The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Nganjiwa

  • Nganjiwa: Fed Govt urges Supreme Court to ‘forcefully apply law’

    THE Federal Government has urged the Supreme Court to “forcefully” apply the law in determining its appeal challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision on Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned the judge on a 14-count charge before Justice Adedayo Akintoye of the Lagos High Court.

    It accused him of receiving $260,000 and N8.65million gratification.

    The court dismissed Nganjiwa’s objection to the charge, but his appeal was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

    The appeal court held that EFCC could not arraign a judge unless the complaint had been acted on by the National Judicial Council (NJC), which will then hand over the judge for prosecution.

    In the appellant’s brief of arguments by its counsel Mr. Wahab Shittu, the Federal Government urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, set aside the order striking out the charge against Justice Nganjiwa and direct that he faces his trial.

    The appellant urged the Supreme Court not to be swayed by the fact that the respondent is a member of the Bench.

    “This appeal raises fundamental issues, which undoubtedly affect the judiciary, our primary constituency in particular and the administration of justice in general. This is a moment of decision.

    “Respectfully, the Apex Court owes a sacred duty and responsibility to forcefully apply the law, even when as in this case, the interest of a member of the judiciary is involved.

    “We are optimistic that the Supreme Court appreciates that the law operates on a scale of even balance without discrimination, without favour, not minding whose ox is gored because the Supreme Court is a court of law, a court of justice and a court of highest precedent in our judicial hierarchy.

    “It is in this sense that this honourable court is respectfully being called upon to uphold the law and to uphold the element of justice for history and posterity,” the appellant said.

    The Federal Government noted that the judge was charged with breaches of Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, which prohibits the acceptance of gift, bequest, loan, favour, benefit, advantage, bribe, among others.

    It said given that the judge was on trial for alleged breach of such official code, which would result in criminal consequences if found guilty, there was no justification for halting the criminal process initiated by the state to enforce the law.

    “This is another fundamental reason why my Lords should allow this appeal,” the appellant said.

    The Federal Government argued that Justice Nganjiwa was not arraigned for disciplinary infractions, which are in NJC’s exclusive terrain, but for criminal offences, which remain in the state’s jurisdiction.

    The appellant noted that it is the President, not the NJC, who has the final authority to discipline or remove a judge.

  • Nganjiwa: How Appeal Court erred, by EFCC

    Nganjiwa: How Appeal Court erred, by EFCC

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has identified 11 errors made by the Court of Appeal in its judgment striking out the charge it filed against Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court.

    In a notice of appeal filed at the Supreme Court by its counsel Mr Wahab Shittu, the EFCC urged the apex court to set aside the Court of Appeal judgment delivered last December 11.

    EFCC, in the 14-count charge, accused the judge of corrupt enrichment and giving false information contrary to Section 82 (a) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

    But, the judge urged the Appeal Court to determine whether in view of the constitutionally guaranteed doctrine of independence of the judiciary, the lower court was right to conclude that the executive arm of government, acting through the EFCC, can directly prosecute a sitting judge without  referring the matter to by way of petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo, the Court of Appeal held that whenever a breach of judicial oath occurs, it amounts to misconduct, and only the NJC can investigate such breaches.

    But EFCC said the Court of Appeal erred in its decision, which it said has no constitutional basis.

    It urged the Supreme Court to hold that the NJC’s independence guaranteed under Section 158 (1) of the 1999 Constitution does not preclude the institution criminal proceedings against its members.

    EFCC said the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction by NJC against judicial officers was distinct from the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the state, which it said is guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution.

    On NJC being the sole body to discipline judges, EFCC argued that the NJC was only vested with the exercise of disciplinary powers against judicial officers, but that such powers do not extend to criminal prosecution.

    On the Court of Appeal’s position that the NJC must first discipline a judge before anti-graft agencies can arrest him, EFCC said the Constitution does not confer immunity from investigation or prosecution on judicial officers.

    Besides, the commission said there was no constitutional provision making the powers of law enforcement agencies dependent on NJC’s powers in the context of criminal offences.

    On the appellate’s court’s decision that NJC must first hand over such judicial officer to the prosecuting authority, EFCC said Section 6, 153, 158 292 (1) and Paragraph 21 (b) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution does not give the interpretation that prosecuting agencies must wait for NJC’s decision before they can prosecute criminal offences.

  • Nganjiwa: EFCC files appeal at Supreme Court

    Nganjiwa: EFCC files appeal at Supreme Court

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the Supreme Court to reverse a Court of Appeal decision which quashed a corruption charge against Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa.

