Tag: NJC

• Talba’s suspension stirs row

Since the National Judicial Council (NJC), regarded as the police of the judicial sector, suspended Justice Abubakar Talba of the Federal Capital Territory High Court for “unreasonable exercise of judicial discretion” last month, the action has been generating reactions. Some support the Council’s position; others fault it, claiming that the action could create apprehension among judicial officers, who are expected to be independent-minded in handling cases. Eric Ikhilae examines both positions.

Signs that it would no longer be business as usual, in the Judiciary, were evident on her assumption of office on July 14, last year, as the 14th Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN). Justice Aloma Miriam Mukhtar, who assumed office when the Judiciary was was going through a rough patch, observed that the public confidence in the court was losing. She pledged to reverse the trend and also ensure discipline among judicial officers. Between then and now, she has taken some steps in that direction.

At the last count, cases of unethical conduct against four judges had been treated. As against the practice in the past when petitions against serving judges were left unattended to by the National Judicial Council (NJC), the judges’ fate was decided within a few months after Mukhtar became CJN and NJC chair.

The judges are Justices Charles Archibong (formerly of the Federal High Court, Lagos), Thomas Naron (formerly of the Plateau State High Court), Okechukwu Okeke (of the Federal High Court, Lagos) and Abubakar Talba of the Abuja High Court.

Justices Archibong and Naron were sacked following NJC’s recommendations on rising from its meeting of February 20, this year. The NJC said it found that Achibong “lacked appreciable knowledge of the legal process,” as reflected in the manner he decided the criminal case against former Managing Director, Intercontinental Bank, Erastus Akingbola. Naron was found guilty of unholy alliance with a party in a case before his court.

As the chairman of the electoral tribunal in the case between Rauf Aregbesola and then Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola of Osun State, the NJC found that the judge had constant telephone interaction with the lead counsel to Oyinlola, Kunle Kalejaiye (SAN). While the NJC under Justice Mukhtar swiftly dealt with the case involving the judge, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which has the power to discipline erring legal practitioners, is yet to act on NJC’s recommendation that Kalejaiye be sanctioned.

On April 26, the NJC, again, wielded the big stick.

While the council was hailed on the other cases, views have been divided on whether the NJC did not over act in Talba case.

Justice Talba had found Yusuf guilty of stealing about N23 billion pension savings. In exercising his discretion, the judge handed him a fine of N750,000. To the NJC, Talba was guilty of “unreasonable exercise of judicial discretion.”

Those who support the council on its decision have attempted to rationalise their position.

First, it is their contention that the judge was totally oblivious of the prevailing public policy and mood of the society on issues relating to corruption.

Although no one has established whether Talba was induced into exercising his discretion in a manner that suggested sympathy for a convict, who stole savings of retired public servants, those in favour of his suspension are of the view that he wa not guided by the general mood of the time. They argued that even when Sections 308 and 309 of the Penal Code, under which Yusuf was charged, afforded the judge the right of exercise of discretion, he should have done so in a way that was punitive.

This, they argued, was as a result of the moral and social implications of the judge’s decision. By his option of fine, those in support of Justice Talba’s suspension argue that he merely gave the convict a slap on the wrist, thereby telling the society that one can steal the savings of hard-working and dedicated public officers without being duly penalised.

They contended that, such convict would have ended up in the gallows in saner societies. They urged the NJC not to deviate from its current course aimed at reforming the Judiciary and ensuring efficiency, prompt disposal of cases, probity and strict adherence to judicial ethics and code of conduct among officers.

To them, although Talba may want to hide under the argument that he was guided strictly by law, he failed to take into account that chaos prevails in an environment where law exists at variance with the society’s definition and understanding of fairness and justice. They argued that where a society is in turmoil, Talba and other judicial officers will not be immune from the resultant danger.

Former President of the Court of Appeal Justice Musapha Akanbi was recently quoted as expressing delight with the ongoing reforms in the judiciary, particularly in the efforts aimed at emphasising discipline among officers.

“Nobody should destroy the Judiciary. If you destroy the Judiciary, the nation is finished. In fact, with the state of affairs today, the only hope is the Judiciary.

“Anything that will destroy the Judiciary is inimical to the progress and development of this country. Whether politicians or non-politicians, we should not use the Judiciary as an instrument to destroy the unity and existence of this nation.

