The National Judicial Council (NJC) yesterday announced its decision to sanction Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court (Lagos division) for misconduct.
The NJC, in a statement by its Acting Director, Information, Soji Oye, has warned her and placed her on its “watch list” for four years.
She is also not to be considered for any elevation to the Court of Appeal or included in any ad hoc Judicial appointment till her retirement from the Bench. The penalties are to take immediate effect.
The NJC’s decision, taken at its meeting on February 24 and 25, was informed by its findings that the judge was found to have been involved in misconduct and act of injustice by failing to deliver judgement in a pre-election case and delaying her decision until the expiration of the tenure of the person, whose qualification for election was being challenged.
NJC statement reads: “The NJC, under the Chairmanship of Justice Mahmud Mohammed, at its meeting on February 24 and 25, 2016 decided to warn Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia and put her on the “watch-list” of the council for the next four years.
“The judge will also not be considered for any elevation to the Court of Appeal or any ad hoc judicial appointment till her retirement from the Bench.
“The decision was sequel to the petition written against her by Victoria Ayeni, alleging misconduct and injustice on the part of Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia for failing to deliver judgment in Suit No FHC/AB/CS/31/2011, a pre-election matter between Victoria A. A. Ayeni and Olusola Sonuga and two Ors.
“She was also alleged to have adjourned the pre-election matter severally until the termination of the life span of the Ogun State House of Assembly.
The decision of the Council on Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia is with immediate effect.”
The National Judicial Council (NJC) on Wednesday sanctioned Justice Ruth Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court (Lagos division) for misconduct.
The NJC, in a statement signed by its Acting Director, Information, Soji Oye, warned the judge and placed her on its “watch list” for the next four years.
She will also not be considered for elevation to the Court of Appeal or included in any ad-hoc judicial appointment till her retirement from the Bench.
The penalties take immediate effect.
The NJC’s decision, taken at its meeting on February 24 and 25, was informed by findings that the judge was involved in misconduct and act of injustice by failing to deliver judgment in a pre-election case and delaying her decision until the expiration of the tenure of the person whose qualification for election was being challenged.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC) was poised last night to drag Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court to the National Judicial Council(NJC) for investigation on the alleged N225,000 bribe from a lawyer Mr. Ricky Tarfa (SAN).
A formal complaint was due to be lodged with the NJC by the EFCC yesterday.
The anti-graft agency,it was gathered,decided against arresting or arraigning the judge because of its respect for the rule of law and due process.
A reliable source in the commission confirmed that “we are lodging a formal complaint against Justice Yunusa with the National Judicial Council (NJC) for the investigation of his inappropriate relationship with Tarfa.
“We want them to look into the alleged payment of N225,000 into his account by Mr. Ricky Tarfa(SAN).
“As the Chairman of the EFCC, Mr. Ibrahim Magu, has said, this commission has respect for the rule of law and due process. We will refer Justice Yunusa to the Chief Justice of Nigeria who is also the Chairman of the NJC.
“The outcome of the NJC’s investigation will further determine how we will treat the judge’s matter. But we are also ready to submit all relevant facts and evidence to the NJC.”
On the fate of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, the source said: “It is left to the NJC to take judicial notice of the reference made to him in the affidavit and find out if there was a book launch or not.”
A source in the NJC said the nation might have to wait for a while to know the culpability or otherwise of Justice Yunusa in the bribery scandal because the investigative process will go through four stages.
The source said: “First of all, the EFCC must send a petition to the CJN. Then the CJN will refer the matter to the Preliminary Complaints Assessment Committee (PCAC) which will determine the merit or otherwise of the issues.
“After the profiling by the PCAC, the matter will then be taken to the Plenary of the NJC. It is the Plenary that will now decide whether or not to set up a Fact-Finding Committee where the petitioner(s) and the defendants will appear with their lawyers.
“Despite these four stages, a petition or complaint can be given accelerated hearing by the NJC.”
The NJC and the President are empowered to determine a judge’s fate in line with the process outlined by the Part I, Paragraph I, Section 21(b) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 292(1)( a)(i)
Part I, Paragraph I, Section 21(b) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution reads: “For the avoidance of doubt, the said Third Schedule, Part I, Paragraph I, Section 21(b) of the Constitution provides that “the NJC shall have power to recommend to the President the removal from office of (the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the President and Justices of the Court of Appeal, and the Chief Judge and Judges of the Federal High Court) and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers”
Section 292(1)( a)(i) says: “A judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement, except in the following circumstances (a) in the case of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Grand Khadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and President, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, by the President( of Nigeria), acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate, praying that he be so removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body) or for misconduct or contravention of the Code of Conduct.”
In an affidavit at the Federal High Court in Lagos, an operative of the EFCC, Mr. Moses Awolusi, said the agency’ investigation of Tarfa’s Access Bank account number 0000964760 “shows that before the institution of the above proceeding, particularly on 7th January 2014, the applicant bribed His Lordship, Honourable Justice M. N. Yunusa with the sum of N225,000; a copy of the applicant’s firm’s account details showing the transfer of the sum of N225,000 from the applicant’s firm to Honourable Justice M. N. Yunusa is hereby shown to me and marked Exhibit ‘O’.”
