Tag: NJC

  • NJC bars judges, court officials from accepting gifts

    NJC bars judges, court officials from accepting gifts

    •To launch new National Judicial Policy today

    Judges have been barred from accepting gifts from other arms of government.

    Also barred are other court officials, according to the National Judicial Council (NJC), which has also outlawed lobbying of other arms of government by the Judiciary or any of its institutions.

    It has also outlined new measures to curb corruption and other unethical conduct among judicial officers and other court staff.

    These are part of the provisions in a new “National Judicial Policy (NJP)” to be launched in Abuja today by the NJC.

    The policy seeks to merge and improve on the existing NJC National Judicial Policy and a similar policy by the National Judicial Institute (NJI).

    The existing Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers provides that “a judge and members of  his/her family shall neither ask for nor accept any gift, bequest, favour, or loan on account of anything done or omitted to be done by him in the discharge of his duties.”

    But, the provision in the new policy particularly bars judges and other court staff from accepting gifts from other arms of government. Compliance is mandatory.

    Section 2(3)(2) of the new policy states:” The Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers and Code of Conduct for Court Employees, with the amendment discouraging acceptance of gifts from other arms of government, should be such as would be adequate. Compliance with their provisions shall be mandatory.”

    Further on its relationship with other arms of government, it is prescribed that “the Judiciary shall not resort to lobbying in ensuring that the Legislature and the Executive perform their constitutional responsibilities”.

    “All arms of government should respect the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution.”

    The policy has also introduced measures to further keep complaints against judges and other court staff from the media and public domain. Provisions in this regard are contained in Section 2(2)(4) to 2(2)(9).

    “It shall be the policy of the Judiciary on complaints of misconduct against judicial officers or employees of the Judiciary shall not be leaked or published in the media.

    “Where complaints on allegations against Judicial Officers and Court employees are submitted for investigation, the complainant or complainants shall be made to give an undertaking not to do anything to prejudice investigation or actions that may be taken.

    “The Institutions of the Judiciary concerned with investigation or and implementation of decisions taken on such complaints shall be obliged to cease further action where such complaints are leaked or discussed in the media.

    “Where such a leakage is occasioned after the submission of a complaint then all investigations on the complaints shall be suspended, the leakage investigated and if such leakage is from the complainant or through other parties known to such a complainant, such a complaint should be discarded.

    “Where such leakage is occasioned prior to the presentation of the complaint and the source of the leakage is found to be the complainant or through other parties known to and connected with the complainant then such complaint shall not be accepted, upon submission, by the appropriate disciplinary body.

    “Upon the conclusion of any investigation, the judicial disciplinary bodies may allow public disclosure of their findings, subject to following the proper channels for such disclosure.”

    The NJC explained that the new policy was intended to enhance the performance of the Judiciary in the face of mounting public complaint and dwindling public confidence on its ability to deliver justice.

    “In recent times, there has been much concern by the public about the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the judicial system.In particular, there has been waning confidence in the performance of the superior courts in regard to justice delivery.

    “Such concerns make it imperative to identify issues and problems militating against a credible justice delivery system that would command the confidence of the citizen.

    “The need to put in place a judicial policy is borne out of the realisation that the most efficient and realistic way to deal with the identified issues and problems is by way of a judicial policy that would guide and provide principles and guidelines for tackling, and dealing with the issues and providing actions for objective and durable solutions to the problems.

    “In the final analysis, the objective of the National Judicial Policy is to promote and ensure the highest possible standard of qualitative justice delivery,” it said.

  • Ondo PDP candidacy crisis: Jegede’s group petitions NJC

    Ondo PDP candidacy crisis: Jegede’s group petitions NJC

    • Ibrahim to INEC: I’m candidate

    The Peoples Democratic Party in Ondo State has petitioned President Muhammadu Buhari, the National Judicial Council (NJC), and the Attorney -General of the Federation over alleged unethical conduct and criminal conspiracy to subvert justice in a suit on the party’s governorship candidate.