    It prayed the apex court to declare that the appellate court erred in law when it struck out the EFCC’s 14-count charge of corrupt enrichment against Nganjiwa.

    It urged the Supreme Court to, among others, declare that the appellate court’s decision was ultra vires because it conferred procedural immunity on the judge contrary to the 1999 Constitution as amended.

    The notice of appeal, which was filed by appellant’s counsel Messrs Jibrin Samuel Okutepa SAN, Wahab Shittu, Jiti Ogunye and Rotimi Oyedepo, was acknowledged yesterday by the apex court.

    Nganjiwa, judge of the Federal High Court, Bayelsa Division was arraigned before Justice Adedayo Akintoye of the Lagos High Court in Igbosere last june 23.

    The EFCC said he received a total of $260,000 and N8.5million to unlawfully enrich himself as a public official.

    Nganjiwa pleaded not guilty.

    The judge, through a preliminary objection argued by his counsel Robert Clarke SAN, challenged Justice Akintoye’s jurisdiction to entertain the charge.

    Last December 11, a three-man panel of the appellate court’s Lagos division presided over by Justice Adejumo Obaseki upheld Clarke’s contention that by virtue of Section 158 of the 1999 Constitution, only the National Judicial Council had the power to deal with the kind of allegations brought by the EFCC against his client, a serving judge.

    The appellate court agreed with Clarke that a judge could not be prosecuted until such judge had either been dismissed or compulsorily retired by the National Judicial Council.

    But in yesterday’s notice of appeal, the EFCC formulated 10 grounds of appeal challenging that entire judgment which upheld the preliminary objection.

    It prayed the court to declare that “the Court of Appeal was in error by introducing a procedural immunity clause for judges with substantive immunity protection contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.

    “The National Judicial Council lacks the powers of law enforcement agencies.

    “The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the prosecuting law enforcement agency in this case, has a wide range of powers to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.

    The commission further submitted that “The National Judicial Council (NJC) is only vested with the exercise of disciplinary powers against Judicial officers without such powers extending to criminal prosecution.”

    The EFCC is seeking to move the court to hold that “offences under the Criminal Law as acknowledged in the judgement of the Court of Appeal can only be investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement agencies without prejudice to the exercise of disciplinary powers by the NJC without any of the exercise of such powers being dependent on the other.

    According to it, “Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) does not confer immunity from investigation and prosecution on judicial officers.

    “There is no provision of the Constitution making the exercise of powers of law enforcement agencies on investigation and prosecution dependent on the exercise of powers by the NJC in the context of criminal offences allegedly committed by judicial officers in the discharge or outside the discharge of duties by judicial officers.”

    No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

  • Nganjiwa: Implications of Court of Appeal judgment, by Falana

    Nganjiwa: Implications of Court of Appeal judgment, by Falana

    Activist lawyer Mr Femi Falana (SAN) writes that the Court of Appeal judgment in the appeal filed by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa could have “far-reaching implications”, if allowed to stand.

    I am unable to persuade myself to share the views of some learned colleagues who have argued that the judgment delivered on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 by the Lagos Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Honourable Justice Hyeldzira Ajiya Ngangiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria (Appeal No CA/L/969c/2017) has clothed Nigerian judges with immunity. It is indisputable that the sole legal issue decided by the Court is that a serving judicial officer cannot be charged with a criminal offence in any court by any prosecution agency unless and until he/she has been subjected to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the National Judicial Council.

    The Hon Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo who read the leading judgment of the Court and her learned brothers who concurred with her Ladyship are not unaware of the case of Fawehinmi v Inspector-General of Police (2002) NWLR (PT 767) 606 wherein the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the immunity conferred on the President and state governors they can be investigated even though they cannot be charged with any criminal offence until the expiration of their term of office.

    The Court of Appeal has not said that judges cannot be investigated by the anti graft agencies. On the contrary, the Court conceded that judges can be investigated but that the report of any criminal investigation indicting them should be turned over to the National Judicial Council which will deal with it as a complaint of misconduct and possibly recommend the removal and prosecution of such judges to the appointing authorities before they can be arraigned in court. Realising that the judgment might be misunderstood or misinterpreted the Court made it abundantly clear that “no judicial officers is covered by immunity from prosecution under the Constitution as the Constitution only grants the powers to discipline judicial officers for official misconduct to the NJC.”

    Having read and digested the landmark judgment which has generated an interesting debate in legal circles I have come to the irresistible conclusion that it was a protest judicial decision against the special treatment being accorded to certain personalities and criminal suspects by the Buhari administration in the prosecution of the war against corruption. Hence the Court did not cite any decided case in Nigeria or any other common law country.