The operative added: “I know from facts revealed during investigation that the said bribe of N225,000 was accepted and acknowledged by Justice Yunusa in a text message to the applicant wherein he said ‘Thank you my senior advocate’.
“I also know that investigation has revealed that the applicant’s law firm was in the habit of asking the Chief Registrar of the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court to assign his cases before His Lordship Honourable M. N. Yunusa in furtherance of the understanding between the applicant and the particular judge.”
The EFCC operative alleged that even a junior lawyer in Tarfa’s law firm “also engaged in the corrupt practices of their boss” by manipulating the court’s registry to fix and assign cases by them to particular judges.
According to Awolusi, there is evidence that Tarfa instructed bank officials through his mobile phone to transfer funds to other public officers.
The operative said details of such instructions “are being kept to prevent the applicant from tampering with evidence concerning allegation of corrupt practices against the applicant.”
The EFCC alleged that sometime in 2005, Tarfa collected $500,000 from one of his clients “under the pretext that he was going to bribe some officials of the EFCC”.
The commission recalled that on April 29, 2015, Tarfa’s law firm represented Michael Igbinedion, who was standing trial for laundering N25billion.
TheEFCC said Tarfa, on April 30, attended a book launch in honour of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, in company of Chief Gabriel Igbinedion, who was the chief launcher, and who donated N8million.
The EFCC said Tarfa did not advise Igbinedion not to donate the money since Igbinedion’s son, who was later convicted, was standing trial before the court.
The commission said Tarfa and his brother silks donated N7million on the occasion despite having cases before the Chief Judge.
According to the agency, Tarfa obtained $500,000 from one Prince Akinruntan in 2006, who later stated that it was by “false pretence”.
TheEFCC quoted Akinruntan as saying: “He (Tarfa) told me that the money is not for him alone, that he is going to settle the court, EFCC and many other people.”
A lawyer, Femi Emodamori, has condemned the dismissal of a petition he filed against the Ondo State Chief Judge, Justice Olasehinde Kumuyi, by the National Judicial Council (NJC).
Emodamori petitioned the NJC, alleging that Justice Kumuyi abused his office by directing the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Eyitayo Jegede, to administer the oath of office on Deputy Governor Lasisi Oluboyo.
The lawyer was surprised that the NJC could reply that the petition had no substance, despite earlier describing it as a petition which “speaks for itself” and directed the chief justice to respond within 14 days.
His reply to the NJC reads: “I received your letter dated October 28 on the above-subject matter wherein you stated that you had been directed to inform me that ‘there is no substance’ in my petition dated September 4 in respect of the above-captioned matter and that ‘the error noticed on the oath papers is not enough to warrant action to be taken by council on the chief judge’.
“Your letter was sequel to an earlier one dated September 17 signed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and Chairman of the National Judicial Council, Mahmud Mohammed, directed to Justice O. Kumuyi (the Ondo State chief judge) to react within 14 days.
“The NJC chairman had, in that letter, described my petition as a petition, which “speaks for itself”. The petition was forwarded with that letter to Kumuyi and a copy of the letter was made available to me.
“It would be difficult to understand how a petition that “speaks for itself” would subsequently be described as a petition having “no substance” by the same NJC.
“I stated in the petition that Justice Kumuyi “deliberately or wilfully” issued a false public certificate claiming to be the person who administered the oath of allegiance and oath of office on the Ondo State Deputy Governor, thereby committing a felony contrary to and punishable under Section 105 of the Criminal Code Act.
“I exhibited photographs and video recordings showing that it was the Ondo State attorney-general and commissioner for Justice that administered the oaths to the petition.
“I went further to exhibit the false certificate issued by Justice Kumuyi, which your letter under reference described as “oath papers” wherein Justice Kumuyi falsely, intentionally and criminally represented himself and personally signed as the person who administered the oaths. I stated that Justice Kumuyi had abused and brought his office into disrepute.”
Twenty-five persons have been shortlisted for appointment as Federal High Court judges. Did the process comply with the rules? No, says rights group and judiciary watchdog, Access to Justice. JOSEPH JIBUEZE writes.
The National Judicial Council (NJC) is violating its rules in the appointment of 25 new judges of the Federal High Court, a rights group the Access to Justice (A2J) has alleged.
It said the criteria being used do not comply with the Revised National Judicial Council Guidelines and Procedural Rules 2014.
The group said the breaches are considerable, and that if the current recruitment is allowed to proceed, it would seriously undermine the integrity of the reforms made in the Revised Guidelines.
The Guidelines seek to ensure openness, competitiveness, merit and transparency in recruitment processes as well as safeguard judicial appointments from being lobbied and politicised.
Among others, it provides for call for expression of interest by suitable candidates by way of advertorial placed on the website of state judicial service commission, notice boards of the courts and of Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) branches.
Guideline observed in breach?
“This rule was clearly not followed in the current recruitment process. The only publication made on the existing vacancies was an advertisement placed on the website of the Federal High Court. Unfortunately, our investigation reveals that no such call for expression of interest by suitable candidates was made.
“All that was placed on the website of the Federal High Court was a copy of the letter written to judges, heads of courts, Attorney-General of the Federation and the NBA president inviting them to make recommendations of suitable persons for consideration,” A2J said.
