President Muhammadu Buhari assumed office for his first four-year term on May 29, 2015, with a pledge to sanitise the Judiciary. Has he delivered? ROBERT EGBE examines his scorecard.
Most Nigerians would agree that eloquence is not one of President Muhammadu Buhari’s strengths. Critics often describe him as taciturn. But it is usually in action – or non-action – that the President speaks the loudest. In his four years in office, perhaps no sector has felt that action more than the constitutional third arm of government: the Judiciary.
In hindsight, it is not surprising that this should be so. The signs were there from the very beginning.
“The judicial system needs reform to cleanse itself from its immediate past. The country now expects the judiciary to act with dispatch on all cases, especially on corruption, serious financial crimes or abuse of office,” Buhari said in his inaugural speech on May 29, 2015.
During a town hall meeting with Nigerians living in Ethiopia on January 31, 2016, he emphasised that purpose again. The President identified the Judiciary as his “main headache”, in the fight against corruption.
At a joint press conference with the visiting President of Namibia, Mr Hage Geingob, last July 4, the President outlined his reform vision with greater clarity. He also lamented how corruption was hampering the project.
“This is all I can say at this stage because we are reorganising the judiciary. We are going to dedicate some judges to deal with corruption cases…”
Aside judicial corruption, other issues that required reform were funding, judicial financial autonomy and the rule of law, among others.
The government established the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption PACAC (Nigeria) in 2015, chaired by Prof Itse Sagay SAN, as part of the President’s strategy to combat corruption.
Its mandate included promoting reform agenda in the anti-corruption war, advising on the prosecution of the war and implementation of reforms in criminal justice system.
After four years in office, have these ‘headaches’ been cured?
Funding
Traditionally, the Judiciary is at the mercy of the Executive and Legislature for funding. This is because it has no real leverage in the budgeting process. The Executive prepares the appropriation bill while the Legislature passes it into law.
Before Buhari assumed office, the Judiciary’s budget was on a downward spiral from N95 billion to N73 billion between 2010 and 2015.
The effect of this manifested in uncompleted capital projects embarked upon by the Judiciary. For instance, the new Federal High Court project in Lagos has not been completed for several years for lack of funding.
Sometimes, judicial officers and other court staff didn’t get their salaries and allowances on time, thereby exposing them to corruption. Reforms including automation of the judicial process were also hampered by lack of funds.
Two years before President Buhari was sworn in, adequate funding for the Judiciary dominated discussions. Court workers, under the aegis of Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), even sued the government of former President Goodluck Jonathan, seeking to compel it to obey the Constitution as it related to fiscal autonomy for the Judiciary.
Although judgment was given in their favour, the issue was unresolved until the change of government.
However, following Buhari’s assumption of office, there was a temporary setback when, in the 2016 budget, the Judiciary’s allocation dropped from N73 billion to N70 billion, following a drop in government revenue caused by dwindling oil prices.
The government remedied the situation in the 2017 budget when the Judiciary was allocated N100 billion, its highest in seven years. It got N10 billion more last year and will probably get the same figure this year, if the President signs the N8.916 trillion 2019 Appropriation Bill, without modification.
However, as former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen noted at the opening ceremony of the 2018 orientation course for newly appointed magistrates at the National Judicial Institute in Abuja, funding of state judiciaries, which had been at the mercy of governors, was a major problem.
“The issue of inadequate funding at the state level is one of the greatest challenges confronting the judiciary of this nation.” Onnoghen said.
Nevertheless, at federal level, things seem to be looking up.
Financial autonomy for states’ judiciary
Last year, the President signed the Fourth Alteration Bill into law, rekindling hope that the age-long issue of financial autonomy for states’ judiciary and Houses of Assembly has been laid to rest.
The Fourth Alteration Act granted financial autonomy to the state Houses of Assembly and judiciaries, which empowered them to receive their allocations straight from the Federation Account (FA), instead of through the Executive.
Henceforth, the statutory allocation to state legislatures and judiciary in Nigeria is to be a first line charge of the consolidated revenue of the federation.
Over the years, stakeholders noted that a major effect of poor funding of the Judiciary was that its independence was threatened, especially at state level. The judiciary was forced to go cap in hand to governors for funding. Thus, some judges were afraid to deliver judgments that go against their governors to avoid pushback. Houses of Assembly were in a similar position.