    In separate petitions against Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court Abuja and others, the party alleged unethical conduct in the handling of the suit by Prince Biyi Poroye and eight others against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and PDP.

    In the petition signed by Ondo PDP Chairman Clement Faboyede, the party said it was taken aback when, on October 14, Justice Abang granted an order directing INEC to substitute the name of Mr Eyitayo Jegede with Jimoh Ibrahim as PDP’s candidate.

    The party said the judgment was based on a September 29 motion on notice for the enforcement of an earlier ruling of June 29 in which the applicants sought an order requiring PDP to reject any other nomination forms submitted by any persons apart from Ibrahim.

    “When the application which gave rise to the said order of 14th October 2016 was brought , heard and granted, the judge and the counsel were aware that Eyitayo Jegede’s name had been forwarded to the INEC by the PDP as its candidate,” the petitioner said.

    It added that Jegede was allegedly not afforded an opportunity to be heard.

    But businessman Jimoh Ibrahim slammed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for not immediately recognising him as the candidate.

    Relying on the October 14 judgment of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, Ibrahim said he remained the authentic candidate of the party in the election.

    The suit was jointly filed by the Executive committees of the PDP in Ondo, Osun and Oyo states, with INEC and the PDP as defendants.

    Extract from the Justice Okon Abang’s judgment stated: “That INEC shall accept and process for the purpose of its functions and activities in organisation and conduct of Ondo State governorship election only the nomination of Barrister Jimoh Ibrahim who emerged from primary election conducted by the 1st and 2nd judgment creditors/applicants on 29th August, 2016 as the candidate of the PDP in the said Ondo state governorship election slated for November 2016”.

    However, INEC had said that it would await the outcome of an appeal against the judgement, expected to be delivered on October 27. The appeal was filed by the Makarfi camp.

    But Ibrahim said yesterday that it was out of place for INEC to take such a position.

    According to him, the said appeal referred to by INEC was filed by an individual who was not party to the original suit in the first place. He added that there was no appeal against the judgment, insisting that the individual seeking leave to appeal the judgment was an “outsider”.

    Ibrahim called for the removal of the Ondo State Resident  Electoral Commissioner (REC) for alleged partisanship.

  • The many cover-ups by NJC

    The many cover-ups by NJC

    The attention of the members of the Civil Society Network Against Corruption  (CSNAC) been drawn to the claim of the National Judicial Council (NJC) that it has acted on all petitions alleging misconduct on the part of  judicial officers in line with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. The claim of the National Judicial Council is completely misleading because it is far from the truth.

    Contrary to such claim, CSNAC wishes to state that the deliberate refusal of the NJC to investigate and sanction judges accused of corruption, abuse of office and other acts of misconduct by members of the public has encouraged judicial corruption in the country. Corruption and impunity is endemic in Nigeria’s judicial system. In other words, the outright failure of the judiciary to purge the Nigerian judicial system of corrupt practices has eroded public confidence in the judiciary. Indeed, the disciplinary measures meted out to some erring judges have cast serious doubt on the expressed commitment of the NJC to restore public confidence in the country’s judiciary.

    The claim of the NJC that it is committed to the anti-corruption policy of the Muhammadu Buhari   administration flies in the face of the granting of frivolous injunctions issued by judges which have frustrated the investigation and prosecution of politically exposed persons and people accused of corruption. In several other cases, judges involved in the trial of corruption cases as well as the appellate courts have granted stay of proceedings to stall the prosecution of corrupt people in the society. Apart from the case of Justice Mohammed Yunusa who was recently recommended for retirement by the NJC, no other judge has been sanctioned by the NJC for frustrating the fight against corruption. Even in the case of Justice Yunusa, the NJC failed to act until CSNAC had to compile seven cases in which the judge granted perpetual injunction to restrain the EFCC, ICPC and the offices of the Inspector-General of Police and Attorney-General of the Federation from prosecuting some persons accused of criminal diversion of billions of naira.