“Judicial workers are supposed to be above board and should not be under the influence of anybody. When they start interfering with the Judiciary, things will go worse.

“Any judicial officer that allows himself to be manipulated is unworthy of his office. We have heard stories that some judges made themselves open to some politicians and they are now their agents. Those ones should be flushed out. They are not worthy of being judicial officers. The judiciary must be independent.

“We are pleased that the present CJN does not allow anybody, including politicians in his house, to interfere with her work. Once the judiciary comes straight, things will go on well. Once the judiciary does not allow itself to be manipulated, justice, fairness and equity will prevail,” Justice Akanbi said.

A rights activist, Joseph Otteh, said the NJC was not only deserving of commendation, Justice Talba should consider a permanent exit from the Bench.

To Otteh, who is the Director, Access to Justice, a permanent exit from the Bench is the most honourable way out of the situation the judge now finds himself.

“In the case of Hon. Justice Talba, the decision to suspend him from office for a one- year period without pay is likely without precedent in all of Nigeria’s history. He will be basically without work and pay and stay in enforced hibernation for the entire period.

“Hon Justice Talba has a fresh chance to reappraise his own place in the Judiciary; he should resolve the difficult choices placed before him in manner that can be redemptive for him and the judicial institution and salvage whatever he can from the situation.

“To serve out an unprecedented punishment and possibly resume the duties of a judge, if no further sanctions are visited upon him after one year, will hurt the dignity of the judicial office and raise questions of his own moral authority to decide disputes in a dignified, respectable manner.

“What has happened has diminished his moral standing and authority and would adversely affect perceptions court users would have of his forthrightness and autonomy.

“There is a more honourable path to take in addressing this predicament and we urge Hon. Justice Talba to give due consideration to the most dignified and altruistic options in confronting the circumstances which face him at the moment,” he said.

Otteh, in a statement, praised the NJC over its resolve to discipline judges found to have improperly exercised their powers and discretion.

“Taken more broadly, this decision means that the Judiciary in Nigeria is getting more serious about the quality, rationality, prudence and justness of substantive decisions reached by courts in Nigeria and shedding the image of an institution that always could afford to bury its head in the sand when important struggles are at stake.

“Any Judiciary in a constitutional democracy runs on the strength of its moral capital. For a long time now, that capital, in the case of Nigeria, has suffered persistent excoriation, plundering and squandering by the illicit actions of judges and the virtual sterilisation and inaction of judicial oversight bodies.

“Within a short period thereafter, the Judiciary had quickly unravelled and was scrapping the bottom of the barrel in terms of nearly everything. It looked like we had quickly returned to where things had settled at the time of the transition in 1999.

“We salute the current CJN, the chairperson of the NJC for stepping up to the plate and taking on the elements that have, for such a long time, undermined the legacy and strength of the Nigerian judiciary. “There is so much more that needs to be done to lift up the Judiciary from the doldrums and make the institution relevant for Nigeria’s future. We urge the NJC to do a lot more,” he said.

On the reverse, many have also faulted the NJC for what they termed attempting to kill an ant with a sledge hammer. To them, justice was not well served in the NJC’s position on Talba. They argued that the council’s decision was not only harsh but hasty.

To them, the NJC would have allowed the appellate courts to review Talba’s judgment since the party not comfortable with the decision had appealed.

They argued that the judge merely exercised his discretion as allowed him by law. They contended that rather than blame the judge, the NJC should have blamed the nation’s obsolete laws; queried the decision by the prosecuting agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to charge Yusuf under a weak law on account of a funny plea bargain arrangement and impressed it on the Legislature and Executive that the Criminal Justice system and laws require a total overhaul.

NBA President Okwy Wali believe that the NJC ought to have allowed the superior courts to examine Talba’s decision before taking any action. He faulted the judge’s suspension.

Wali spoke in Abuja, last week, while hosting to the Director-General, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Epiphany Azinge (SAN).

He argued that there was an urgent need to amend the obsolete laws, with the intention of saving the judges from being intimidated in delivering judgments.

“We have always said that there was nothing wrong with the judgment. We are getting to a situation where our judges will be getting intimidated. We learnt that the prosecution had gone on appeal, we had thought that the NJC should have waited for the outcome of that appeal.