    In fact, their Ladyship and Lordships said, ex abundanti cautela, that the judgment had taken judicial notice of the decision of the President of the Republic to set up a panel of inquiry to probe a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation and a former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency. As far as the Court is concerned, indicted judges deserve to be treated, in like manner, before they can be properly prosecuted in a court of law.

    It is however doubtful if the Court of Appeal was aware of the fact that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had reported the judges on trial to the National Judicial Council which had endorsed the prosecution and placed the judges on suspension pending the conclusion of their trial. The position of the NJC cannot be faulted in the circumstance because the Supreme Court has ruled in the cases of Garba v University of Maiduguri 1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 18) 559 and Federal Civil Service Commission v Laoye (1989) All N.L.R 350, that administrative bodies lack the vires to determine the civil rights and obligations of any person accused of committing a criminal offence in Nigeria.

    Regrettably, our colleagues who have been celebrating the landmark judgment have not considered the fact that it has exposed our judges to greater danger. For instance, the criminal case filed against of one of the judges arrested by the Department of State Security (DSS) last year was dismissed by the trial court in his favour. Consequently, the judge was reinstated and was allowed to resume duty in his court.

    He has just been recommended for compulsory retirement by the NJC following another case of misconduct. But assuming that the President had dismissed the judge based on the recommendation of the NJC which might have found him guilty of the allegation of corrupt practices levelled against him by the DSS he would not have been reinstated since the dismissal would have been premised on the civil offence of misconduct. It is common knowledge that the age long practice of interdicting public officers on trial pending the conclusion of criminal cases pending against them is to prevent a situation whereby they are removed from the public service on account of criminal allegations that have not gone through the crucible of cross examination. But once they are discharged and acquitted they are reinstated with all the rights and privileges.

    Therefore, by asking that judges be disciplined by the NJC before they are prosecuted the Court of Appeal has made it impossible to reinstate such judicial officers even if they are eventually discharged and acquitted. With respect, such unintended consequence of the judgment has made a mockery of judicial independence and further exposed our judges to danger.

    However, since the judgment has seriously questioned the inconsistency of the federal government in the prosecution of the war on corruption the Court of Appeal has equally challenged our judges to apply the law to all citizens without fear or favour. Out of ingenuity some lawyers are going to invoke the constitutional right of equality of all citizens before the law to challenge the validity of the criminal cases pending against some civil servants on the grounds that the administrative jurisdiction of the Federal Public Service Commission has not been invoked against them. More so, that the NJC, the Federal Civil Service Commission and other executive bodies have been created by section 158 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

    Even professionals in the private sector who are standing trial for corruption will rely on the judgment of the Court of Appeal and insist on going through administrative procedure before they can be prosecuted in any court. For instance, a medical doctor who is charged with murder in a state high court for killing a patient in a hospital due to criminal negligence may challenge the case on the grounds that the Medical and Dental Practitioners Tribunal has not been given the opportunity to try the allegation of professional misconduct which informed the criminal prosecution. If such preliminary objections are filed the trial courts may have no choice than to uphold them as they are bound to follow the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Honourable Justice Hyeldzira Ajiya Ngangiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra).

    Finally, in view of the foregoing, it is indubitably clear that the judgment has far reaching implications for the judiciary, the anti graft agencies and other law enforcement agencies as well as the Buhari administration which has loudly proclaimed to be fighting a war against corruption and impunity in the country. It is therefore hoped that the EFCC will not hesitate to challenge the controversial judgment of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court.

  • EFCC files charges against recalled Justices

    EFCC files charges against recalled Justices

    Barely 72 hours after their recall, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has filed charges against Justices Yunusa Mohammed Nasir and Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court.

    While Nasir will face three charges, Nganjiwa has 14 counts against him.

    The anti-graft commission has, however, listed 33 witnesses against the two judges  who will face trial at the High Court of Lagos State

    The witnesses against the judges include MTN, two banks and 30 others.

    Justice Nasir is expected to face a three-count charge for allegedly “attempting to pervert the course of justice contrary to Section 97(3) of the Criminal Law of Lagos No11.”

    He is also to be tried for “corruption by Public Official contrary to section 63(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State No. 11, 2011.”

    The charge sheet reads: “Yunusa Mohammed Nasir between February and September, 2015 within the jurisdiction of this honourable court being a public official to wit: a Judge of the Federal High Court attempted to pervert the course of justice by engaging in constant private and confidential telephone communications with Rickey Tarfa SAN, counsel to the applicants in: (1) Suit No. FHC/L/CS/714/2015 between Mr. Adewale Adeniyi v EFCC & 2 Others, (ii) Suit No. FHC/L/CS/7 15/20 1 5 between Rena Prestige Industries Ltd & Anor. ‘7 EFCC & 2 Others, (iii) Suit No. FHC/ L/ C S/ 7 1 6 / 2 0 1 5 between Hair Prestige Manufacturing Nigeria Ltd & 3 Others v EFCC & 2 Others during the period you presided over the said suits as a Judge of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi.”

