The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Judiciary

  • The judiciary and electoral fisticuffs

    The judiciary and electoral fisticuffs

    Courts rather than voters are the ones deciding winners now.” “The judiciary is no more the last hope of the common people.” These are the most common of the unthinking refrains of wayward politicians and their co-travellers in Nigeria today. According to a basic course material entitled “The Meaning and Purposes of Law”, “The law serves many purposes. Four principal ones are establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting liberties and rights.” As judges play their vital role in this regard, discomfited beneficiaries of chaos have been denigrating the judiciary ceaselessly. These include those who know next to nothing about law and jurisprudence and even those who are lawyers, but who subordinate their legal expertise to sentimental partisanship. 

    Well-informed and forthright lawyers assert that a judgement on an electoral case normally depends on counsels’ pleadings, extant laws, evidence supplied, witnesses called and precedents cited, and not on personal or group sentiments, opinions or preferences. This was the case with the Supreme Court judgement on the petition on the Imo State governorship election of 2019. Hope Uzodinma whom the Supreme Court declared as the true winner of the election has been made the butt of jokes, and some have asked derisively, “How can No. 4 become No. 1?” He has also been derogatorily called “Supreme Court Governor”, and the judgement has been frequently cited as a patent example of fraud in the judiciary.

    But, what exactly happened in Imo State? According to the Supreme Court judgement of 14 January, 2020, delivered by Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC, Senator Hope Uzodinma and the All Progressives Congress (APC) had appealed the judgement of the lower court which ruled that the rightful winner of the governorship election of 8 March, 2019 was Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha. According to results declared by INEC, he scored 273,404 votes and came first, while Senator Hope Uzodinma scored 96,458 and came fourth. The respondents were Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Specifically, the preamble to the judgement states as follows: “It was the Appellant’s contention, inter alia, that election held in 27 Local Governments Area, 305 Electoral Wards and 3,523 polling units. That the 3rd respondent [INEC] cancelled the election in 252 polling units, collated results from 2,883 polling units and excluded results from 388 polling units. It was the appellants’ contention that they scored an overwhelming majority in the 388 polling units, the result of which was excluded from ward collation result (Forms EC8B). Furthermore, the appellants contend that the total votes due to the appellants but unlawfully excluded from the 388 polling units is 213,695 while the 1st respondent is entitled to 1,903 votes from the same 388 polling units. It was also contended that the 1st respondent [Ihedioha] was returned based on a wrong computation of votes collated from 2,883 polling units.” Moreover, it was pleaded that “when the votes from the excluded units are added to the 1st petitioners and the 1st respondent the total score will be 310,153 for the first petitioner [Uzodinma] and 260,162 for the first respondent [Ihedioha].” After the lower court considered the replies of the respondents to the petition, along with their witnesses and documents tendered, the petition by Senator Hope Uzodinma and APC was dismissed by a majority judgement of 4:1.

    Dissatisfied, Hope Uzodinma and his party APC appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court noted as follows with respect to the efforts of the appellants to prove their case: “… in the instant case, the contention was that at the Ward Collation stage, votes scored by the appellants were unlawfully excluded.  The appellants called 54 witnesses and tendered Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E series. The 1st respondent also tendered certified true copies of the Form EC8 series and called 4 witnesses. The 2nd respondent [PDP] called one witness while the 3rd respondent [INEC] did not call any witness and did not tender any documents.” After considering all the facts of the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the petition had merit and therefore declared the Certificate of Return issued to Ihedioha withdrawn and ordered that a Certificate of Return be issued to Uzodinma and that he be sworn in as the Governor of Imo State immediately.

    Could the motive for the wrongful exclusion of Uzodinma’s 213,695 votes where Ihedioha scored only 1,903 votes have been to push the Senator so low on the score scale that he would be discouraged from contesting the result? Is it getting clearer now why No. 4 could become No. 1? Interestingly, The Nation reported that, just on Tuesday, 5 December, 2023, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, was fined N40 million by the Supreme Court for still filing a “baseless” and “irritating” motion asking the Court to reinstate Ihedioha. The motion was seen as “a calculated design to demonize the Supreme Court”. 

    Another Supreme Court judgement that has generated deep emotion relates to the recognition of Senator Ahmed Lawan as the properly-nominated candidate for the Yobe North Senatorial District for the 25 February, 2023 senatorial elections. According to the Supreme Court judgement of 6 February, 2023, delivered by Chima Centus Nweze, JSC, Bashir Sheriff approached the Federal High Court, Damaturu Judicial Division, and sought the following, among other reliefs: “1. A DECLARATION that it is unlawful for the first defendant [APC] to recognize the name of the second defendant or any candidate other than the plaintiff [Bashir Sheriff] as its candidate for Yobe North Senatorial District for 2023 Election. 2. A DECLARATION that it is unlawful for the first defendant to change the name of the second defendant in respect of the primary election conducted by the first defendant for Yobe North Senatorial District (Zone C) in which the plaintiff [Bashir Sheriff] emerged winner and was so declared.by the first defendant.” The Federal High Court ruled in favour of Bashir Sheriff and the Court of Appeal affirmed that ruling. Dissatisfied with the ruling, APC appealed to the Supreme Court.

    In the Supreme Court ruling, it is noted as follows: “In the instant case, the bedrock of the suit before the trial court, from a perusal of the affidavit and further affidavit of the first respondent [Bashir Sheriff], along with exhibits attached thereto, shows that there were allegations of fraudulent practices by both parties.” For example, Bashir Sheriff averred in the Affidavit in support of Originating Summons that the National Chairman of the APC told the media that Ahmed Lawan participated in the party’s primary, when he did not.