Human rights lawyer and critic Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa described Buhari’s act of signing the Fourth Alteration Bill into law as ‘revolutionary’.
In a May 21 article, “Attaining legislative autonomy and judicial independence”, Adegboruwa said: “There is a particularly interesting and commendable development of the Muhammadu Buhari government that we are not talking about as we should. It is the 4th Alteration to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“…Why should it be tagged a revolution? By the bold and innovative provisions of the Financial Autonomy of state Legislatures and state Judiciaries (Fourth Alteration, No.4) Act of 2018, the road was cleared for the funding of the Houses of Assembly and states Judiciary, directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the states. The Act then amended the existing Section 121 (3) of the Constitution by stating that “any amount standing to the credit of the House of Assembly of the state and the Judiciary, in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the state shall be paid directly to the said bodies respectively; in the case of the judiciary, such amount shall be paid directly to the heads of the courts concerned”.
“It is indeed, revolutionary, for a sitting President to agree to grant full autonomy and independence to the other two arms of government. And the President didn’t stop there, but proceeded, as a mark of demonstration of his commitment to this bold initiative, to set up The Presidential Implementation Committee, for the enforcement of the provisions of the 4th Alteration Act, comprising mostly of seasoned professionals and other stakeholders, thereby throwing the gauntlet back to the people to grab this golden opportunity to free these two critical partners of democratic progress.”
Appointment of more judges
for Federal Courts
Between 2015 and 2017, President Buhari approved the appointment of more judges for federal courts. First was his approval in November 2015, of the appointment of 30 new judges for the Federal High Court. The judges were sworn in on December 2, 2015,
He has also assented to a Bill by the National Assembly, raising the number of judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) from 37 to 75.
Special Courts
One successful partnership between the Federation Government and the Judiciary against tackling the slow pace of the criminal justice system in the last four years was the establishment of special courts for corruption cases
As part of its anti-corruption policy, the Buhari administration in 2016, sent an executive bill for the establishment of a special court clothed with exclusive jurisdiction to try corruption cases to the National Assembly.
The federal legislators did not pass it, following which corruption cases continued to suffer inordinate delays in courts, which were congested with many other cases.
However, in September 2017, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, devised a way to actualise the President’s resolve. Onnoghen issued a directive to all heads of courts in Nigeria to create special courts for the exclusive trial of corruption cases.
The Heads of Courts were required to designate “one or more courts, depending on the volume of such cases, as Special Courts solely for the purpose of hearing and speedily determining corruption and financial crimes. Where such cases come on appeal, to either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, special dates on each week shall be fixed solely for hearing and determining of such appeals.”
Besides, a comprehensive list of all corruption and financial crime cases were also compiled and forwarded to the National Judicial Council, whose new sub-unit–Anti-Corruption Cases Trial Committee–monitored the enforcement of this initiative.
Lawyers, especially the Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), handling such cases were also warned to desist from delay tactics, at the threat of disciplinary action.
On February 1, 2018, the Chief Judge of Lagos State Justice Opeyemi Oke unveiled four special courts to try corruption cases
Justice Oke stated that the move was in obedience to the CJN’s directive. Kano State is also believed to have designated several courts for corruption cases, in compliance with the CJN’s directive.
Tackling judicial corruption
One issue, which the Buhari administration has shown relentless, has been judicial corruption.
The Federal Government, using the instrumentality of the law and anti-corruption agencies, engaged in corruption fight against some judicial officers both at the Supreme Court level and lower benches.
But, with raids on judges’ homes, prosecution of judges and the removal of Onnoghen as CJN, stakeholders disagree on its success.
Raid on judges’ homes
The President’s resolve to check judicial corruption, rubbed off on security agencies.
The State Security Services (SSS) carried out one of its most daring acts ever on October 4 and 5, 2016, when it raided the homes of seven serving judicial officers of the Supreme, Federal and High Courts across the country.
The affected Justices of the Supreme Court were, Sylvanus Ngwuta and Inyang Okoro. Those from Federal High Court included Muazu Pindiga, Adeniyi Ademola, Abdullahi Liman, and Nnamdi Dimgba. The seventh judge, who was serving in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, was ‘saved’ following the intervention of the state governor, Nyesom Wike.