In addition, the group, in a statement by its Executive Director Joseph Otteh, said there were no
Otteh
appropriate parameters used in shortlisting candidates who were recommended to the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) and the NJC.
Following the ongoing recruitment exercise, A2J made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Mahmud Mohammed, who is FJSC chairman.
It also sought information from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, on the criteria adopted to fill the judicial vacancies. The letters were replied on August 27, and September 8.
In view of the letters received, the group drew attention to what it called significant breaches of the Revised Guidelines.
•Justice Auta
“The breaches of the said Guidelines are considerable, and if the current recruitment is allowed to proceed, it would seriously undermine the integrity of the reforms made in the Revised Guidelines.
“For this reason, Access to Justice urges the NJC to hold the process leading to the selection and nomination of candidates for the existing vacancies in the Federal High Court (FHC) to be in manifest and substantial contravention of the Revised Guidelines and is irredeemably flawed; and to direct that the process be begun afresh.
“We also urge the NJC to insist that any fresh exercise must adhere with, and be in compliance with the Revised Guidelines 2014,” A2J said.
‘How Guidelines were violated’
A2J said the current Federal High Court recruitment has been done in ways that conflict with the core goals of the Revised Guidelines , especially in the aspect of transparency and accessibility
Rules 3 of the Revised Guidelines provides that the Judicial Service Commission shall call expression of interest by suitable candidates by way of public notice placed on the website of the Judicial Service Commission / Committee concerned, notice boards of the courts and notice boards of Nigeria Bar Association branches.
Rule 3 mandates the publication of a Public Notice of existing judicial vacancies calling for an expression of interest by suitable candidates in at least three publicly accessible forums.
According to the group, the word “shall” makes it mandatory that a call/announcement be made, in the stipulated forms, for interested candidates to express interest to fill the vacant positions.
Rule 3(3) states that such a call for expression of interest/nomination must bear a closing date.
A2J said: “This rule was clearly not followed in the current recruitment process.”
FJSC’s position faulted
According to letter signed by FJSC Secretary, Mrs. B.A. Bashir, the only publication made on the existing vacancies was an advertisement placed on the website of the Federal High Court.
But A2J said its investigation reveals that no such call for expression of interest by suitable candidates was made.
It said all that was placed on the website of the Federal High Court was a copy of the letter written to judges, heads of courts, AGF and NBA president inviting them to make recommendations of suitable persons for consideration.
In his response to the FOI request, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, “respectfully begged the question,” according to A2J.
It sought to know details of the modes and avenues used in publicising/advertising the available vacancies.
“His response was: ‘That the mode of and avenues in publicizsing the vacancies are as stated in the Rules 3(1)(a)(i)(ii)(iii) of the 2014 Revised National Judicial Council Guidelines & Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of All Superior Courts of Record in Nigeria.’”
However, the group said the only notice it is aware of was published at the court’s instance – the letter posted on its website addressed to specific judicial officers and the AGF asking for recommendation of ‘… any fit and proper legal practitioner in Nigeria for consideration for appointment as judges of the Federal High Court.’
‘Guidelines not complied with’
The information posted on the court’s website, A2J said, is not form or the substance of what the Guidelnes requires.
To the group, such procedure negates the goals of the NJC Revised Guidelines as information of the existing vacancies was not published in the required forums, neither was information of the vacancies offered to the public or interested suitable persons.
Merit safeguards gettisoned
On merit-based selection safeguards, the group said there were no appropriate parameters used in shortlisting candidates who were recommended to the FJSC and the NJC.
In the FOI request, A2J had requested for details of the criteria adopted in drawing up the provisional shortlist of candidates.
It had asked: “Was there a panel or committee set up to scrutinise the applications? If yes, please provide us with the names of persons constituting the panel/committee, its head and its terms of reference.
“If no, provide information on how the selected candidates were shortlisted, by whom they were shortlisted and the parameters of selection.”
CJ’s position
In his response, Justice Auta said the professional status of those who recommended the candidates was an initial consideration, followed by the quality of judgments/rulings the candidates delivered, the available vacancy for the state and Federal Character.
However, Rule 3(4) of the Revised Guidelines provide: Soon after the closing date for the receipt of applications and or nominations, the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission/Committee concerned shall make a provisional shortlist on the merits consisting of not less than twice the number of Judicial Officers intended to be appointed at the particular time and circulate the provisional shortlist together with a request for comments on the suitability or otherwise of any of the short listed candidates…
According to A2J, the Rule provides that the provisional shortlist shall be made “on the merits”, which means it must be “based on the qualities of someone or something, or on the facts of a situation”.
To the group, most of the considerations that influenced the shortlist, as confirmed by the CJ, miss the mark.
“Selection on the merits would naturally look at the strengths or weaknesses of the candidates without reference to external factors, such as federal character even though that latter factor may come in subsequently,” it said.
Factors for consideration
Rule 3 (6) of the Guidelines defines factors to take into consideration in shortlisting candidates.