    Read Also: Agric revolution will help Nigeria surmount insecurity, poverty – Shettima

    According to Justice Nweze, “The Originating Summons procedure was, irredeemably, improper to commence a suit founded steeply on allegation of diverse acts of fraud, misrepresentation and forgery. Such allegations are criminal in nature and central to the claims of the first respondent. They must be proved beyond reasonable doubt even in civil proceedings and thus suitable for proceedings to be commenced by way of Writ of Summons.” In other words, Bashir Sheriff wrongly adopted the Originating Summons procedure in ventilating his grievances at the Federal High Court, when he should have properly adopted the Writ of Summons procedure. Continuing, Justice Nweze said: “where the procedure adopted to ventilate grievances is wrong, the processes ought to be struck out.” He therefore considered the judgement of the trial court (and lower court), which favoured Bashir Sheriff, as “sacrilegious affront” and “perverse”, and as having “occasioned miscarriage of justice.” 

    Justice Nweze then declared as follows: “Facts are the spring board of law. It is the facts of the case that determine the appropriate procedure. The first respondent’s case is lost because of the unpardonable procedure resorted to by learned senior counsel for the first respondent. An action by way of Originating Summons may sound romantic and possibly prosaic, but it could lead to a loss of a case because of a parade of abysmal ignorance as to what to do.” The Judge then ruled: “Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Gombe Judicial Division, sitting in Abuja, delivered on September 28, 2022 and all the orders made therein, are hereby set aside. The first respondent’s suit is, hereby, struck out.”

    Public sentiment weighed heavily on the side of a judgement in favour of Bashir Sheriff, but the intricacies of the law were on the side of a judgement in favour of APC and Ahmed Lawan. The justices of the Supreme Court, having considered the facts before them, decided to be on the side of the law. For this, they have been extensively excoriated for basing their judgement on a ‘technicality’ and for thereby delivering a ‘controversial’ judgement’.

    The Kano State governorship Court of Appeal judicial mishap in which the oral judgement favoured Nasiru Gawuna of APC, but part of the certified true copy of the ruling contradictorily favoured Abba Kabiru Yusuf of the New Nigeria People’s Party, has given fillip to the denigration of the judiciary. Fortunately, it is not the judicial Armageddon that judiciary-bashers wished it to be. There is still the opportunity for the Supreme Court to resolve contradictions and clear misgivings that may have been created by the Court of Appeal “clerical error”.

    It is not in the character of Judges to engage in ‘two fighting’, the street lingo for street brawls. So, the Chief Justice of Nigeria has only been able to issue restrained admonition to those guilty to stop maligning the judiciary. The Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation graciously lent his voice to the admonition. The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Yakubu Maikyau, SAN, similarly acted on 27 November, 2023, at the opening of the 2023/2024 legal year and conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria on recipients. He called the rabid critics of the judiciary “judicial bullies and literary terrorists”, and noted: “The judiciary neither enacted the laws that govern the electoral system nor appointed persons saddled with the management of the process. It is certainly not the judiciary that removed the spirit of conceding defeat from our politicians.”

    Though some judges may have been compromised, the current cacophony of flippant condemnation of the entire judiciary by sundry partisan commentators is unwarranted. To keep judges at bay, let politicians play by the rules, allow internal democracy and desist from subverting the law in the voting process. It would then be difficult for fraud to be committed in vote counting, vote collation and the declaration of results.

    [ERRATUM: In paragraph 12 of the article titled “Obasanjo’s state of democracy address” in this column last week, “in 2003 were returned to the Alliance for Democracy (AD)” was written instead of “in 2003 and 2007 were returned to the progressives camp”. Error is regretted.]

  • Effective judiciary crucial to democracy

    Effective judiciary crucial to democracy

    The opening of a new Legal Year is an important solemn occasion in our legal system and a crucial annual landmark in our judicial calendar, for your Lordships as guardians of the law and justice, along with legal practitioners being Ministers in the Temple of Justice, as well as the users of the court system (litigants) to re-assess and renew our commitment to the independence of the judiciary, to address the challenges militating the smooth administration of justice and rededicate ourselves to enforcement of the rule of law in our dear Nation.

    I wish to observe that in the invitation letter (for this occasion) served on me, my Lord, the President of the Court of Appeal made a declaration congratulating me on my appointment as Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice. My Lord then made a consequential order as follows: “I am hopeful that as the Chief Legal Officer of the Federation, you will pay special attention to the needs of the Judiciary.” I want to respectfully assure my Lords, as I stand before your Lordships and speaking from this podium, that we will not test this ruling further on appeal, rather we will ensure appropriate compliance. We thank my Lords for the well-considered ruling.

    My Lords, learned colleagues, and distinguished guests, I assumed the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice fully aware of the huge expectations, enormous challenges and responsibility therein. As a member of the Executive arm of government, it is my call of duty to formulate and promote policies of the current administration and to ensure that the legal or justice sector receives the necessary attention, priority and respect. This duty places me both at the frontline and confluence of where the law meets policy, while inherent conflicts may be unavoidable, they will be subjected to possible resolutions. I respectfully count on your Lordships and learned colleagues to be my conscience and compass in office through positive criticisms and contributions as we unfold and implement President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda in the justice sector.

     Permit me to also congratulate my Lord the President of the Court of Appeal and the new nine Justices of the Court of Appeal who were recently sworn-in by His Lordship, the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria. I wish your Lordships the wisdom, courage and legal will to positively impact our appellate court system in Nigeria. It is my firm position that for the sake of unhindered administration of justice, vacancies at any level of our judiciary should not be allowed to linger for too long because of the negative impact such vacancies occasion on pending cases, on the health of our Justices/Judges and other collateral damages associated therewith.

    The instant appointments into the Court of Appeal must have occasioned vacancies at various High Courts while the expected appointments into the Supreme Court may also occasion further depletion of the Court of Appeal bench. There is therefore the need for a fast-track process to fill these consequential vacancies with competent and efficient judges and lawyers. While I sympathize with your Lordships over the avalanche of motions and appeals you have to contend with daily, and the attendant stress therefrom, it is also pertinent that this Honourable Court take definite steps to improve on existing measures to decongest the court’s docket.