    In view of the false claim of the NJC that it has been dealing promptly with allegations of misconduct against judicial officers, CSNAC is compelled to ask the NJC why it has decided not to investigate and sanction judges alleged of judicial corruption in the following petitions:

    (1) The petition against Justice B.A Adejumo, President of the National Industrial Court for granting illegal ex parte orders against two state governments.  The petitions were submitted to the NJC by the governments of Edo and Oyo states.

    (2) The petition written against the President of the Court of Appeal for the failure to hear and determine the appeal filed by the EFCC in 2008 at the Court of Appeal against the judgment of Justice Buba in the Peter Odili case. The counsel handling the case on behalf of the EFCC is the current President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. A. B. Mahmoud SAN. The petition was written by the CSNAC.

    (3) The petition written against four judges namely Justice Uwani Abba-Aji of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ibrahim Auta, Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa and Mohammed Yunusa  of Federal High Court and Chief Judge of the Federal High Court alleged to have collected bribes from Mr. Rickey Tarfa (SAN) currently undergoing trial for  transfer of sums of money to the judges. The petition was submitted to the NJC by the CSNAC.

    (4) The petition written against Justice Marcel Awokulehin for sentencing convicted drug dealers to lesser terms contrary to the provisions of the NDLEA Act. The petition was submitted to the NJC by the CSNAC.

    (5) The petition written against Justice Abdul Kafarati for gross misconduct and desecration of the bench. The petition was submitted to the NJC by the CSNAC.

    (6) The petition written against Justice Adejumo  for recommending unqualified candidates who were appointed as judges of the National Industrial Court. The petition was written by the CSNAC.

    (7) The NJC gave the impression that there is only one petition pending against Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the federal high court. This is not correct as the NJC also received a petition alleging that the judge wrote two judgments in one case. The petition together with the two judgments was submitted to the NJC by the Committee of Anambra State PDP House of Representatives Members-Elect.

    (8) On not less than two occasions, Justice Ademola has obtained injunctions to restrain the NJC from investigating allegations of corruption against him. What steps did the NJC take to set aside the black market injunctions?

    (9) Justice I. A. Umezulike, Chief Judge of Enugu State has been retired on the recommendation of the NJC for launching a book where he collected N10 million from a litigant. Why was Justice Ibrahim Auta who collected over N40 million from his book launch not recommended for retirement by the NJC? A petition to this effect was submitted by CSNAC.

    (10) The petition submitted to the NJC by the DSS last week on the 15 judges who are said to have engaged in money laundering and corruption was not considered. Did the same NJC not recommend the dismissal and and prosecution of Justice Kabiru Auta who had collected N200 million bribe from a litigant. Why was the NJC silent on the millions of naira, dollars, pounds and other foreign currencies?

    In the press statement issued  at the end of its meeting last week, the NJC  claimed that it recommended Justice Tiamiya of the Court of Appeal for retirement because he demanded N200 million from a litigant whose appeal in an election petition was pending before the Court. Is the NJC not aware that anyone who demands a bribe has committed a serious offence under the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Offences Act? Why was he not recommended for prosecution?

    We recall that the NJC recently recommended the retirement of some judges for not delivering judgments within the 90 days stipulated by the Constitution. But why was Justice Rita Ajumogobia  merely warned by the NJC even though it was found as a fact she did not deliver judgment in a pre-election matter until the expiration of the term of office of the defendant?

     

    The cases cited above are among several others alleging corruption and misconduct on the part of some members of the NJC and other judges who are said to be untouchable in the judiciary. It is the cover of judicial corruption which has led the DSS to intervene in order to end impunity in the Nigerian judiciary.

    CSNAC is of firm opinion that corruption and impunity in the judiciary pose serious disincentive to credible administration of justice as well impugn on the collective psyche of stakeholders in the judicial system.  CSNAC therefore calls on the NJC to join the calls to rid the judiciary of bad eggs, in the interest of justice, democracy and good governance.