    “Yunusa Mohammed Nasir on or about the 14th May, 2015, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court being a public official to wit: a Judge of the Federal High Court agreed to receive the sum of N1,500,000 (One million, five hundred thousand naira) paid into your UBA Plc Account No. 1005055617 by Esther Agbo, staff of the firm of Rickey Tarfa & Co. in order to afterwards give decisions in favour of the chambers of Rickey Tarfa & Co. in cases handled by the said chambers before you as a Judge of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi.

    “Yunusa Mohammed Nasir between March and September, 2015, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court being a public official to wit: a Judge of Federal High Court agreed to receive financial benefit from Joseph Nwohike SAN in other to afterwards give decisions in favour of Joseph Nwobike SAN in cases handledby the said lawyer before you as a Judge of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi.

    “Yunusa Mohammed Nasir on or about the 18th March, 2015, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court being a public official to wit: a Judge of Federal High Court received the sum of N750, 000 (Seven hundred and fifty thousand Naira) from Joseph Nwobike SAN into your UBA Plc account No. 1005055617 in order to afterwards give decisions in favour of Joseph Nwobike SAN in cases handled by the said lawyer before you as a Judge of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi.”

    On his part, Justice Nganjiwa is charged for unlawful enrichment by public official contrary to section 82 (a) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, No.11, 2011 .

    He is also being prosecuted for “making false information to an officer of the Financial Crimes Commission contrary to section Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004.

    The charge sheet reads: “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa between the 18th day of January and the 16th day of December, 2013 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with an aggregate sum of $144,000.00 (One Hundred and Forty Four Thousand United State Dollars) through your account No. 328/446178/2/1/0 domiciled in Guaranty Trust Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa between the 6th day of January, 201 4 and the 17th day of November,201 4 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with an aggregate sum of $102,000.00 (One Hundred and Two Thousand United State Dollars) through your account No. 328/446178/2/1/0 domiciled in Guaranty Trust Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on or about the 27th day of March,201 5 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the sum of $ 10,000.00 (Ten Thousand United State Dollars) through your account No. 328/4461 78/2/1 /0 domiciled in Guaranty Trust Bank Plc so as to have a significant Increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on or about the 30th day of April, 201 5 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the sum of $ 4,000.00 (Ten Thousand United State Dollars) through your account No. 328/4461 78/2/1 /0 domiciled in Guaranty Trust Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on the 10th day of April,201 4 and 16th September, 14 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the total (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) through your corporate account, Awa-Ajia Nig. No 00009171331 domiciled in Access Bank Plc so as have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on or about the 28th day September, 14 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the sum of N300, 000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) through your corporate account, Awa-Ajia Nig. Ltd No. 0000971331 domiciled in Access Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on or about the 8th day of November, 2013 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the total sum of N5. 000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) through your corporate account, Awa-Ajia Nig. Ltd No. 0000971331 domiciled in Access Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income. “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on the 27th day of November, 201 5 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) through your corporate account, Awa Ajia Nig. Ltd No. 0000971331 domiciled in Access Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on the 8th day of February,201 6 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) through your corporate account, Awa-Ajia Nig. Ltd No. 0000971331 domiciled in Access Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    ”Unlawful enrichment by public official contrary to section 82 (a) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, No.1 1, 2011

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on or about the 30th day of October,2015 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the total sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) through your corporate account, Awa-Ajia Nig. Ltd No. 0000971 331 domiciled in Access Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on or about the 8th day of November,201 3 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the total sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) through your corporate account, Awa-Ajia Nig. Ltd No. 0000971331 domiciled in Access Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That on or about the 8th day of April,201 3 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the total sum of N 100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) through your corporate account, Awa-Ajia Nig. Ltd No. 0000971 331 domiciled in Access Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa between 17th day of April and 24th day of June, 2013 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, being a Judge of the Federal High Court enriched yourself with the total sum of N500,000.OO (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) through your corporate account, Awa-Ajia Nig. Ltd No. 0000971 331 domiciled in Access Bank Plc so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.

    “That you Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa on or about the 17th day of October, 201 6 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, knowingly made a false statement to Orji Chukwuma and Tukur Abdullahi, officers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, in the course of the exercise of their duty, wherein you stated as follows “the company then before my appointment really was doing any work assigned or given to it. But this account was not operational from the time I was appointed.”