    The Court of Appeal and its Justices have been, permit me to say, trending lately in both the conventional and social media. The proceedings and verdicts of your Lordships on the presidential election attracted considerable attention, particularly the hard work and industry required to prepare, write and deliver judgments, which also brought to light the detailed and painstaking attributes of the Nigerian Justices and Judges. It is beyond debate that an effective Judiciary must remain independent and impartial. This remains an essential component of the rule of law and democratic governance as well as a key driver of economic growth.

    I must remark that it is the abiding duty of both the litigants and legal practitioners to insulate the judiciary from improper or extraneous pressure, undue media vilification and partisan criticisms. The right to freedom of expression comes with its limitations, it is not an avenue to engage in extreme and outlandish criticisms, inclusive of direct or veiled threats of violence, capable of exerting improper pressure on the judges in the discharge of their judicial duties.

    Read Also: Pressures on judiciary continue relentlessly

    Although political and other high-profile cases come with their own huge expectations and tensions, it is however abhorrent for any legal practitioner or judicial officer to be threatened, harassed or worse still, attacked simply for doing their job. While such shameful conducts are unacceptable, I enjo  in legal practitioners, political gladiators and their supporters to exercise restraint and demonstrate respect for the judiciary. We must have faith in our trial and appellate processes, defend and not ridicule them in our overall common interest.

    I share the mantra which states that a judiciary can only be as good as the judges that man its courts. Therefore, in order to improve the welfare and independence of our judiciary, it has become pertinent for us to make targeted investments in the judiciary in terms of timely recruitment of competent hands, structured and deliberate capacity building, upgrade of court facilities, introduction of technology, innovations and effective regulations in the trial and management of cases. Also, there is need for improved credibility and certainty in the judicial process through adherence to established precedents and avoidance of conflicting decisions, compliance with ethics/code of conduct for judicial officers to sustain integrity and public confidence. The concerns of other categories of judicial workers (JUSUN) should also be holistically addressed such that they would have no course to shut down our courts ever again. Where the foregoing and other challenges are frontally addressed, then we would have placed the Nigerian judiciary on an irreversible path of greatness expected of a modern judiciary. I must mention again that the revival, restoration of economic prosperity and our ability as a nation to attract foreign direct and indirect investment, is tied both directly and indirectly to the ability of our courts to deliver justice fairly, quickly and impartially, in a manner that makes justice to be undoubtedly and manifestly be seen to be done. Achieving this will require the cooperation of all stakeholders in the Justice Sector and significant investment in the technological, capital and knowledge infrastructure of entire justice system.

    Flowing from the above, is the issue of improvement in the remuneration and welfare of our judicial officers, as well as full implementation of financial autonomy for State Judiciaries. This issue has for long lingered and has within the last few weeks began to trend in the media and among stakeholder. Indeed it is time for definite action to be taken. The administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is deeply concerned about the foregoing fundamental issues, and I must assure that we will focus and accord them priority attention. Consequently, the current administration will review the mechanisms already put in place and rejig the entire process to attain full implementation of the constitutional provisions for financial autonomy and viable increment in the salaries, allowances and pensions obtainable in the judiciary.

    • Fagbemi is Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice
  • Pressures on judiciary continue relentlessly

    Pressures on judiciary continue relentlessly

    After Labour Party (LP) supporters, popularly called Obidients because of their fanatical support for their party’s candidate in the last presidential election, fouled the political atmosphere with aggressive social media campaigns against institutions and individuals, Nigeria has found it increasingly difficult to regain its composure. Something has gone terribly wrong. The Obidients’ worst attacks were reserved for the judiciary which they hoped to intimidate into surrender by propaganda and street protests. Street protests, now weaponised by anyone fearful of losing legal cases, have continued in many states, including Plateau, Kano and Nasarawa States, though the Supreme Court is yet to determine the disputed governorship polls. Pressured and belaboured, the judiciary has struggled to stay above the fray, sometimes very awkwardly. It is assailed by critics, former heads of state, leading politicians, lawyers, and angry youths. Apart from lawyers who lost cases for which they blame the judges, and Obidients who are eternally angry and disaffected, the latest attacks have come from the triumvirate of Chief Obasanjo, Ayo Adebanjo, and Peter Obi himself. The attacks will continue for the foreseeable future until the Supreme Court decides. If it gives judgement against them, they allege it is bought; if it overturns the judgement against them, who can be sure that the court had not finally wilted before the relentless assault?

    Chief Adebanjo, lawyer and factional leader of the Yoruba socio-cultural group, Afenifere, accuses the judiciary of acting as if it is influenced by government, insisting that Nigerians have lost confidence in the institution. He does not substantiate his wild generalisations. Perhaps taking a cue from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s portentous ploy to subordinate the Supreme Court to the parliament, Chief Obasanjo has sheepishly argued that three or five judges speaking ex cathedra should not be the final authority on political cases. Said he in reference to the appellate courts: “I believe whatever form of democracy we have or whatever system of government we have, three or four men in the judiciary should not be able to overturn the decisions of millions that have voted. Now, we have to find a way to handle that. I don’t know what the way will be, but for me, I think it’s unacceptable that millions (of votes), maybe 10 million on one side, maybe nine million on the other side, then, you have five people sitting down, three of them agree, two disagree. And you come up and make ex cathedra pronouncements that cannot be changed; I believe that should not be accepted. How do we do it? I don’t know…”

    Though less rigorous in making his case against the judiciary, Peter Obi is no less trenchant and melodramatic. Speaking in his Abuja office last month while marking the centenary of the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC), Mr Obi insisted: “We now have a situation, where known party card-carrying members of political parties, who were even involved in thuggery, are being appointed to be referee in our coming elections…IPAC should question why 90 per cent of our elections end up in courts, with huge resources that should be channelled to the people’s welfare being used for litigations. They should voice out why our courts have become courts of favour, courts of procurement, rather than courts of justice and the law…Look at what is happening in Zamfara, Kano and Plateau and others states, my party is not in any of them, but we are all affected by injustice. My concern is to do what is right…”

