The National Judicial Council (NJC) has sanctioned over 70 judges in five years. There are indications that more will go as the judiciary cleanses itself of jurists with questionable character, writes JOSEPH JIBUEZE.
TWO high ranking jurists – the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya and the Chief Judge of Enugu State, Justice I. A. Umezulike – got the boot last Friday. They were compulsorily retired by the National Judicial Council (NJC).
Besides baring its fangs against the two big fishes, the NJC also dismissed Justice Kabiru M. Auta of the Kano State High Court of Justice for official misconduct and handed him over to the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 1, Kano State, for prosecution.
The jurists fell under the judicial hammer after members of the NJC investigated sundry petitions against them.
The council’s Acting Director (Information), Mr. Soji Oye, said the trio have been asked to immediately proceed on suspension, pending approvals from appropriate quarters.
President Mohammadu Buhari would approve the retirement of Justice Justice Tsamiya and Enugu and Kano governors Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi and Abdullahi Umar Ganduje would approve the dismissal of Justices Umezulike and Auta respectively.
Why the hammer fell on them
Justice Tsamiya
Explaining why it wielded the big stick against Justice Tsamiya, the NJC said: “There was evidence that the petitioner met with Hon. Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya thrice, in his residence in Sokoto, Gwarinpa, Abuja and Owerri where on each occasion, he demanded from him the sum of N200, 000.000 (Two hundred million naira) to influence the Court of Appeal Panel in Owerri or risk losing the case.”
Justice Umezulike
Regarding Justice Umezulike, the NJC said: “That the Hon. Chief Judge failed to deliver judgment in Suit No E/13/2008: Ajogwu V Nigerian Bottling Company Limited in which final addresses were adopted on 23rd October, 2014.
“That the judgment was however delivered on 9th March, 2015, about 126 days after addresses were adopted, contrary to constitutional provisions that judgment should be delivered within a period of 90 days.”
Among others, the NJC also found him guilty of high-handedness.
“The Chief Judge, sitting at a vantage position of senior judicial officer and head of court for that matter, should not have allowed his emotions to dictate his judicial functions to the detriment of the defendants in both suits,” the council said.
Justice Auta
The NJC said on Justice Auta: “He was recommended to the Kano State Governor, Alhaji Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, for dismissal and be handed over to the police for prosecution following the findings of the Council on the allegations levelled against him by Alhaji Kabiru Yakassai that the petitioner paid the sum of N125, 000.000.00 into an account approved by the Hon. Judge.
“That the petitioner also made cash payment of N72, 000,000.00 to Hon. Justice Auta in several installments through his personal assistant, Abdullahi Bello, ostensibly for the purpose of assisting a former Chief Justice of Nigeria, who had just been appointed, to secure accommodation and for the petitioner to be in turn rewarded by the award of some contracts by the said Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria.
“That Hon. Justice Auta facilitated telephone communications in his house between the petitioner and purportedly the former Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria on the other end.
“That Hon. Justice Auta facilitated meetings between the petitioner and a lady who introduced herself as the purported Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria in a Prado Jeep, escorted by armed police officer in a hotel in Kaduna.
“That after the petitioner suspected foul play and reported the matter to the police, Hon. Justice Auta agreed to pay the petitioner the sum of N95, 000.000.00 (ninety-five million naira) as part of his claim while Abubakar Mahdi was to pay the sum of N125, 000.000.00 (One hundred and twenty-five million naira) to the petitioner.
“That pursuant to the agreement, Hon. Justice Auta made a part payment of $11, 000.00 (Eleven thousand U. S. Dollars) and N16,000.000.00 (Sixteen million naira) cash to the petitioner and undertook to pay the balance before the commencement of the fact-finding committee set up by the National Judicial Council to investigate the allegations.
“That Hon. Justice Kabiru Auta admitted accepting to pay the money as agreed in AIG’s Office in Kano according to him ‘having suffered humiliation, and incarceration and had nowhere to go for help and in order to protect my image and the image of the judiciary’.