“Like I said, it was a NEC decision that the fault is that of the laws and not the judge. We can’t throw away the baby with the bath water; the law on which Yusuf was charged was made over a hundred year ago. We must amend these laws so that our judges will regain their confidence.

“We are still trying to get the correct position of the NJC on the Justice Talba matter and the NBA will take it up at the next NEC meeting in Yenogoa,” Wali said.

Rights activist Bamidele Aturu also believe the NJC was in error. He admitted that the NJC was trying to sanitise the Judiciary by sending a strong signal that it would not condone any act of indiscipline on the part of the judges.

Aturu advised that the judicial authorities weigh all the options so that the disciplinary measures they give are not counter-productive.

“This is because, in the first place, if we suspend a judge for one year, should such a judge come back to the Judiciary? If he comes back, does he still have the moral attitude to dispense justice? The second point which I think would be debated for a long time is that we need to know exactly why the man was suspended. That is still not clear yet.

There is a school of thought that if the reason for which he was suspended was because he exercised his discretion in passing judgement, then I think there is a problem with that decision in the sense that the reason why we have appellate court is because those courts can upturn or overturn pervert exercise of discretion.

“Now if you punish a judge simply for pervert exercise of discretion, then it means that every judge whose decision can be said to be perverse can also be liable to disciplinary measure. That, I think is going to create a lot of confusion.”

 

Executive Director of a human rights group, the Access to Justice (AJ), Joseph Chu’ma Otteh, identifies challenges the National Judicial Council (NJC) must tackle to restore confidence in the judiciary

”No system of justice can rise above the ethics of those who administer it”

The recent decision by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to recommend the retirement of two Judges is probably the strongest evidence yet that a new administrator is now in charge and that business will not, under her, be as usual. The NJC has finally brought to definite closure matters which had smouldered for an interminably arduous period, some of them, since 2008, like the case of Hon. Justice Thomas Naron, against whom petitions had been unresolved by the Council since 2008! What this reinforces to us is that leadership is what tips the scale concerning how an institution delivers on its mandate. In this piece, we explore how the NJC can go the full distance with its current resolve, and outline the challenges that the Council should, in its new incarnation, should take on as a matter of urgency, to restore confidence in the Nigerian justice system again.

 

Restore credibility to the NJC

The NJC’s credibility has been a key issue in the fight to make the Judiciary function accountably and ethically. Just a few years ago, we all thought that the problems within the Judiciary were down to its lack of independence and its inadequate funding. Let’s recall what the Eso Panel Report said on this, that “… the root cause of all the problems of the Nigerian Judiciary was its total dependence on the Executive and its consequent treatment by the latter as a mere parastatal of the executive arm of government – a department of the Ministry of Justice”.

The establishment of the NJC was expected to give the judiciary greater autonomy over matters pertaining to the affairs of the judiciary and reduce the overreaching range of political influence over the way the Judiciary was recruited and functioned. The NJC, after a review of the Justice Eso Panel report in 2002 through a Committee chaired by Hon. Justice Bolarinwa Babalakin (rtd) concluded that the 1999 Constitution, through the establishment of the NJC, had effectively taken care of the concerns and problems identified by the Eso Panel including issues of independence (recruitment, security of tenure and funding), and had adequately secured both the Federal and the States’ Judicial Service Commissions as independent bodies from executive and legislative control.

Unfortunately, a few years after, with significantly improved funding and a robust judicial oversight agency made up substantially of persons within the Judiciary, the problems still subsist. Let us recall, that shortly after he became President in 1999, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo had candidly conveyed this sense of anger and frustration with the judiciary, when the told the All Nigeria Judges Conference that “[t]here is prevailing disenchantment of the populace with the Judiciary – an attitude which has arisen out of the lapses or failings of the Judiciary”.

Thirteen years down the line, and after substantial investments in improving the lot of the Judiciary, ex-President Obasanjo had cause to remark again in 2012, that: “ Now, the judiciary has been riddled by corruption, which has affected other sectors of the country. And if the judiciary becomes corrupt, where is the hope for the nation? Justice has become the highest bidder takes all. That is what we have now. “For election, we now have democracy of the judiciary, substituted for democracy of the people.”