    Read Also: Give financial autonomy to judiciary, AGF tells governors

    While Chief Adebanjo can be excused for his generalisations, it is much harder to explain why a former president and a presidential candidate can speak so glibly about salient national issues, to the extent of denigrating and undermining the judiciary. In their speeches and statements, neither Chief Obasanjo nor Mr Obi delved into the substance of the legal cases in question. Nor did they attempt to situate their conclusions in the context of relevant past judgements. Both men have very little understanding of the law, but harbour enormous amount of anger against the direction of the judgements. Clearly, what they are unable to achieve by law, they hope to secure by wholesale and detrimental subversion of the rule of law and the judiciary. Did they attempt to contextualise the Plateau case against the 2019 Zamfara APC debacle? They simply ignore contexts, deride legal arguments, fume at legal technicalities as if those provisions are not part of the law, gloss over incompetent defence counsels, and proceed sentimentally and prejudicially to castigate the courts and dishonour the entire judiciary. All this in just one election cycle. Yet, if they had superior arguments to dethrone the court judgements in the referenced political cases, they neither made them nor took them into cognisance before rushing into public campaigns. As the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) said last week at the beginning of the 2023/2024 legal year: “In all we do, as interpreters of the law, we should endeavour to severe emotion from logic, and assumption from fact. We should never be overwhelmed by the actions or loud voices of the mob…” Considering that these are not the best of times for the judiciary, it remains to be seen how far they can hold out against a mob of fanatical elites with no consideration for the future implications of their statements and actions?

    Clearly, and without prejudice to the substance and integrity of the governorship suits before the Supreme Court, the protests in Kano, Plateau and Nasarawa States are setting dangerous precedents for the law. Both Chief Obasanjo and Mr Obi, among many other vilifiers of the courts, attempt unprecedentedly to foster the notion that protests could be deployed to determine legal outcomes. Yet, because of their status in society, there are some people by whom such notions should never be voiced. Unfortunately, in an atmosphere fouled by sometimes mistaken or controversial judgements, little attention is paid to the dangers of promoting insidious, partisan goals or downplaying the jurisprudential consequences of instilling fear in judges handling high-profile political cases. It is a slippery, tragic slope Chief Obasanjo, Mr Obi and Chief Adebanjo are determined to drag the whole country.

  • Lawyers to CDS: judiciary not to blame for terror war setback

    Lawyers to CDS: judiciary not to blame for terror war setback

    It is not in doubt that a major element of the security challenges plaguing the nation today is terrorism.

    From the Northeast, where Boko Haram and other related groups operate, to the Southeast, where the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and associated bodies hold sway, the nation has continued to expend money and men in its efforts to bring the situation under control.

    However, despite the nation’s efforts, critics have continued to query why the challenge of terrorism seems intractable, with many blaming security agencies for not doing enough.

    This, perhaps, might have informed the recent outburst by the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Christopher Musa, who accused the Judiciary of sabotaging the efforts of the military to tame the activities of terrorists in the country.

    Musa, while addressing the House of Representatives, accused the Judiciary of releasing arrested Boko Haram suspects and delaying their prosecution.

    The CDS argued that granting bail to Boko Haram members was putting the lives of security personnel at risk, adding that the release of Boko Haram operatives was affecting the fight against terrorism.

    The CDS said: “I have been in the North-east, there were a lot of Boko Haram elements that have been captured. We have kept them for five/six years.

    “We the armed forces can arrest, but cannot prosecute. Some of them have been found wanting, but no prosecution.

    “We are keeping them for this lengthy period, everyone is accusing the armed forces of keeping them against their human rights, but we cannot prosecute.

    “Another aspect of the Judiciary is that you use all your efforts to make an arrest, you hand them over, and before you enter your vehicle, the man has been released on bail.

    “Now, you have risked yourself in doing that (effecting the arrest); by the time he is released, he goes to tell the people the person that arrested him. Now, your family members or you are at risk.”

    Musa said it was getting to a state where the security forces would not want to make any effort.

    Is the Judiciary to blame?

    Lawyers have argued that the CDS was wrong to blame the Judiciary for simply performing its constitutional duties of interpreting and applying the law.

    Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Joseph Nwobike; Abuja lawyer, Otunba Tunde Falola and Dr. Peter Duela argued that while the CDS could be excused for expressing his frustration, he was wrong to have directed his blame to the Judiciary for simply granting bail.

    Has the court the right to grant bail?

    Justice Halilu Yusuf of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) said the court was at liberty to grant bail irrespective of the nature of the case, once the liberty of an individual is in question.

    Justice Yusuf stressed this point in a ruling he delivered on November 21 in the criminal case involving 13 members of the Petroleum Tanker Drivers (PTD) arm of the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG).

    They were arraigned on a charge marked: CR/042/2023 filed in the name of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and in which the defendants were accused among others, of conspiracy, assault and attempted murder.

    Justice Yusuf said the issue of bail was a constitutional right of a defendant, whose guilt was not yet established, irrespective of the nature of the offence.

    He added that the decision to either grant or refuse bail to a defendant was solely that of the judge.

    The judge said: “The issue of bail has been discussed over the years in our courts and the annal of our jurisprudence. Bail is a constitutional right of an accused (a defendant)

    “As constitutional as it is, is also a contractual relationship between an accused person and the court once there are good reasons to admit such an accused person to bail.

    “It is a constitutional right because an accused person so charged before a court of law is presumed innocent until his/her guilt is established as provided in Section 36(5) of the Constitution.

    “The essence of bail is not to set an accused person free, but to release him/her from the custody of the law and to entrust him/her to appear at his/her trial at a given date.”