“He, however, said that the settlement was for him to pay N35 million and not N95 million and that to that effect, he paid N20 million so far including the $11,000.00; and
“Hon. Justice Kabiru stated in his evidence that the purpose of the petitioner visiting his house at times was that as a friend, he used to seek favours for his people who had matters before him, a conduct that is in itself self-indicting and a serious abuse of judicial oath.
“The above allegations against the three judicial officers constitute misconduct contrary to Section 292 (1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended and Rules 1.2; 1.3; 1.4; 1.5; 2.1; 3.2; 3.7; 4.1; 4.2; 8.4a; 13.1; 15.2 of the 2016 Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Judges sanctioned so far
Since the beginning of the year, the NJC has not relented in the Bench of bad eggs. Prior to last week’s sanctions, no fewer than 10 judges had been sanctioned by the NJC this year.
They include: Justice Oluyinka Gbajabiamila (Lagos State High Court), Justice Idris M. J. Evuti (Niger State High Court), Justice Tanko Yusuf Usman (Niger State High Court), Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia (Federal High Court, Illorin Division), Justice Mohammed Yunusa (Federal High Court, Enugu Division), Justice Olamide Oloyede (Osun State High Court) and Justice B.T Ebuta (Cross River State High Court).
Why they were
shown way out
Justice Gbajabiamila allegedly delivered judgment in a matter before him 22 months after written addresses were adopted and 35 months after the close of evidence in the suit. He was recommended for compulsory retirement from office.
Justices Evuti was found to have used three different dates of birth, such as September 15, 1950, April 10, 1953 and April 1, 1953. He was recommended for compulsory retirement.
NJC also recommended to the Niger State government to deduct all salaries received by him from September, 2015 till date from his gratuity and remit same to the council that pays salaries of all judicial officers.
Justice Usman was found to have falsified his age from June 27, 1950 to June 27, 1951.
NJC did not recommend his compulsory retirement because it had already accepted his retirement with effect from March 1.
It, however, asked Niger State to deduct from the gratuity the salaries he received from June 2015 when he should have retired from the Bench.
Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court was barred from elevation to the appellate court for allegedly adjourning a pre-election matter severally until the termination of the life span of the Ogun State House of Assembly.
She was subsequently transferred from Lagos, where she sat over the case, to Ilorin Division.
Justice Yunusa was recommended for compulsory retirement for making orders restraining anti-graft agencies from investigating some persons, including a former Aviation Minister, Mrs. Stella Oduah.
Justice Oloyede was retired because of the petition she wrote to the Osun State House of Assembly Governor Rauf Aregbesola and the failure to conduct herself in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of her office and impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”
Justice Ebuta was recommended for immediate retirement following NJC’s findings on the allegations of abuse of judicial power, suppression and illegal/forceful takeover of a property in Calabar as contained in the petition written against him by Dr. Ekanem Cobham.
A chronicle of purges
In June, Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, said that 64 out of about 1,020 judges of courts of record were penalised for unethical conduct within the last five years.
According to him, the measure was intended to rid the bench of bad eggs. He regretted that while the judiciary was doing its best to eliminate its few bad eggs, the larger society was doing less to curb corruption.
Mohammed said: “While the judiciary has been in the spotlight of public scrutiny, we continue to take active steps towards sanitising the Bench. Where petitions are received in respect of judicial officers, they are promptly investigated via internal procedures put in place by the National Judicial Council and where culpable, such officers are disciplined in accordance with established procedures.
“Under my tenure as the chairman of the NJC, we have not shirked this responsibility but faced it head on. Between 2009 and 2014 of the 1020 Judges in the superior courts, over 64 Judges were disciplined as appropriate by the NJC and some of them are no more within our ranks.
“It is, however, sad to note that public officials and persons, who benefit from corrupting judicial officers, are never investigated, apprehended or even prosecuted, even though the judiciary disciplines its own.”