It says: In carrying out the provisional short listing exercise, the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission /Committee shall take into consideration as much as possible, (i) professional expertise and competence, including in the case of appointment of Judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and Justices of the Court of Appeal/Chief Judges/Legal Practitioners/academicians to the Supreme Court, the quality of judgments and performance and demonstration of judicial skills of the Judge; and in the case of appointment from the Bar, evidence of six contested cases in the last S years; (ii) sound knowledge of law, (iii) seniority at the Bar and or the Bench, (iv) federal character or geographical spread and where necessary and possible, without compromising the independence of the judiciary or allowing politics to permeate or influence the appointment.
From Justice Auta’s response, it was clear that these considerations were largely excluded from the process.
The CJ said the ‘quality of judgment/ruling’ was a consideration for the shortlisting.
However, Rule 3 (6)(i) says the quality of judgments and demonstration of judicial skills is only relevant in the case of appointment of judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and Justices of the Court of Appeal/Chief Judges/Legal Practitioners/academicians to the Supreme Court’.
“Therefore, this was not a legitimate consideration in the case of appointments to the Federal High Court,” A2J said.
The group said in relation to the process followed in filling the vacancies, there has been an interlocking sequence of putting the wrong foot forward in each of the required steps established by the Revised Guidelines.
It said the process from inception was marred by irregularities and breaches, which it said began with limiting the range of people who could participate in the recruitment.
It also denied otherwise eligible and suitable people the chance to be considered for the Bench, A2J added.
“The process adopted for the appointment is now so fundamentally flawed that it is difficult to build anything credible or legitimate upon this sort of foundation or correct the errors at any other stage of the process. Many Nigerians will be disappointed and disillusioned if this process is allowed to produce the next batch of judges of the Federal High Court,” the group said.
Threat of ‘mischief’ being perpetuated
A2J said it is deeply concerned that the procedure for filling the vacancies will perpetuate the ‘mischief’ sought to be addressed by the revised NJC guidelines if the procedure adopted is allowed to stand.
“Access to Justice also observes that apart from the power to officially communicate the existence of court vacancies to the Chairman of the NJC and FJSC pursuant to Rule 2(2)(a) of the Revised Guidelines, the Chief Judge of the FHC does not have, within the general context of the Revised Guidelines, the powers which he has irregularly exercised in the course of this recruitment exercise.
“The power to write, ‘… in the case of appointment to a Federal Court, to the President, Nigerian Bar Association ; or, in the case of appointment to a State Court, to the Chairman of every Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association in the State concerned, asking for nomination of suitable candidates for the proposed judicial appointment and requesting that he/she brings to the notice of suitable candidates the call for expression of interest by each of them’ belongs to ‘…the relevant Judicial Service Commission/Committee’ according to the terms of Rule 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(a)(iii). It was therefore wrong of the Chief Judge of the FHC, by himself, to exercise the power.”
NJC urged to reject list
A2J urged the NJC to adjudge the process to fill the vacancies as fundamentally flawed on the grounds of substantial non-compliance with or breach of its Guidelines.
It said: “The process adopted was not transparent, open, accessible and fair and denied a level playing field to all prospective and qualified candidates.
“They were also not merit-based. We urge the NJC to reject the list forwarded by the Federal Judicial Service Commission.
“By so doing, the NJC will be sending a strong signal to all Judicial Service Commissions and heads of court that it will not return to the ‘business as usual’ status quo in relation to judicial appointments and that it will respect its own mandatory policies and rules governing the appointment of judges in Nigeria.”
The National Judicial Council (NJC) has given the Ondo State Chief Judge, Justice Olasehinde Kumuyi, a 14-day ultimatum to reply to a petition by an Akure lawyer, Femi Emmanuel Emodamori.
Emodamori, on September 4, alleged that Justice Kumuyi administered the oath of office on Deputy Governor Lasisi Oluboyo.
The lawyer said the process was illegal. Justice Kumuyi was said to have directed the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Eyitayo Jegede, to administer the oath of office on Oluboyo.
Oluboyo was sworn in in April, following the impeachment of Ali Olanusi.
NJC said: “Re: Complaint of issuance of false public certificate, abuse of office and bringing the Office of the Chief Judge into disrepute against Justice Olasehinde Kumuyi, the Chief Judge of Ondo State.
“I forward herewith a petition dated September 4 against you by Femi Emmanuel on the above subject matter. The petition speaks for itself. I shall be glad to have your comments within 14 days from the date of your receipt of this letter, please.”
The National Judicial Council (NJC) has queried Justice Olamide Oloyede of the Osun State Judiciary over allegation that she unlawfully cohabited with another man.
Justice Oloyede recently petitioned the Osun State House of Assembly to impeach Governor Rauf Aregesoola for alleged financial misconduct.
The House has dismissed the petition.
A mother of four, Mrs. Emily Richard-Obire, petitioned the NJC that the judge allegedly cohabited with her husband, Richard-Obire.
Mrs. Richhard-Obire, in the petition dated July 13, alleged that her husband moved out of their matrimonial home in Lagos since 2011 and often travelled to Osogbo, the Osun State capital, to cohabit with the judge.
She claimed that her husband and Justice Oloyode were adherents of Grail Message and must have met in one of their meetings.
She said the alleged relationship between her husband and the judge had gone to the extent that the judge’s official car was in Richard-Obire’s custody.