    Justice Yusuf added that bail implies granting a defendant “pre-trial freedom, and whose appearance can be compelled by ensuring that a credible surety gets him/her on bail and such surety undertake to produce him/her in court”.

    He added: “The guilt of a person so arraigned must be established for his/her fundamental human rights, as captured in chapter four of the 1999 Constitution to be inhibited.

    “This is so because he is already presumed innocent. So his guilt must be established by the prosecution.

    “And, pending when his/her guilt is established, even the court must always see him/her as an innocent person, unless and until he/she is found guilty.

    “It is for these reasons that when an application for bail is brought before a judge, in writing or orally, the judge shall put in place conditions that will ensure that the accused person attends court for his trial; that he will not jump bail so granted and that he will not interfere with the investigation or the witnesses of the prosecution.

    “I am not oblivious that courts have granted bail in cases where the defendants were arraigned for treasonable offences. Treason is the highest offence known to our laws.”

    Justice Yusuf referred to the cases of the late Chief M.K.O. Abiola and Mujahid Asari Dokubo, who were both charged with treason but were granted bail.

    ‘Why the Judiciary is not at fault’

    Nwobike argued that blaming the Judiciary in this circumstance as done by the CDS was simply unwarranted.

    He said: “The truth is that all and sundry have suddenly found the Judiciary as the reason for all the difficulties facing Nigeria today.

    “The Judiciary is guided by the law. Where a defendant is entitled to bail pending trial, under the prevailing legal framework, the Judiciary is not permitted to deny such a defendant the right to bail. 

    “It is the offence for which the defendant is charged by the prosecuting agency of government that will determine whether such a defendant will be granted bail or not.

    “I, therefore, will like to differ with the CDS in that regard. Blaming the government’s failure to fight terrorism on the Judiciary is unjustified.

    “Empirical evidence shows that the Judiciary has played its role very effectively in the fight against terrorism within its limited resources.”

    He noted that whether or not a person charged with terrorism will be granted bail will essentially depend on the particular law under which a defendant was charged and the severity of the offence.

    Nwobike said: “Some of the offences attract between10 to 20 years imprisonment. For instance, under Section 3 of the Terrorism (Prevention)(Amendment) Act of 2013, the offence of kidnapping carries life imprisonment, while the offence of training terrorists under Section 7 of the same law attracts 20 years imprisonment.

    Read Also: Lagos Assembly confirms three Sanwo-Olu’s nominees

    “So, the section, under which the defendant is charged, will ultimately guide the court in granting or refusing to grant bail.

    “Offences that attract life imprisonment usually are not bailable except in special cases.”

    Falola said ordinarily, one is tempted to sympathise with the CDS in his expression of frustration at the way and manner suspected terrorists arrested by the security agencies are granted bail by the courts.

    He noted that it constitutes a very serious issue that calls for sober reflection because the lives of gallant military officers are usually put at high risk when these suspected criminals are released on bail.

    Falola, however, noted that the issue of bail is more legal than moral.

    He added: “In other words, granting bail to an offender is a constitutional issue.

    “I say this because a person accused of committing an offence still enjoys the constitutional right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a competent court of law no matter the gravity of the offence alleged.

    “Therefore, it will be unfair to blame any judge, who exercises his discretion in admitting a person, accused of committing an offence, to bail.”

    Speaking further on their issue, Falola noted that the law is well settled that bail of an accused person should not be withheld as a pre-trial punishment.

    He said: “If the court is to consider the gravity of the offence, particularly the offence of terrorism in refusing to grant bail to an accused person, this will be a very dangerous trend, because an innocent person, accused of committing an offence, might eventually suffer for an offence he knows nothing about.”

    When bail can be denied

    Falola noted that even though there is no offence that is not bailable under the nation’s laws and constitution, there are instances where the court could decide to refuse bail.

    He said: “It must be pointed out that there are some offences that are ordinarily bailable, while some are not ordinarily bailable.

    “You cannot compare a person alleged to have slapped someone with someone who has been accused of armed robbery when it comes to the issue of bail.

    “Bail is usually refused in some instances. For instance, if releasing the person, accused of committing an offence will expose him to serious risk or danger. In this case, bail might be refused.

    “Also, if releasing him will jeopardise further investigation of the alleged offence, bail could equally be refused.

    “In these two instances, it does not mean that the offences alleged to have been committed are not bailable, but bail is refused because of some special circumstances.”

    Need for special court for terrorism cases?

    Nwobike and Falola disagreed on the need or otherwise for the establishment of a special court for the trial of terrorism cases.

    While Nwobike argued against it, Falola welcomed the suggestion.

    Nwobike said: “I do not think that we need to establish special courts for terrorism cases.

    “There are sufficient courts within the Federal High Court system for the speedy hearing and determination of terrorism cases in Nigeria.”

    Falola, on the other hand, said: “I think I am in support of that totally, given the fact that most of our courts, particularly the Federal High Court that handles these cases are already overwhelmed by the number of cases in their docket.

    “Creating a special court to handle terrorism cases will, in no small measure, decongest our court which will invariably promote speedy dispensation of justice.”

    Duela suggested the resumption of the special arrangement earlier deployed before now, where some judges are taken to specific locations for the sole purpose of conducting the trial of these detained terror suspects.

    “I can remember that such an arrangement was adopted before where some judges conducted proceedings in a military formation in Kainji, Niger State and another one in Borno State.

    “We can resume that arrangement instead of waiting time to create another court because time is of the essence,” he said.

    The AGF’s assurance

    The problem of delay in the prosecution of arrested terror suspects, alluded to by the CDS, will soon be addressed, according to Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).

    Fagbemi said plans were in top gear to ensure a seamless process that will involve the combination of normal physical court trial process with virtual hearings.

    Fagbemi said: “Efforts are on to resume the trial of those categories of people. And I think, in the next two weeks, it will be a different story. We are conscious of that issue.