The raids allegedly followed complaints to Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, by members of the public concerning corrupt judicial practices of some judges of the superior court of record.
The raid triggered widespread condemnations from most stakeholders, including the NBA, with some critics accusing the President of behaving like a military ruler. However, the SSS said it recovered large sums of money during the raid.
Justices Ngwuta and Okoro of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and Justice Adeniyi Ademola, a judge of the Federal High Court were subsequently charged to court in 2017 for various acts unworthy of the bench.
Justice Ngwuta, for instance, was charged before the Federal High Court, on November 21, 2017 on a 15-count charge bordering on money laundering and possession of multiple passports, among others. He was also arraigned before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for alleged non-declaration of assets. He pleaded not guilty at the court and tribunal.
During his trial the government alleged that while under investigation, the defendant made a call to a potential witness in Abakiliki and gave him specific instructions.
It told the court that Justice Ngwuta allegedly instructed the witness to go and get rid of some cars as well as remove a bag in his bathroom.
“Those bags contained N27million cash and the money was moved from the defendant’s house. The same person went and removed three luxury cars to an undisclosed location, the prosecutor said.
He explained that Immigration authorities from their findings said Ngwuta had four valid international passports, and that “earlier this year, the defendant had declared to the Immigration Service that he lost two of the passports, whereas findings showed that he was using them interchangeably.
When their trial appeared delayed, the NJC directed them to resume duties. Among those who returned to work was Justice John Nyang Okoro, Justice Ngwuta’s colleague at the Supreme Court.
Midway into his trial at the Federal High Court and CCT, Justice Ngwuta queried the propriety of the process, relying on a decision by the Court of Appeal in an appeal by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court.
The Court of Appeal, on December 11, 2017, held among others, that by virtue of Section 158 of the 1999 Constitution, the NJC has the exclusive jurisdiction to try judicial officers for misconduct.
Relying on this decision, Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court struck out the case against Justice Ngwuta in a March 23, 2018 ruling. A two-man panel of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), on May 15, 2018, also stopped Justice Ngwuta’s trial based on the appeal court’s verdict. The CCT upheld Justice Ngwuta’s argument that, as a judicial officer, he could not be tried in any court or tribunal, except after he has been subjected to the investigatory and disciplinary processes of the NJC.
Other judges prosecuted
Several others were caught in the web of the judicial corruption fight.
They included: Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, Justice Agbadu-Fishim and Justice Muhammad Yunusa Nasir
Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on May 15, 2019 re-arraigned a Judge of the Federal High Court, Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Godwin Obla, for alleged money laundering charges.
EFCC charged Ofili-Ajumogobia and Obla on 18 counts bordering on conspiracy, unlawful enrichment, retention of crime proceeds and money laundering worth millions.
EFCC said she and Obla conspired on May 21, 2014, to indirectly conceal and retain N5million in the Diamond Bank account of Nigel & Colive Limited.
According to the commission, they “reasonably ought to have known that the money forms part of proceeds of unlawful act to wit: unlawful enrichment”.
Justice Fishim
The EFCC on July 12, 2017 arraigned Justice Agbadu-Fishim, a judge of the National Industrial Court (NIC), for allegedly collecting N4.65 million from seven Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs).
The judge was arraigned before Justice Raliat Adebiyi of an Ikeja High Court, on a 19-count charge of unlawful enrichment.
EFCC alleged that Justice Fishim received an aggregate of N4.65 million from seven Senior Advocates of Nigeria, one other Lagos lawyer and a law firm between 2013 and 2015.
Justice Fishim, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Last May 24, Justice Adebiyi struck out charges against Justice Agbadu- Fishim.
Justice Adebiyi relied on a court of Appeal judgment to the effect that the defendant ought to have been investigated first and disciplined by the National Judicial Commission, (NJC) before the EFCC can file criminal charges against him.
Justice Nasir
Justice Muhammad Yunusa Nasir is another judge of the Federal High Court on trial for alleged perversion of the course of justice at an Ikeja High Court.
The EFCC arraigned him alongside a staff of Rickey Tarfa Chamber, Esther Agbor, before Justice Sherifat Solebo.