Mrs. Richard-Obire urged the NJC to restrain Justice Oloyede “from further acts of having an affair with my husband”.
She expressed fear that the judge could eventually “snatch” her husband and encourage him to abdicate his responsibilities, if nothing urgent was done.
The petitioner said: “I am afraid that if something urgent is not done, Justice Oloyede may finally snatch my husband and he may eventually and finally abdicate his responsibilities. I have evidence to the effect that she has been addressing my husband as her ‘husband’ and also my husband addresses her as ‘my beautiful wife’, knowing that there is subsistence of marriage between us.
“I urge you to use your good offices to restrain Justice Olamide Oloyede from further acts of having affair with my husband.”
Following the receipt of the petition, the Chief Justice of Nigerian (CJN), who is also NJC’s Chairman, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, directed that a copy of the petition be sent to the judge to which she must respond within 14 days of receiving it.
A copy of the CJN’s directive, dated July 28, sent through the Osun State Chief Judge, Justice O. A. Ojo, was sighted yesterday by our reporter.
It is titled: “Re: Petition against Justice Olamide Oloyede of the Osun State Judiciary.”
The CJN’s directive reads: “I forward herewith a petition, dated July 13, 2015, against you by Mrs. Emily Richard-Obire on the above subject matter. The petition speaks for itself.
“I shall be glad to have your comments within 14 days from the date of your receipt of this letter.”
The Nation could not confirm yesterday if the judge had responded to the petition, as directed by the CJN.
The National Judicial Council (NJC) has introduced what some see as stringent conditions for petitions against judges. 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 will prevent frivolous petitions against judges. Others see it all as a way of shielding judges from scrutiny. JOSEPH JIBUEZE writes.
Corruption in the judiciary remains a daunting challenge. It undermines the rule of law and the judiciary’s ability to guarantee the protection of human rights. Judicial corruption victimises those who do not have the means to play by the rules set by a corrupt system.
•Mohammed
The National Judicial Council (NJC) is vested with powers to discipline erring judges. It sanctioned no fewer than 64 judges between 2009 and last year, according to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), who is the NJC chairman, Justice Mahmud Mohammed.
In most cases, it is through petitions to the NJC that judges’ wrongdoing is reported. However, there have been instances where frivolous petitions are 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.
Some of the complaints against judges have been found to arise from judgments, which ought to be appealed against. There have also been reported instances in which petitioners fail to turn up.
On frivolous petitions, the immediate past CJN Justice Aloma Mukhtar said soon after she assumed duties, the NJC received 139 petitions, of which 106 were “vexatious and baseless” and only 33 “worthy of attention”.
To address such issues, the 2014 Revised Judicial Discipline Regulations of NJC has been launched. Under the new rules, writers of frivolous petitions risk a jail term because all petitions must be accompanied by sworn oaths. This means that a petitioner who lies against a judge can be charged with perjury.
Some of the new provisions
Petitions must be sent within six months of the act complained against or it will not be treated. However, a petitioner can appeal to the CJN for an extension of time.
Rule 4 reads in part: “(1) A complaint must be made within six months of the event or matter complained of; provided that a complaint relating to a continuing state of affairs may be made at any time while that state of affairs continues or within six months from when it ends.
“(2) Subject to this regulation, a complaint made outside the time limits set in paragraph (1) must be dismissed by the Council upon report to the Council by the Secretary to the Council.
“(3) The Secretary shall notify the person making the complaint of the dismissal not later than 30 days of such dismissal.”
Rule 5 reads in part: “A person who is refused an extension of a time limit under paragraph (1) may make a representation to the Chief Justice of Nigeria/Chairman of Council, asking the Chairman, within 14 days of being notified of the refusal asking him/her the request, for an extension of time.”
Rule 7 provides for a committee which does a preliminary assessment of petitions to determine whether or not they meet the requirements stipulated in the rules. The Secretary to the NJC or the sifting committee can, at that stage, reject a petition.
The Regulations also provides that the petition must be accompanied by a verifying affidavit, be type-written, must be signed by an identifiable person and must bear traceable address of the complainant with his or her phone number.
Rule 7(5) (A) 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.”
Lawyers hail new rule
•Nwobike
Lawyers, including Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), welcome the new rules. For Dr Joseph Nwobike (SAN), the CJN and other NJC members should be commended for the initiative.
He said one of the consequences of new rules is that petitioners must be sure of their allegations against judicial officers before filing petitions.
According to him, the implication of false accusation contained in sworn affidavits is perjury; which in itself is an offence punishable under the law.
“So, frivolous petitions against judges would be minimised. Again, petitions will no longer be used to blackmail judicial officers when they are being considered for appointment or promotion; as is the case these days.
“One other significant benefit of the new regime is that once petitions are filed, they cannot be withdrawn without the leave of the NJC or the CJN.
“In all, I believe that the new rules will enhance and institutionalise discipline in the judiciary rather than stifle it,” Nwobike said.
•Oguntade
For George M. Oguntade (SAN), a regulation of this nature is long overdue and is certainly a welcome development.
He said the judiciary, as an organ of government, plays a vital and indispensable role in ensuring everyone lives under the rule of law.
“Judges are, therefore, highly regarded in the society and are placed on a very high pedestal such that they are able to do their work free from influence.