    In view of the foregoing, CSNAC is compelled to call on the NJC to investigate the petitions referred to above without any further delay. Meanwhile the public deserves to know why the NJC refused to investigate the judges involved in the serious allegations of misconduct raised in the said petitions.

     

    • Suraju is a member of Civil Society Network Against Corruption
  • Lawyers: DSS can arraign judges not suspended by NJC

    Lawyers: DSS can arraign judges not suspended by NJC

    There is no law stopping the Department of State Sevices (DSS) from arraigning judges, who have not been suspended by the National Judicial Council (NJC), lawyers said yesterday.

    They stated that the NJC’s disciplinary process was neither superior to, nor the same as arraignment of a judicial officer by a law enforcement agency.

    The lawyers included Chief Ganiyu Adetola-Kaseem (SAN); former chairman, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch Yinka Farounbi; member, Ogun State Judiciary Service Commission Abayomi Omoyinmi; former welfare officer NBA Ikeja Branch Samson Omodara and Lagos lawyer Ugochukwu Ukamba.

    They argued that notwithstanding presumption of innocence in the judges’ favour, they could not rely on the NJC’s refusal to suspend them to avoid prosecution by a law enforcement agency.

    But Dr. Paul Ananaba (SAN) mulled over the practicability of arraigning sitting judicial officers in courts where the judges are supervised by the NJC.

    The NJC at its meeting in Abuja last week insisted that the DSS must follow due process in its handling of allegations against the judges.

    Of the nine judges, six are not the subject of any disciplinary procedures at the NJC while three had been recommended for suspension by the NJC for misconduct.

    The two Supreme Court Justices – Justices Sylvester Ngwuta and Inyang Okoro – who were among those arrested and amitted to administrative bail by the DSS, have gone back to their duty posts.

    Those under investigation, besides the duo, are the suspended Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya; Justice Adeniyi Ademola (Federal High Court); suspended Chief Judge of Enugu State, Justice I. A. Umezulike; suspended Justice Kabiru Auta of Kano State High Court; Justice Muazu Pindiga (Gombe State High Court); Justice Bashir Sukola and Justice Ladan Manir of the Kaduna State High Court.

    Adetola-Kaseem said the initiation of a disciplinary process by or before an employer or a supervisory authority and arraignment before a court for a criminal complaint  ”are two  distinct processes”.

    He added: “Therefore, the latter can be go on before disciplinary process is initiated.  Once  a suspect has  been  successfully  arraigned, depending on  the  nature  of the offence  allegedly  committed, disciplinary  process  can  be  commenced  against him, at least  for  the  purpose  of  placing  him  on  interdiction  or suspension pending  the  determination  of  the  criminal  charge  against  him.

    “This is the  principle in the public service which I believe also applies to judicial service.

    “Applying  this principle  to the  case  of  the  judges, I believe that if they have sufficient materials upon which to ground a charge or charges, the  DSS, through appropriate  prosecution  agency, can arraign  any  of the  judges even before any  disciplinary  process  is commenced  against such  a judge or  judges.”

    Ananaba said he “completely” agreed that corruption must be fought and that “any judge that is corrupt must not be allowed to sit” and should face disciplinary proceedings but that the DSS should follow due process.

    “I believe that the DSS will read the NJC’s response and comply with it. I believe the DSS has a legal department which, along with the Office of the Attorney-General, will weigh into this matter and ensure that it follows the NJC’s response.

    “The NJC’s creation and powers are constitutional and not by an Act of Parliament, so it takes eminence over any agency, in this instance.

    ”Which courts are you going to arraign them? Are they not courts where the judges are supervised by the NJC?”

    Farounbi said the planned trial of the judges had become a matter of public interest and “it is therefore a welcome development that they are going to be formally charged.”

    ”The implication of this is that it will enable the DSS convince the public that its act is patriotic and afford the justices and judges to prove their presumed innocence”, he stated.