At the same event where these comments were made, retired Chief Justice of Nigeria, M. Uwais also said that: “It is true that Nigeria needed a strong judiciary that started on a strong footing from the colonial masters. But corruption has affected the judicial arm of the government….When I was the CJN, I worked with the President to remove quite a number of the judges from office on the recommendation of the [the NJC]… That was the standard we expect from the NJC. But unfortunately, judges who are corrupt are allowed to go scot free.”

In other words, the NJC, over the years went from being effective (or at least considerably so) to being mostly symbolic, a lame duck, and a window dressing. The reason? Leadership! Therefore, if the Judiciary’s survival and honour depends on the leadership and effectiveness of the NJC, then we must learn to take adequate measures to ensure that irrespective of the complexion of its leadership, the NJC can manage to function at some credible level in any weather. In other words, that the NJC can function considerably – if not effectively – irrespective of the calibre of its leadership. There are two ways we think this can be accomplished. The first is this: the NJC must itself adopt standard and enforceable internal policies or systems that can sustain effective outcomes in any case.

For example, petitions to the NJC will only be investigated if they are listed in the business agenda of the Council. This is not good enough. What it means is that a Chief Justice who does not want something discussed by the Council will simply decide against its being tabled for discussion. Second, even where petitions are tabled, the Council can still decide to not investigate it, or, if it does, it largely does a ceremonial, rough-shod job of that. This is the reason why some petitions will probably never be investigated or decided in any forthright sense. To avoid against this, the NJC should adopt credible intake and disposition safeguards or guidelines for the reception, listing and determination of all complaints brought against Judges and no one person should be able to determine the fate of any complaint against a Judge.

Second, the NJC should pursue constitutional reforms to reconstitute the Council and reduce the powers and influence of the Chief Justice of Nigeria over the membership of the Council. The Council, for one, is too egalitarian and exclusive. The Ghana Judicial Council, to make a comparism, has a membership drawn from a wide spectrum of governmental and other interest groups, including representatives of Magistrates, traditional Chiefs, the Judicial Service Staff Association, the Police, Military and the Bar. We need to show the NJC is not just an elitist institution whose memberships do not exist in the realms in which ordinary people do. Also, the CJN selects 60 per cent of the membership of the NJC, and when you consider that five representatives of the NBA only participate when the NJC is considering judicial appointments, you find that for most of its business, the NJC is composed of persons 78 per cent of who are selected by the CJN alone. If the leadership of the NJC falls into the wrong hands, as we probably have experienced at some point, Nigerian people pay dearly. Therefore, the structure of the NJC’s composition and leadership is lopsided and weakens the integrity and independence of that body. This needs to change. Third, the NJC can press for reforms that could separate or divide the Council into two, creating a separate disciplinary arm and giving the new body exclusive functions and an independent Chairperson who is not a serving Chief Justice. The body could be called a Judicial Disciplinary Council (JDC), or Judicial Performance and Disciplinary Council (JPDC), a nomenclature similar to that proposed by the Justice Kayode Eso Panel.

 

Reform judicial appointments

Much has been said about reforming judicial appointments, and the Justice Uwais Committee set up by retired CJN, Hon. Justice Musdapher made insightful recommendations in that regard. The NJC needs to take those recommendations very seriously and implement them. Current procedures of judicial appointments will not help Nigeria identify the generation of judges who will be our best foot forward going into the future. Our current system does not offer equal and fair opportunities to access judicial office, neither does it promote transparency and accountability and needs to be replaced in this regard.

 

Fight poor standards of service delivery by judges

The standards of judicial services delivery by Judges have declined over the years across board. While remunerations have improved, the Judiciary has not provided corresponding value in terms of the quality of services it is offering Nigerians. Many court users – lawyers, litigants, witnesses, etc – travel from different ends of our geographical spectrum – some even come from without – to hear, when they arrive courts, that a Judge is not sitting that day. In this century, this is embarassing for the justice system and painful for people who risk life and limb to have their day in court. On yet another day, you could hear a court registrar say: Madam never return from weekend or that Oga go attend swearing in of Chief Judge as the reason for his absence! The NJC must fight these delinquencies and raise the bar of performance high enough to ensure that Judges are more devoted to their primary assignments. The Council should adopt new performance auditing systems that better monitor the delivery of services by judicial officers in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

 

Improve case disposition rates, speed and quality justice

In many courts, case clearance or disposition rates are dismal, and many courts’ dockets sag under the weight of case congestion. Not all Judges feel their outputs need to keep up pace with case inputs, or be up to par with expectations or even or bother about the ages of cases in the docket. In some courts, there are cases that have lasted well over ten years since they were filed and have moved from one retiring judge to another retiring Judge. Judges oftentimes do little to overcome the perception that courts are disconnected and lethargic. The NJC must develop oversight mechanisms that put pressure on Judges to take better responsibility for quicker disposition of cases as well as ensure that available time is fairly and judiciously distributed to all court users.