    “Facilities are being put in place. Apart from the regular physical mode of trial, we working on ways to ensure that virtual trials can also be conducted.

    “This is intended to prevent delay. The government is not shying away from its responsibility of providing funds for this purpose. The idea is to ensure that we deploy adequate facilities to achieve this.”

    What security/investigating/prosecuting agencies should do

    Instead of throwing blame at the Judiciary, Nwobike and Duela suggested that the relevant security, investigating and prosecuting agencies of government should evolve more effective ways of addressing this challenge.

    Nwobike said: “The investigative and enforcement agencies of government at all levels must do more with the aid of technology and modern intelligence gathering techniques to fight terrorism at all operational stages.

    “The Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), which coordinates the fight against terrorism, needs to do more considering the security implications of terrorism to the Nigerian state.”

    Duela believes all hands must be on deck, adding that inter-agency collaboration is required.

    He said: “Incidents of inter-agencies rivalry and disagreement will further weaken their capacity to deal with the challenge.

    “They must identify the moles among the various security agencies, with sympathy for these terrorists, and deal with them accordingly.”

    Duela, who hailed the AGF’s plan to resume the prosecution of terror suspects, said the country could no longer afford any further delay in that regard.

  • Northern Elders to Judiciary: We are monitoring your conduct

    Northern Elders to Judiciary: We are monitoring your conduct

    • By: Gbenga Omokhunu and Sophia Anumaka, Abuja

    The Northern Elders Forum (NEF), on Friday, called on the country’s judiciary to consider the consequences of its actions and decisions and uphold the rule of law in all its activities around the elections where Nigerians voted.

     The NEF in a statement, on Friday issued by its convener, Prof Ango Abdullahi, said the forum and other stakeholders would: “closely monitor the conduct of the judiciary and advocate for its ethical revitalisation to safeguard the interests of all Nigerians.”

    Abdullahi said: “There have been outcries in the country over the recent judgments given by the Court of Appeal in cases involving states ruled by opposition political parties which are Kano, Plateau, and Zamfara.

     “The potential consequences of these actions may ultimately validate the concerns raised by retired Supreme Court Justice, Dattijo Mohammed in his valedictory remarks about corruption and undue compromises within the judiciary.

    “We recognise the importance of a fair and impartial judiciary in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding democratic principles.

    Read Also: Guinness world record:  200-level OAU student commences 50-hour hand wash-a-thon

    “The judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring justice, protecting citizens’ rights, and preserving the credibility of the electoral process. Any actions that compromise these principles undermine the very foundation of any democratic nation.

    “NEF, therefore, calls on all levels of the judiciary to uphold the highest ethical standards and maintain impartiality in their decision making processes.

     “Judges should exhibit unwavering integrity and resilience when adjudicating cases, especially those pertaining to elections.

     “The judiciary plays a crucial role in sustaining constitutional democracy by ensuring the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and providing checks and balances on the other branches of government. However, if the judiciary fails to fulfill its responsibilities, it can have severe implications for the stability and functioning of a democratic society.”

    “The current trend may encourage politicians to view politics as a do-or-die affair. When the judiciary fails to effectively adjudicate disputes and hold politicians accountable for their actions, it creates an environment where politicians feel emboldened to engage in corrupt practices, abuse their power, and disregard the principles of democracy.

     “This erosion of trust in the judiciary can lead to a breakdown of democratic norms and values, ultimately undermining the legitimacy of the political system.”

  • Judiciary workers embark on strike

    Judiciary workers embark on strike

    Judiciary workers in Osun State have declared an indefinite strike to express their grievances over alleged injustice and persecution they are facing under the leadership of the state Chief Judge, Justice Adepele Ojo.

    The workers have since Monday picketed the state High Court in Osogbo to demand reinstatement of their suspended members.

    They also demanded the payment of some of the allowances they are entitled to.

    Yesterday, the third day of the protest, a detachment of policemen drafted to the scene to maintain law and order dispersed the gathering with teargas canisters.

    Read Also: Alake tours agencies under Solid Minerals ministry

    The Chairman of Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) in Osun State, Olugbenga Eludire, told reporters that some members sustained injuries as a result of the action of the police.

    Command spokesperson Yemisi Opalola said the police used the canisters to disperse the crowd, and no one was injured.

    The Chairman of Osun State House of Assembly Committee on Justice, ‘Kanmi Ajibola, said the allegations brought against the chief judge were being investigated by the House.

  • Judiciary: CSOs launch open justice alliance for transparency, accountability

    Judiciary: CSOs launch open justice alliance for transparency, accountability

    A coalition of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Open Justice Alliance has initiated a mechanism to institutionalize transport and accountability in the Nigerian justice sector.

    The group said the mechanism has become imperative and urgent to restore citizens’ confidence in the Nigeria judiciary considering recent public discourse that has highlighted growing concerns about transparency within the judiciary, leading to a decline in citizens’ confidence.

    The CSOs comprissing Citizens’ Gavel; Civic Hive; Hope Behind Bars; NULAI; and TAP Initiative noted that the collaborative effort to establish the Open Justice Alliance is aimed at fostering a justice system that is open, fair, and accountable, while addressing the concerns raised by citizens regarding transparency within the justice space.

    In a statement on Tuesday by Citizens’ Gavel’s Communications Associate, Rachael Adio, the Open Justice Alliance recognizes the importance of addressing these challenges and aims at promoting a justice system that serves the interests of all Nigerians.

    Citizens’ Gavel’s Team Lead, Nelson Olanipekun, explained the imperativeness of the initiative, saying, “The judiciary is said to be the last hope of the common man, but the entity cannot do this if it does not purge itself of corruption and inefficiencies. Nigeria’s need for judicial transparency and accountability has never been more pressing.

    “A transparent and accountable judiciary is vital for upholding the rule of law, ensuring equal access to justice, and building public trust in our justice delivery process.