    Omoyinmi found nothing wrong in the planned arraignment.

    He said: “The arraignment of anyone accused of corruption is a normal procedure in our criminal litigation regardless of status attributed to such individuals.”

    “No one is above the law; the DSS can arraign the judges that allegations of corruption have been alleged against. There is no law or rules of practice that suggest that the judges must first be suspended before they can be tried.”

    Omodara, who “did not totally agree with the modus operandi of the DSS,” stated that although it was unusual, judges will not be immune from prosecution if evidence of corruption against them is found.

    “Though unconventional in the history of the legal profession to see judges arraigned particularly as it relates to corruption, they are not immune to such if actually there is prima facie evidence against such judges.

     

  • NJC dares DSS, refuses  to suspend judges

    NJC dares DSS, refuses to suspend judges

    •Awaits formal petition, evidence from DSS
    •Sends Onnoghen’s name to President
    •CJN writes President on judges’ ordeal

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) appears to have drawn the battle line with the Department of State Security (DSS) following the agency’s recent arrest of nine judges for alleged corruption.

    The council has decided against suspending six of the judges contrary to the expectation of the DSS.

    The remaining three had earlier been recommended for suspension by the NJC for misconduct.

    The council, The Nation, gathered yesterday is insisting on the DSS providing evidence of its allegations of corruption against the judges before any official sanction can be taken against them.

    The NJC’s refusal to suspend the six serving judges is believed to be delaying their arraignment in court.

    The two Supreme Court Justices – Justices Sylvester Ngwuta and Inyang Okoro – who were among those arrested and granted administrative bail by the DSS have already gone back to their duty posts while the NJC has formally written a letter to President Muhammadu Buhari seeking the confirmation of Justice Walter Onnoghen as the next Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    Justice Mahmud Mohammed forwarded a separate letter to the President detailing the ordeal of arrested judges.

    The NJC at its meeting in Abuja during the week insisted that  the DSS must follow due process in its handling of  the allegations against the judges.

    Those under investigation apart from Justices Ngwuta and Okoro are the suspended Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya; Justice Adeniyi Ademola (Federal High Court); suspended Chief Judge of Enugu State, Justice I. A. Umezulike; suspended Justice Kabiru Auta of Kano State High Court; Justice Muazu Pindiga (Gombe State High Court); Justice Bashir Sukola and Justice Ladan Manir, of the Kaduna State High Court.

    The NJC had earlier recommended Tsamiya, Umezulike, Auta for suspension ahead of their removal from office.

    Auta was, in addition, recommended for prosecution.

    A reliable source in NJC said: “The Council has decided not to suspend the six judges until due process is followed and there is evidence from the DSS on the allegations against them.

    “We will not shield any corrupt judge but the DSS should write formally to the NJC with necessary evidence and we will call an emergency meeting to consider the allegations against the judges.

    “You cannot build something on nothing. We have established rules and regulations for disciplinary action against judges.

    “As a matter of fact, when the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed met with President Muhammdau Buhari last (penultimate) Saturday, the President was alleged to have asked him: ‘Do you think I can do a thing like that?’ He also asked the CJN to put his complaint into writing.”

    The source said the CJN has already written a letter to the President on the ordeal of the judges and the need for due process in line with the mandate of the NJC in the 1999 Constitution.

    The source confirmed that Justices Ngwuta and Okoro had resumed work at the apex court, adding: “If not for the DSS directive that they should be reporting daily, they would be having their normal sitting in court.”

    A second letter from the CJN to President Buhari sought his approval for the recommendation of Justice Walter Onnoghen as the next CJN.

     

     

     

  • Judges’ arrest meant to cow Judiciary, says NJC

    Judges’ arrest meant to cow Judiciary, says NJC

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) yesterday condemned the arrest of some judges by the Department of State Services (DSS).

    It described the action as a threat to the independence of the Judiciary, which portends great danger to our democracy.

    The judicial body also described the arrest of judges as a clear attempt by the DSS to humiliate, intimidate, denigrate and cow the Judiciary.