“Allegations against a judicial officer have ramifications upon the rule of law and the society and therefore not to be made lightly,” Oguntade said.
According to him, a trend has developed where litigants and their cohorts utilise allegations against judges as an instrument of blackmail and abuse of judicial process to achieve their objectives.
Even more worrisome, Oguntade said, is that the petitions are sometimes penned by individuals and entities using pseudonyms and non existent addresses. And where petitions are found to be frivolous, no sanctions are meted out to the petitioner.
“By the time these allegations are made and published, irretrievable damage has been done to the judge concerned and indeed the judiciary while the petitioner would also have accomplished his objective.
“In most cases, the petitioner will fail to appear to substantiate the allegations and even if he does and it is found unmeritorious, no sanction follows. The man is at liberty to go and prepare the next petition with total impunity.
“The regulations will, therefore, operate to ensure that only genuine petitions are presented and where it is found to have been improperly presented, the law will take its course.
“A would be petitioner will have to think twice before taking the course of action knowing he may end up in jail as a perjurer. This can only be to the benefit of our judges and the society,” Oguntade added.
Activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa said since allegation of corruption or misconduct against a judicial officer is a very serious matter involving very grave considerations and consequences, it is a matter that should be elevated from the realm of frivolities, malice and envy, or of mere speculation and rumour.
To him, anyone who feels that there is enough evidence to back up allegations should be courageous enough to depose to the facts constituting such allegation on oath.
“This innovation by the NJC is thus highly commendable and should be supported by all well meaning stakeholders in the judicial sector.
“Given that the career, name, reputation and destiny of a judge are all involved, no measure taken to secure the credibility of such endeavour may be considered stringent or technical,” Adegboruwa said.
He recommended that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), through its various chapters, should be incorporated into the process of cleansing the judiciary of corruption.
“To this end, petitions can also be submitted to the local chapter of the NBA in the jurisdiction where the judicial officer concerned is presiding. The distance of the NJC itself, in far away Abuja, may constitute a discouragement for potential complainants,” he said.
Lagos lawyer and Principal Counsel, Auxano Law Consult, Mr Chijioke Emeka, believes the revised Regulations came at the right time because judges have become endangered species in the hands of frivolous petitioners.
“Yes, there may be some bad eggs out there but many times the petitions are simply exercises in witch-hunting,” he said. “For example, a Judge should not become a subject of a petition to the NJC merely because he ruled against someone. But that has become the practice. I suggest more measures, like security for costs, should be added to damnify those who write very frivolous petitions,” Emeka said.
According to him, a judge should not be labelled bad merely because he erred in law or fact.
“The Old Rule is still ‘de fide et officio non recipitur quaestio, sed de scientia sive erro juri sive facti’ (“the honesty and integrity of a judge cannot be questioned but his decision may be impugned for error of fact or law or mixed law and fact” – Bacon Max rep 17).
“The NJC should even tighten the noose against petitioners who write against judges merely because they lost. A judge has the right to see law or facts differently from a petitioner or his lawyer.
“Only Judges tainted by moral turpitude especially corruption should be petitioned against. A very prominent lawyer once asked the Supreme Court for assurance that it would be impartial. That was wrong. Another popular lawyer deposed that a judge usually assigned certain types of cases filed by him to himself and they always ended against him. Again, that was wrong.
“Judges are engaged in very difficult assignments. They need protection too. Good and honest judges should not be smeared merely because they reached an unfavourable decision. Errors of Law or Fact should be appealed against and not petitioned against. Let petitions concentrate on dishonest acts. Every step by the NJC to see to this is right,” Emeka added.
Need for improvement
There are those who are of the view that such stringent procedure could discourage persons with reasonable cause from writing petitions against judges when the judiciary is generally believed to be hampered by widespread corruption.
While some lawyers welcome the Regulations, others think there are flaws in it. To Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), the revised guidelines will curtail the habit of the writing of frivolous, vexatious or unsubstantiated petitions by faceless, anonymous or disgruntled elements against serving judicial officers who are often helpless when such petitions are eventually dismissed by NJC. “To that extent, the NJC intention is altruistic,” he said.
However, he said there are still some grey areas that need to be fine-tuned. Ngige does not think it will be in the interest of justice to introduce time limit in the writing or sending of petitions to the NJC as a complainant may discover what happened in his/her case several months or years after the event.
“For instance, if he discovers that the judicial officer was compromised in the matter, it will be absurd to deny that petitioner the right to complain when he discovered what happened. I am not unaware of the provisions in the rules for extension of time by the chairman who incidentally is the recipient of the petition.
“It would amount to NJC covering up or shielding the judicial officer if the victim/complainant is told that his complaint is statute or time barred.
“Furthermore I think NJC should also include in its Revised Guidelines the right of a petitioner to be furnished with the response of the judicial officer complained against.
“This is in consonance with the rules of fair hearing. I believe that issue of time bar or limit should be deleted from the Rules just as Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules 2009 removed the issue of time limit which was then in force in the old rules of 1979,” Ngige said.
A constitutional lawyer Mr Ike Ofuokwu said imposition of stringent measures for sending petitions to NJC will not help matters. To him, there should have been sanctions for writing frivolous petitions rather than making the process of sending them in cumbersome.
