always been that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man.

    How is the judgment obtained by a former NBA President, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), different from the one got by your union?

    We will come to the issues in the judgment obtained by Agbakoba anytime from October, November or December. That is when we will start seeing the effect of that judgment because that is the period budgeting processes will begin.  The judgment deals with the procedure of budgeting for the judiciary and we will see whether the Federal Government and the state governments will be adamant.

    From this year, JUSUN will never accept, we will not allow anybody to compromise the integrity and independence of the institution we are serving. Everybody is crying for democracy, and there is no way democracy will survive where impunity reigns. There is no way democracy will thrive without observing the rule of law.

    All we are saying is that our patience has been taken for granted for too long. We have been mindful of the institution we are serving that is why we don’t make comments on every issue, we don’t make pronouncement on every issue we don’t even go on strike because of all issues we have been controlling ourselves.

  • Judiciary workers suspends 21-days strike

    Judiciary workers suspends 21-days strike

    Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) on Friday suspended its 21-day old strike following the intervention of the Minister of Labour and Productivity, Chief Emeka Wogu.

    This is contained in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) at the end of a meeting between the minister and JUSUN leadership in Abuja on Friday.

    “The meeting noted that the issues in dispute are constitutional matters in which judgments had been given in a suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/667/13 between JUSUN and the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    “The Federal Government was not in breach of the constitution, and therefore, the judgement cannot be enforced against it.

    “The state governments are obliged to respect the provision of the 1999 Constitution as amended and comply with the aforementioned judgement of the court,’’ it stated.

    The MoU further directed the Technical Committee to work out the modalities for the implementation of the judgement dated Jan. 13, 2014.

    It stated that the committee should work out the modalities for implementing the MoU from Friday Aug. 1 to  Monday, Aug. 4.

    It, however, added that no JUSUN member shall be victimised for participating in the strike.

    The MoU was jointly signed by Nigeria Labour Congress President, Abdulwaheed Omar; JUSUN President, Mustapha Adamu; Director, National Judicial Council, Eugene Odukwu; and Chairman, Accountant General’s Forum, Mr Udo Isobara.

    The others were Mr Adetokunbo Kayode, Nigerian Bar Association; Bola Odugbesan, Ministry of Justice; Mrs Chinedu Dike, Ministry of Labour, and Abdullahi Zubair, Office of the Accountant General of the Federation.

    JUSUN embarked on strike on July 11 following state governments’ failure to implement the subsisting judgement of the Federal High Court delivered on Jan. 13, 2014.