    The NJC expressed its support the Federal Government’s commitment to the fight against corruption, but insisted that due process must be adhered to.

    The NJC, in a statement late last night, said it had nominated the second most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as the successor to Chief Justice Mahmud Mohammed, who will retire on November 10.

    “Council meticulously considered the entire unfolding events that led to the arrest of the Judicial Officers and the misinformation and disinformation making rounds in both Electronic and Print Media that the DSS acted thus because the National Judicial Council was shielding the Judicial Officers from investigation and prosecution for corrupt practices and professional misconduct.

    “Council noted particularly, that from the available records, the DSS forwarded only two (2 no.) separate complaints containing allegations of Corrupt Practices against Hon. Justice Pindiga; and corrupt practices and professional misconduct against Hon. Justice Dimgba.

    “The impression created and widely circulated before the public; that the DSS forwarded a number of petitions containing various allegations of corrupt practices and professional misconduct against some Judicial Officers to the Council, and they were not investigated, is not correct.  The Council urges the DSS to make public the particulars of such petitions to put the records straight.

    “Given the above background facts, on behalf of the Judiciary, Council is constrained to inform the general public that all petitions and complaints forwarded against Judicial Officers bordering on corrupt practices and professional misconduct, have been attended to and investigated, where applicable, by Council since year 2000 to date, within the powers conferred on it by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

    “Therefore, any Judicial Officer that was reprimanded by Council or recommended for removal from office by compulsory retirement or dismissal to the President or Governor, was done in compliance with the Constitutional power, Rule of Law and Due Process.

    “From year 2000, when the National Judicial Council held its inaugural Meeting to 2016, 1808 petitions and complaints against Judicial Officers, including Chief Justices of Nigeria, Justices of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal were received by the respective Honourable, the Chief Justices of Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial Council.  Eighty-two (82 No.) of the Judicial Officers were reprimanded (suspension, caution or warning), by Council, in the exercise of its exclusive Constitutional Disciplinary power over Judicial Officers. Thirty-eight (38 No.) of the Judicial Officers were recommended to the President or Governor where applicable, for compulsory retirement from office; while twelve (12 No.) were recommended to the President or Governor as the case may be, for dismissal from office.

    “In conclusion, Council wishes to state as follows:-

    • That it maintains its earlier decision that no Judicial Officer shall be invited by any Institution including the DSS, without complying with the Rule of Law and Due Process. That explains why when the DSS wrote to the Council by letter Ref. No. LSC.960/4 dated 14th September, 2016, to direct Hon. Justice Mu’azu Pindiga to appear before it, The Hon. The Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial Council directed the Hon. Chief Judge of Gombe State to ask Hon. Justice Mu’azu Pindiga to report to DSS, which His Lordship did.
    • That the National Judicial Council has never shielded nor will it shield any Judicial Officer who has committed any misconduct.
    • That the Department of State Services is an Agency in the Presidency and its functions as specified in the statute establishing it, is primarily concerned with the internal security of the Country.
    • That the action of the DSS is a denigration of the entire Judiciary, as an institution.
    • That by the act of the DSS, Judicial Officers are now being subjected to insecurity, as criminals might take advantage of the recent incidents to invade their residences under the guise of being security agents.
    • The Council vehemently denounces a situation whereby the Psyche of Judicial Officers in the Federation is subjected to a level where they would be afraid to discharge their Constitutional judicial functions, without fear or favour, intimidation, victimization or suppression.
    • The Council will not compromise the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.
    • The Council wishes to reassure the public that any person who has a genuine complaint against any Judicial Officer is at liberty to bring it up to the Council for consideration, after following due process vide its Judicial Discipline Regulations.
    • At the end of the Meeting, Council unanimously agreed to recommend Hon. Justice W. S. N. Onnoghen, CFR, as the most senior, suitable and competent Justice of the Supreme Court to President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, for appointment as the next Chief Justice of Nigeria to succeed Hon. Justice Mahmud Mohammed GCON who retires from office on 10th November, 2016.
  • NJC to make position on judges’ arrest public today

    NJC to make position on judges’ arrest public today

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) failed yesterday to make public its position on the arrest of some judges by the Department of State Services (DSS).