While Justice Yunusa is facing a five-count charge bordering on receiving gratification and perversion of the course of justice before the trial judge, Agbor on the other hand, is facing a one-count charge of offering gratification.
EFCC prosecutor Mr. Anslem Ozioko, alleged that the judge while serving as a judicial officer attempted to pervert the course of justice by constantly engaging in private and confidential text messages with Rickey Tarfa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) in a matter before him.
He said Esther Agbo, in the course of her employment in Rickey Tarfa Chamber, gave gratification of N1,500,000.00 to the judge to induce him to give favourable decision to the chamber in the matter before him.
Justice Yunusa Nasir was alleged to have received the sum of N1,500,000 paid into his UBA Plc Account No. 1005055617 by Esther Agbo, in order to afterwards give decisions in favour of the chambers of Rickey Tarfa & Co. in cases handled by the said chambers before him as a Judge of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi.
Onnoghen
The most controversial of the Buhari administration’s relationship with the Judiciary in the last four years is the removal of Walter Onnoghen as CJN
On April 18, 2019 Onnoghen was convicted of falsely declaring his assets after failing to reveal the money he held in foreign bank accounts.
The Code of Conduct (CCT) tribunal forfeited the money in the five accounts to the Federal Government.
His suspension over the charges by President Muhammadu Buhari in January, weeks before the presidential election, caused a political storm.
The president was accused of meddling with the judiciary in case the outcome of the 2019 polls was challenged in court.
Justice Onnoghen was also banned from holding public office for 10 years.
It was the first time a CJN was tried and convicted.
Onnoghen’s ordeal divided the legal and political communities. But it sent a strong message that no one was untouchable.
What’s left undone?
According to Adegboruwa, one area where the government must step up, is in the area of rule of law and obedience to court orders.
He suggested that the government’s failure to comply with lawful court orders is a dent on the reform process.
“So long as Col Sambo Dasuki (retd.) remains in custody against several orders of court for his release on bail, so long as judges are living under some mortal trepidation of persecution on account of their decisions, then the judiciary cannot be said to be independent, no matter the number of billions of naira thrown at the courts.
Adegboruwa urged the Presidential Implementation Committee to enforce the provisions of the 4th Alteration Act, to “seize the initiative of its peculiar mandate to get the executive to agree to obey all lawful orders issued by the courts and to desist from any form of harassment or intimidation of judicial officers, however subtle it may come.
“When this is achieved, then we can truly say that the judiciary is autonomous and independent, and the ‘revolution’ can then become true and real.”
A lawyer and cleric, Dr Charles Omole, also offered tips on how the Presdent can take judicial reform to the next level in his second tenure.
In his article, ‘Some Remedies to Judicial Corruption in Nigeria’, he suggested 11 ways this can be achieved.
Omole said: “Judicial corruption is not just about the judges. The clerks, registrars and administrative staff in the courts are the worst culprits in most cases of corruption experienced by the public when dealing with the courts.
Firstly, the judiciary sadly will reflect the condition of the nation as a whole. We cannot have an honest judiciary in a largely dishonest nation. So, what we can do is reduce occurrences. Corruption in the judiciary is a complex problem and needs to be addressed, using variety of approaches.”
One of his solutions is that prosecutorial powers, which must be taken from the police.
Omole said: “There should be a reform that limits the job of the police only to investigating crime and passing the files to a separate prosecution agency for determination of whether to prosecute or not in ALL cases.
“The police use their power to prosecute some crimes badly at the moment. They use it to fleece Nigerians and to corrupt the Judges, especially at the Magistrate & High Court levels.”
He also suggested a review of the appointment process for judges, to reflect merit.
“Garbage in is garbage out. If the appointment of judges is not based on merit, corruption would have been introduced from the very beginning. Such judges will feel emboldened to continue with the corruption that brought them into office in the first place. Selection criteria should be objective and appointment decisions well documented, with public access to information on the decision-making process,”Omole added.
The leadership expert also canvassed a “better and proactive intervention by the National Judicial Commission (NJC)”
He said: “NJC’s current laid back posture must end. They will need to be more interventionist to protect the integrity of judicial processes.
“The NJC must be more muscular in disciplining judges and initiating investigations even if there have been no complaints. The NJC should take on a monitoring role of judges and step in to query any abnormal or unreasonable verdicts.”