Among those judges sacked during the year under review are Justices Charles Archibong and Thomas Naron. They were booted out in 2013.
Justice Archibong was found to have dismissed the grievous charges against former Intercontinental Bank Managing Director Dr. Erastus Akingbola without taking his plea. He also refused to release the Certified True Copy (CTC) of his ruling to the lawyers. NJC also found that there were glaring procedural irregularities which showed that Archibong did not have a full grasp of the law and procedure of the court.
For instance, he was said to have granted the leave sought in an originating summons that had no written address of the parties.
In the case of Justice Naron, the NJC found that there were constant and regular voice calls and exchange of SMS and between the judge and one of the lead counsels during the Osun Governorship Election Petitions’ Tribunal that heard the petition of the then Action Congress (AC) governorship candidate, Rauf Aregbesola against the then Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola.
Call logs of Narons’s phone showed that he was in constant communication with Otunba Kunle Kalejaiye, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and lead counsel to the then governor, while the judge presided over the election tribunal that would decide Mr. Oyinlola’s fate.
He later dismissed the petitioner’s claim and affirmed the declaration of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that Prince Oyinlola validly won the 2007 governorship election. Oyinlola was, however, later sacked by the Court of Appeal which declared his opponent and incumbent Governor, Rauf Aregbesola, the authentic winner of the election.
The NJC said that Naron’s action was contrary to the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers vide Section 292 (1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.
In 2013, the NJC also suspended Justice Abubakar Mahmud Talba of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court over the manner he handled the case of a convicted police ‘pension thief’, John Yakubu Yusuf.
The council castigated Justice Talba for what it termed “unreasonable exercise of judicial discretion” in the case. Justice Talba was suspended for 12 months without pay.
In 2014, the NJC sacked Justices Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court, Abuja and Justice Ufot Inyang of an Abuja High Court over acts of gross misconduct.
Justice Olotu was said to have breached laid down judicial procedure by delivering a judgment in a case 18 months after the final address by counsel contrary to the constitutional provisions that judgment should be delivered within a period of 90 days.
Justice Inyang was retied over a judgment in which he ordered FERMA to pay N460 million to Chukwuani in a dispute relating to a certain N27 million being unpaid sum of the contract.
The speed with which the order was signed by the judge, enrolled and executed despite a subsisting interlocutory injunction by the Appeal Court, Abuja Division, raised eyebrows.
On the list of dismissed judges are: Justice Dahiru Saleh, Justice Wilson Egbo-Egbo, Justice Stanley Nnaji, Justice Chuka Jideofor Okoli, Justice Chudi Nwokorie and Justice Solomon Hunponu-Wusu, among others.
Justice Chudi Nwokorie of the Federal High Court, Owerri, was dismissed for breach of his oath of office and abuse of his powers while Justice Wilson Egbo-Egbo, formerly of the Abuja High Court, and Justice Stanley Nnaji of the Enugu High Court were sacked for acts deemed by the NJC to have contravened their professional oath of office.
Justice Nnaji committed what amounted to judicial hara-kiri when in a case that was clearly outside his jurisdiction, he ordered that Chris Ngige, the then governor of Anambra State, should be removed from office.
On his part, Justice Solomon Hunponu-Wusu, who was a former Lagos State Deputy Chief Judge (Administration), was recommended for retirement from the judiciary after the council investigated a petition by the Tourist Company of Nigeria Plc, which accused him of shady deals in the suit between it and another company.
NJC goes tough on
frivolous petitions
There were instances where frivolous petitions were written against judges. When such petitions are found to be baseless, the petitioner is usually never sanctioned after a judge’s integrity has been questioned.
A former CJN, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, said soon after she assumed duty that the NJC received 139 petitions, of which 106 were “vexatious and baseless” and only 33 “worthy of attention”.
As a way out, the NJC launched the 2014 Revised Judicial Discipline Regulations. Under the new rules, writers of frivolous petitions risk a jail term for perjury because all petitions must be accompanied by sworn oaths.