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Mahmud Mohammed promised on Monday that the issue would be addressed comprehensively at the NJC meeting.

    The NJC, which commenced its meeting on Tuesday, could not conclude on most issues discussed, which were eventually concluded yesterday. The Council however decided to make public its position on the judges’ issue, among others today.

    A source said: “We ended the meeting today after exhaustively considering the unfortunate incident involving some of our judges. Members strongly condemned it.

    “We also agreed on the successor to the outgoing CJN, and have resolved to allow the tradition to remain.

    “It was generally agreed that the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court should succeed my lord, Justice Mohammed, who is scheduled to quit the bench on November 10.”

    NJC spokesman Soji Oye confirmed that council’s meeting ended today.

    He also said the council’s position would  be made public today.

  • NJC to make position on arrests public today

    NJC to make position on arrests public today

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) has deferred its position on the arrest and detention of some judges to today.

    The delay in its position, it was learnt yesterday, is as a result of the council’s inability to conclude on issues discussed.

    A source close to the council said it discussed the issue of the judges and how it should communicate its position to the Executive.

    It was learnt that the council also deliberated on its choice of a successor to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, who is expected to retire on November 10.

    “The meeting devoted much time to the arrest and detention of some judicial officers. Members were not happy about the development and have resolved to reflect that in the council’s position.

    “The intention is to express our displeasure about this attempt by the Executive to intimidate the Judiciary. Although there have been attempts in the past, they never went this far.

    “This is a clear affront on the Judiciary and we intend to make them realise that such should not be repeated.

    “On the issue of succession, there is not conflict. Members are united on the need to retain the tradition of allowing the most senior Justice succeed the out-going CJN.

    “You recall the CJN spoke iin favour of retaining the tradition when he spoke at the inauguration of the new Senior Advocates on September 19. That is the position we intend to take.

    “We hope to conclude on all issues tomorrow (today) and make our position public, but as at now, we are yet to take final positions on most issues considered. That informed why we are continuing tomorrow,” the source said

     

  • As NJC goes on the offensive… (II)

    As NJC goes on the offensive… (II)

    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.

    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.”

  • Council forwards three CJN nominees to NJC

    Council forwards three CJN nominees to NJC

    As the tenure of the incumbent Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, draws to a close, the Federal Judicial Service Council on Wednesday forwarded names of three most senior Justices of the Supreme Court to the National Judicial Council (NJC) for consideration.

    They are Justices Walter Onnoghen (who is currently next to Mohammed), Ibrahim Muhammad and Suleiman Galadima.

    By the standard procedure, NJC is required to consider the three names sent by FJSC and recommend one of them to President Muhammadu Buhari for appointment before the expiration of the incumbent CJN’s tenure on November 10.

    The NJC, headed by the incumbent CJN, is likely to favour the choice of Onnoghen because of its reluctance to shed its tradition of allowing the most senior Justice to succeed a departing CJN.

    The incumbent CJN stressed this fact on September 19 while speaking at the commencement of the Supreme Court’s new legal year.

    He expressed his preference for the retention of the court’s tradition of allowing the most senior Justice to succeed a departing CJN.

    The incumbent CJN, who was born on November 10, 1946, is expected to attain the mandatory retirement age of 70 years on November 10.

    Justice Onnoghen was born in 1950 at Okurike, Biase local government area of Cross Rivers State, and elevated to the Supreme Court bench in 2005.

    Justice Muhammad, born on December 31, 1953 at Doguwa-Giade, Giade local government area of Bauchi State, was appointed to the apex court bench on January 7, 2007.
    Justice Galadima, born on October in 1946 in Nasarawa State, was appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court in 2010.