    “However, challenges such as corruption, controversial judgements, undue influence, and inefficiency continue to plague the judicial system”, he explained.

    The statement added that the coalition will bring its wealth of experience and expertise to collaborate with relevant stakeholders to advocate for policies that enhance transparency, fairness, and accountability in the judiciary.

    “Public Awareness Campaigns:
    Educating citizens about their rights and the functioning of the justice system, fostering a sense of ownership and participation in the administration of justice.Capacity Building:

    Read Also: Uzodimma, Keyamo, CSOs: Labour protests partisan

    “Providing training and resources to legal professionals, judges, and court staff to enhance their understanding and implementation of transparent and accountable practices.Monitoring and Reporting:

    “Establishing mechanisms to monitor, research, and report on the performance of the judiciary, ensuring that issues of concern are promptly addressed.

    “Collaboration with the Judiciary:
    Spotlighting issues of inefficiencies and engaging the judiciary to promote a culture of transparency and accountability within the system.

    “The launch of the Open Justice Alliance marks a significant step towards rebuilding public trust in Nigeria’s judicial system.

    “By bringing together the collective strengths of Citizens’ Gavel, Civic Hive, Hope Behind Bars, NULAI, and TAP Initiative, the alliance is poised to make significant contributions towards enhancing a transparent and accountable justice system that is fundamental to a thriving democracy”.

  • NLC strike: Banks, judiciary under lock in Ebonyi

    NLC strike: Banks, judiciary under lock in Ebonyi

    The Ebonyi state Judiciary and banks in the state refused to open for business on Tuesday, November 14, in obedience to the strike ordered by the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC)

    The gate of the State Judiciary Headquarters in Abakaliki remained under lock when The Nation moved around to monitor compliance.

    Staff were seen in clusters outside the court premises discussing the situation

    Emmanuel Awoke, the secretary of the state chapter of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) said that the strike became necessary in order to protest against injustice on workers across the nation.

    Read Also: I don’t regret leaving my family abroad to pursue career in Nigeria – Shaffy Bello

    Awoke said that he was in the office as early as 7:30 am to ensure that no judge or magistrate entered the court premises.

    Awoke stated: “As you can see, the main gate is already locked and nobody is allowed to walk inside. This is in compliance with the National directive in support of the nationwide strike.

    “JUSUN as an affiliate of NLC has to live by the principles of the union’s laws and directives. As it stands, there are no court that is sitting. The workers are here to do their work but we cannot allow them to violate the law of the NLC.”

    A lawyer, Onwe Solomon, said the strike has disrupted his matter in the court but noted that the move was in the right direction.

    He said: “My matter is one that requires urgent attention but on getting here this morning, I found out that nobody is allowed to go inside the court because of the strike.

    “I believe, they are fighting for their right and the good interest of the nation. The situation in the country today is worrisome, especially the assault on the NLC National President. It is uncalled for.”

    A bank customer, Uchenna Elom, hailed the move for the strike and urged the federal and state governments to take steps to protect the rights and interests of workers.

    Elom said he was at the Bank to obtain a new Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card but found that they were closed.

    The ATM machines in most banks including First Bank, Ecobank, UBA, and Union among others visited the capital city and were fully working with long queues of customers.

    Reacting to the development, Dr Egwu Ogugua, NLC Chairman in Ebonyi, said the compliance to the strike was 90 percent in the state.

    He stated: “All banks are closed, except Zenith Bank but they later closed. You know an injury to one is an injury to all. The ruling class should stop intimidating the Nigerian workers.”

  • Judiciary alone can build investor’s confidence in Nigeria, says President Tinubu

    Judiciary alone can build investor’s confidence in Nigeria, says President Tinubu

    President Bola Tinubu has said that the judiciary alone can build the confidence of both local and international investors to bring in investments into Nigeria.

    The president made the assertion on Monday in Abuja while declaring open the 2023 All Nigeria Judges Conference of the Superior Courts organised by the National Judicial Institute.

    The president who was represented by the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, said the economic transformation of Nigeria could not be left to only the executive arm of government.

    “Our economic transformation is not just in the hands of the executive alone, the judiciary has a significant role to play in this transformation journey.

    “It is the judiciary alone that can build the confidence of investors that commercial disputes can be resolved fairly and speedily in manner that preserves and improves their investment.

    “Such a realisation alone will significantly improve our position to be an investment destination,’’ the president said.

    While reiterating his commitment to ensuring absolute independence of the judiciary, the president also said that he had directed that the issue of the upward review of remuneration of judicial officers be revisited.

    “I have directed the Revenue Mobilsation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission to review its previous unacceptable recommendation of 114 per cent increase in the remuneration of judicial officers.

    “I have asked them to come up with a more realistic rate that will reflect the present economic realities and I am optimistic that the process will be concluded soon.’’

    President Tinubu also appealed that legal practitioners in private practice who had distinguished themselves should be considered for appointment to the appellate courts.

    “ I am of the strong view that in order to further strengthen our appellate courts, qualified, experienced and diligent private legal practitioners should be considered for appointment to both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

    “I believe that Nigeria will stand to benefit a lot from these appointments,’’ he said.

    Delivering a keynote address, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, (CJN) Justice Olukayode Ariwoola expressed hope that the long anticipated independence of the judiciary would be achieved during President Tinubu’s tenure.

    “I am hopeful that this 2023 All Nigerian Judges’ Conference, which is the first since the commencement of this new administration will come with an improved disposition towards the welfare of the judiciary.

    “This is especially as it pertains to the protracted issue of its independence as well as a strong desire to foster healthy and productive relationships among all three arms.’’

    The CJN who doubles as the Chairman, Board of Governors, National Judicial Institute, charged the judges on the need to remain unwavering in their commitment to seeing that in all cases, justice should not only be done but seen to be done.

    “We must distance ourselves from all forms of indiscretions and ventures capable of bringing the judiciary to disrepute,’’ the CJN said.