“I agree with the fact that sometimes petitions or complaints against Judges are occasionally frivolous and baseless but honestly these are very rare cases and in my candid opinion cannot reasonably justify the imposition of stringent measures. ý
“For instance, how can the format of a complaint of corruption against a Judge affect the substance of the issues? Again, what happens to a layman who has genuine complaints against a Judge but is unable to afford the services of a counsel?” he said.
Ofuokwu said considering the enormous due diligence that must be carried out before a case of corruption can be established against a Judge, the time limit of six months should be extended to one year.
“I cannot see the CJN being generous with the rule on extension of time. It is our hope that this new regulation is not a calculated attempt to shield corrupt Judicial Officers.
“Judges must have an unquestionableý and impeccable character which must at all times be subject to public scrutiny. To put a clog in the wheel of judicial integrity is simply a pointer to the fact that somebody somewhere is afraid of the outcome of judging the judges,” Ofuokwu said.
Adegboruwa said it is also important for the NJC to have independent monitors and assessors because when infractions do occur, considerations of religion, consanguinity, tribal affiliations, among others, all work to silence potential complainants.
NBA’s intervention
Lawyers who feel the procedure is stringent or stressful have the option of sending their complaints through the NBA, which set up a committee to monitor the judges and report corrupt and lazy ones to the NJC.
The committee is to liaise with local NBA branches through which lawyers can submit their complaints where they have evidence that a judge has been compromised, has delivered a judgment that has no basis in law, or exhibits laziness by sitting late, among others.
NBA President Augustine Alegeh (SAN) said the association would then send a formal petition to the NJC after reviewing the complaint or questionable judgment.
“We do not have the power, wherewithal or statutory authority to appoint investigative agencies to probe judges. But we hear everyday of indolence and corruption. A progressive way of attacking these problems is through our branches. Lagos Branch, for instance, can do a sample of lawyers and come up with five judges that NBA can go into their courts, obtain and review their judgments.
“If you go court, and it does not sit; and another man goes to court and he feels that the judgment was obtained by influence – both of you are unhappy with the system. But people will not understand that the man who did not sit is doing as much damage to the system as the man who is corrupt. Indolence, ignorance and corruption are cankerworms. We must attack them together.
•Alegeh
“If we hear that a judge does not sit at 9am, it will eventually show in his judgment. If the Bar in Lagos are aware, the help we are seeking from our lawyers is let the branch send one of its officers to go to that court religiously everyday. When he leaves the court he will file an affidavit, that he had been sitting in the court till 11 am and the court is still not sitting. By the time we pile all that up, the association then does a letter, attaches all of these documents and sends to the NJC.
“The only way to know if a judge is corrupt is to look at the judgment. Read it, and the corruption will come out to you from the judgment,” Alegeh said.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has petitioned the National Judicial Commission (NJC) against Justice Saliu Saidu of the Federal High Court in Lagos over his alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for judges.
In the August 3 petition, it was alleged that Justice Saidu has not shown impartiality in handling the case between BGL group and the commission.
Pointing out that the whole BGL vs SEC episode is being closely monitored by large domestic and foreign institutional investors, the commission urged the NJC to investigate the judge’s conduct.
The petition signed by the SEC Director General, Mounir Gwaizo was copied to President Muhammadu Buhari; Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo; Senate President, Bukola Saraki; Speaker House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara; Chief Judge, Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta and Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Finance, Mrs. Anastasia Mabel-Nwaobi.
SEC had scheduled sittings of the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) for August 4 and 5, 2015 to hear cases related to investor complaints against BGL which alleged fraud totaling up to N5.8 billion. An official statement posted on the SEC’s corporate website however announced that SEC was “postponing” the sittings due to an ex parte court order issued by a Lagos Federal High Court.
Not happy with the court order, SEC had petitioned the NJC against the trial judge, explaining that its decision was borne out of deep concern that judges were being used to undermine its clear regulatory authority as outlined in the Investments and Securities Act of 2007.
“If the judges continue dishing out ex parte orders restraining SEC from protecting investors, future offenders will employ tricks from BGL’s playbook by approaching the courts to get injunctions in a bid to avoid accountability. On the other hand, if the SEC is allowed to appropriately sanction BGL and its executives for all infractions committed by them, a clear signal would be sent to the entire market that there shall be no sacred cows but only zero tolerance for wrongdoing”.
The petition outlined investors’ complaints which SEC has been receiving against BGL since 2012, its detailed investigations of BGL’s activities and establishment of an interim management team to ascertain the financial health of the company and protect unsuspecting investors who might unknowingly continue to conduct business with BGL.
The petition also gave details of BGL’s offenses, including questionable investments in unlisted/illiquid securities (in one instance investors’ money was recklessly risked in a firm already declared bankrupt).
SEC had alleged that BGL was in a bad financial state and posed significant risk to investors, its customers and the entire market. “It was sustaining losses of about N48 billion for five years in a row and faced liquidity challenges making it unable to pay about N11 billion of investors’ funds that had matured. And in the latest list of Debtors to First Bank Plc published in a national daily on August 4, 2015, BGL Securities is indebted to First Bank to the tune of N1.64 billion which matured since July 31st, 2012.