Rule 7(5) (A) of the Regulations reads: “A complaint must be signed by the complainant and accompanied by a verifying affidavit deposed to by the complainant before a court of record.”
Petitions must be received within six months of the act complained about and must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit on oath, among others. Failure to meet the time-limit will result in the petition being dismissed, unless an extension is granted. Some lawyers have praised the new regulations, saying it would prevent frivolous petitions.
More judges
under searchlight
There are indications that more judges will go. It was learnt that more judges are under probe by security and anti-graft agencies for allegedly receiving monthly stipends from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).
The stipends were allegedly paid from the $15 billion arms deals cash which was spent by the administration of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan.
It was also learnt that NJC has received more than 20 petitions against some judges.
A Preliminary Complaint Assessment Committee was said to be sieving the petitions in order to establish whether or not there are prima facie evidence.
The NJC is said to currently have more than 20 petitions against judges in the lower and appellate courts.
Lawyers hail cleansing
Thrilled by the internal cleansing, some lawyers have hailed the development. A former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) General Secretary Mr. Dele Adesina (SAN), said: “I think this will gladden the hearts of many legal practitioners.”
Chief Gani Adetola-Kaseem (SAN), said: “People have been talking about cleansing the judiciary of corrupt and ineffective judges, so, to that extent one would say that the NJC was right to submit in this regard.”
Dr. Paul Ananaba said: “It is good that judges are going to sit up now and be conscious of their ethics.”
The way forward
Legal experts believe that a well-funded judiciary and well-paid judges would eliminate sharp practices, especially, cash-for-justice on the Bench.
In February, it was reported that Justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and all federal and state high court judges were yet to be paid their January salary. Also affected by the delay in the payment of salaries were judicial workers in the federal employ.
Analysts said it was worrisome that judges could be owed because of the peculiarity of their job which forbids them from engaging in private businesses, and the possibility that desperation could expose them to corrupting influences from the litigating public.
Another senior advocate, Mr Kunle Ogunba, said: “I think our judges need to be well remunerated; the condition of service should be made more attractive to serve as an incentive for judges to work harder. More judges need to be appointed, because our judges are overworked. The judiciary needs to be funded.
“If you look at the antecedent of the funding for the judiciary, you will see that the budgetary allocation kept dwindling year-in-year-out and it affects the overall performance of the judiciary as a separate arm of government.”
All eyes on NBA
No a few Nigerians expect the Bar to embark on self-cleansing, especially at a time senior lawyers have been accused of providing judicial cover to those who plundered the nation’s wealth.
So, all eyes are on the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) to keep his word by ridding the judiciary, including the Bar, of corrupt elements.
Mahmoud said in his inaugural speech: “The NBA will advocate for urgent reforms that will reposition our judiciary and equip it to play its future role. A clean, efficient, knowledgeable, effective and transformative judiciary is at the foundation of building an orderly, peaceful and prosperous society. It is the only way we can guarantee the rule of law and an egalitarian society for our people.
“The notion that a judge could be bribed either by a lawyer or litigant is completely obnoxious and unacceptable. In many countries it is unthinkable! The NBA under my watch will fight judicial corruption. We shall also make the legal profession unattractive for corrupt lawyers. We will ensure that the NBA does not become a safe haven for miscreant lawyers.
“As a strategy for rebuilding public confidence in the judiciary and the legal profession, we will encourage greater public interest representation in our activities. Therefore, whether in the judiciary or at the Bar, there must be sufficient infusion of public participation or public interest representation in our activities.
“What happens in the legal profession must be everybody’s business. Appointment of judicial officers should be more open and subject to public scrutiny. The affairs of the Judiciary need to be conducted in more open and transparent manner. The public should be aware of what goes on at all levels. We must devise ways of identifying and flushing out bad eggs at all levels of the Bar and the Bench. And this we must do as a matter of urgency.”