    Also speaking at the event, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, (FCT) Mr Nyesom Wike said that the FCT was committed to providing an environment conducive to the judiciary in dispensing justice.

    According to him, I am pleased to report that efforts are underway to enhance the infrastructure of court facilities, improve the welfare of judicial officers and streamline administrative processes to reduce unnecessary delays.

    `The aim is to create an environment that enhances the delivery of justice without being encumbered.

    “The president has mandated that we should, with immediate effect, construct a brand new Court of Appeal Division of Abuja which must be completed in 15 months.

    “The president has also directed that we should construct houses for the FCT judges and magistrates in Abuja.

    “Also the President has directed that judges of the Federal High Court in Abuja must be given new quarters and also judges of the Court of Appeal Abuja Division.’’

    Earlier, in a goodwill message, the Administrator of the institute, retired Justice Salisu Abdullahi said that the conference was organized in line with the statutory mandate of the institute.

    Read Also: Tinubu performs Lesser Hajj

    “This is amongst other things, the provision of continuing judicial education for all categories of judicial officers and their support staff.

    “The All Nigerian Judges’ Conference of the Superior Courts is a tactical and all-important engagement which holds significant purposes for all and sundry.

    “It is first and foremost a reunion of sorts since it presents an opportunity to come together as a unified whole, accordingly, this convergence aids a three-pronged agenda which I like to call the three A’s- Acclaim, Appraise and Advance,’’ he said.

    The News Agency of Nigeria, (NAN) reports that the theme for the 2023 conference is: “Strengthening Judicial Commitments to the Rule of Law and Democracy’’.

    (NAN)

  • CJN: judiciary must embrace technology for efficiency

    CJN: judiciary must embrace technology for efficiency

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Olukayode Ariwoola has stressed the need for the Judiciary to fully adopt technology for efficiency.

    “I must reiterate that as we move forward into this digital age, we must embrace the potential of technology.

    “It would significantly enhance efficiency by streamlining administrative tasks, aid legal research, reduce having a backlog of cases, and generally improve transparency and efficiency in the administration of justice,” he said.

    Chief Justice Ariwoola spoke at a three-day retreat for Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, organised by the Attorney General Alliance-Africa (AGA-Africa) in collaboration with the National Judicial Institute (NJI) in Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital.

    The CJN, represented by Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, said the theme of the retreat: “Achieving efficiency and effectiveness in a judicial system in Nigeria” was apt.

    Chief Justice Ariwoola believes the judiciary cannot effectively carry out its role as a neutral arbiter and sustainer of democracy without adapting to the digital age.

    He said: “Democracy can only thrive on the respect for the rule of law.

    “Its principles also advocate the independence of the Judiciary, the doctrine of separation of powers, the guarantee of fundamental rights, freedom of expression epitomised by free press and media as well as free and fair elections, all of which can only be guaranteed by an efficient and effective judiciary.

    “Therefore, efficiency and effectiveness are not mere aspirations but essential foundations upon which our justice system rests.

    “They are also the cornerstone of a judiciary that earns the trust and confidence of its people.

    “In order to achieve this, it is imperative to explore innovative case management techniques, embrace modern technologies to streamline court processes, and generally dispense justice in a manner that restores faith in the rule of law.”

    NJI Administrator, Justice Salisu Garba Abdullahi, added that a vibrant and independent Judiciary manned by upright judicial officers remained indispensable to the sustenance of public confidence in the administration of Justice. He said: “The pursuit of Justice is the cornerstone of any thriving democracy.

    “It is essential that our judicial system operate with utmost efficiency and effectiveness to uphold the principle upon which our nation was founded.

    “In this light, concerted efforts must be made towards the timely resolution of cases, the streamlining of legal procedures and the elimination of unnecessary delays.

    Read Also: Tinubu sets up committee to consider gaps in police legal framework

    “Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to invest in several key areas such as ICT and also leverage on case management among many others.

    “We must ensure that Justice is not only done but should be seen to be done in a manner that represents the rights and needs of all parties involved as speedy Justice delivery instils confidence in our legal system.

    “On our part, the NJI will not relent in fulfilling its mandate of delivering quality judicial education to our judicial officers by organising workshops, seminars, conferences and by collaborative efforts to hold retreats such as this to improve the quality of judicial decisions and enhance the overall effectiveness and efficiency of our judicial system.”

    AGA Africa Programme Director, Chukukere Unamba-Opara, said the organisation works to strengthen the legal landscape and enhance the judicial capabilities.

    “Our collaboration has seen us engage in various meaningful initiatives, including but not limited to other retreats for esteemed Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Justices.

    “We have also conducted workshops on asset forfeiture regime under Nigerian law, the bench’s perspective on the capital market, effective administration of criminal justice and oral advocacy and electronic evidence.

    “This history of collaboration seamlessly paves the way for our continued support of this event.

    “These workshops are reflective of the work that we do across our partner countries – Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, and Nigeria in the areas of transnational organised crime, including trafficking, money laundering, and wildlife crime.”

    He added: “The breadth and scope of our work demonstrates the AGA-Africa Programme’s understanding that transnational organised crimes cannot be tackled without cross-border cooperation between countries.

    “If crime crosses all borders, so must our work as criminal justice actors.

    “If organised criminal groups can exploit the openness and opportunities of globalisation for their purposes, then we must exploit those very same factors in the pursuit of access to justice.”

    He said AGA Africa would leverage the impact of integration to develop multi-lateral strategies towards addressing common problems.

    Unamba-Opara expressed appreciation to the NJI for its support in making the workshop possible.

    Also at the event were Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Justice Ekaette Obot; Justice Nicholas Colin Browne-Marke of the Supreme Court of Sierra-Leone, Justice Smokin Wanjala of the Supreme Court of Kenya and Partner, PUNUKA Attorneys & Solicitors/ AGA Africa Country Coordinator Mrs Ebelechukwu Enedah, among others.