“With these obvious red flags, one wonders why any judge would be interested in aiding and abetting such an operator to continue participating in the capital market and endangering other market participants. Justice Saliu Saidu rather seems to be comfortable performing this task. On 27th May 2014, he granted an ex parte motion filed by BGL restraining SEC from suspending BGL or investigating its activities. He refused to hear SEC’s motion on notice seeking to vacate that order, even when it came up for hearing on 11th June 2015. First, Justice Saidu adjourned the matter till 19th June 2015 and then to 9th July 2015. Yet on 29th June 2015, he was willing to hear BGL’s ex parte motion to abridge the time within which SEC could respond from the 7 days granted by the rules to just 2 days. Amazingly, those prayers by BGL were all granted on the same day. According to SEC’s petition against Justice Saidu, this action contravenes Rule 2(5) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers which frowns at repeatedly granting ex parte applications”, it alleged.
The commission said that when its case finally came up for hearing on July 9, 2015, Justice Saidu yet again refused to hear it, claiming that the case was not “ripe for hearing”.
Yet on the same day, after SEC’s counsel left the court premises, he decided to hear the case and struck it out.
SEC stated in its petition that its counsel conducted searches on the Federal High Court records and found no trace for the mysterious order bearing Justice Saidu’s signature. The petition equally flashes the spotlight on one Justice Mohammed B. Idris Kutigi of the Federal High Court, Lagos who issued the latest restraining order
It will be recalled that when SEC set up an IMT to investigate further of the allegation and engaged the services of forensic auditors, the BGL Group obtained an ex-parte court order from the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, presided over by Hon. Justice M. N. Yunusa on 30th April, 2015 ordering the forensic auditors to vacate the premises, the SEC even though has an order from the IST complied.
It said it has become very obvious that BGL seems to have hatched a well calculated antic to manipulate the judiciary to avoid answering for its actions.
It said this explained why the commission took the decision to report the matter to higher authorities who can strengthen the rule of law by investigating and punishing any wayward judicial officer.
In what appears a move aimed at shielding judges from frivolous complaints, the National Judicial Council (NJC) has introduced stringent conditions for complaints.
Under “the 2014 Revised Judicial Discipline Regulations of the National Judicial Council (NJC)” recently released by the nation’s apex judicial sector regulatory agency, anybody, who wishes to complain against the conduct of any judge must do so within six months, such a complaint/petition will not be treated.
Any extension of time will be at the discretion of either the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN),who is the NJC Chairman or the Council itself.
The new regulation also requires a complainant/petitioner to accompany his petition/complaint with a verifying affidavit deposed to before a Court of Record.
The NJC, in a statement, drew the attention of the public to its new stance to the effect that only complaints/petitions that comply with Rues 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the new regulation will be treated.
Rule 4 sets time limit within which a petition/complaint could be filed; Rule 5 subjects any extension of time to the discretion of the CJN; Rule 6 deals with the consequences of failure to meet the time limit, which is dismissal. Rule 7 provides for the format in which a complaint/petition must be submitted, failing which it shall not be attended to.
A copy of the 2014 Revised Regulations, obtained by The Nation, states in Rule 4(1) that: “A complaint must be made within six months of the event or matter complained of, provided a complaint relating to a continuing state of affairs may be made at any time while the state of affairs continues or within six months from when it ends.”
4(2) provides that “Subject to Regulation 5, a complaint made outside the time limit set in Paragraph 1 must be dismissed by the Council upon report to the Council by the Secretary to the Council.”
Rule 5(1) states that “The Chief Justice of Nigeria/Chairman of Council may extend a time limit under these regulations, whether or not the time limit has expired, where there is good reason to do so.”
In 5(2), it states that “A person, who is refused an extension of time limit under Paragraph 1, may make a representation to the Chief Justice/Chairman of Council, asking the Chairman, within 14 working days of being notified of the refusal, asking him/her to refer the request for an extension of time to the Council.”
Rule 7(5)(A) states that: “A complaint must be signed by the complainant and accompanied by a verifying affidavit deposed to by the complainant before a Court of Record.”
The new provisions mark a clear departure from what existed before now where there were no major restrictions on how complaints/petitions against judges could and should be made.
Although a senior member of the NJC has said the intention was to discourage frivolous petitions, many are however worried that the NJC would seek to discourage petitions against judges by introducing such stringent procedure when the Judiciary is generally believed to be hampered by widespread corruption.
Many have also seen the new regulations as a departure from the pledge by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed to sustain efforts to rid the Judiciary of bad eggs.
The CJN had, in the past, expressed discomfort about the level of corruption in the Judiciary.
Justice Mohammed, on June 24 in Abuja, at a conference on “The fight against corruption: The way forward” organised by the Anti-corruption Commission of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), regretted the level of corrupt practices in the legal profession and disclosed that about 64 judges were disciplined.
Although, Justice Mohammed had, on assuming office on November 20, 2014, pledged to sustain his predecessor’s initiated reforms, there is no report yet that any erring judge has been sanctioned since he took office.
The over 64 sanctioned judges the CJN referred to in his June 24 speech were those penalised under previous CJNs.