 

Adopt policies that

stimulate improved

justice services in the states

Across the States, justice delivery services also suffer from similar challenges. Corruption is rife in many State judiciaries. Court administration services – filings, service of processes, execution – are also inefficiently and corruptly performed. Can the NJC also help with improving justice services countrywide, seeing that it does not exercise direct oversight over State-run courts? Yes, it can!

NJC has powers over Chief Judges of the states and other state-located courts such as the Federal High Court and National Industrial Court. The NJC can require that Chief Judges of states should show accountable stewardship of their role as heads of courts and stamp out inefficiencies and corruption, as well as undertake reforms of their respective courts. It could develop performance monitoring standards specifically for Chief Judges and benchmark their assessment against how effectively they are managing their courts. The NJC could also undertake, through a Committee, periodic visits to States to assess how courts are functioning to see whether Chief Judges are properly exercising their powers of administration and meeting court user needs. By doing this, Chief Judges will be under pressure to ensure that they put their best foot forward in managing their courts efficiently.

 

Conclusion

By a single stroke of resolve, Hon. Justice Mariam Mukhtar (GCON), the Chief Justice of Nigeria has rekindled hope that the Nigerian Judiciary will rise again out of the ashes of disappointment and failure and serve Nigerians in the spirit, and beyond the letters, of our constitution. She is making good on her promise to ensure leadership by example and ensure internal discipline in the judiciary. She has set herself on a worthy cause and is entitled to praise. However, the road is still a long one, and the challenges, as well as the uncertainties are many. Having started on a promising note, the expectations will be stronger. She will need to keep a steady and resolute hand on the plough. May she be resourced with more strength, courage and wisdom to pursue this good cause!

The National Judicial Council (NJC) has recommended the retirement of two judges for alleged misconduct. Lawyers are hailing Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Mariam Mukhtar, saying the recommendation marks the beginning of the cleansing of the judiciary. They believe it will also help restore confidence in the Bench. JOSEPH JIBUEZE writes.

• Lawyers hail NJC’s suspension of Naron, Archibong

The National Judicial Council (NJC) has recommended the retirement of Justice Charles Archibong of the Federal High Court Lagos and Justice Thomas Naron of the Plateau State High Court.

They have been suspended pending the ratification of the recommendation, the Council said in a statement by its Acting Director (Information), Mr. Soji Oye.

Besides, a committee is to investigate allegations against Justice Abubakar Talba of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court.

Justice Talba sentenced John Yusufu to a two-year jail term with a N750,000 fine option after he (Yusufu) pleaded guilty to a three-count charge in a N32.8 billion police pension fraud.

The sentence sparked criticisms of the judge, with many calling for his head.

Justice Naron chaired the first Osun State Elelction Petitions Tribunal, which affirmed the victory of former Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola.

The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and its candidate, Governor Rauf Aregbesola had challenged Oyinlola’s victory.

The Court of Appeal, Ibadan, sacked Oyinlola and declared Aregbesola winner of the May 2007 election.

Following a petition by Aregbesola’s counsel, Mr. Ajibola Basiru, that the Naron tribunal was embroiled in call logs controversy with Oyinlola’s lead counsel, Kunle Kalejaiye (SAN), the NJC raised a team to investigate the allegation.

NJC said Justice Naron was recommended for compulsory retirement to Governor David Jonah Jang following its findings that there were constant and regular voice calls and exchange of mms and sms (text) messages between the judge and one of the lead counsel for one of the parties to the suit in the Osun State Gubernatorial Election Tribunal.

It said the action was contrary to the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers vide Section 292(1((b) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

For Justice Archibong, NJC said he was recommended for compulsory retirement to President Goodluck Jonathan following complaints levelled against him.

The complaints are that the judge dismissed the grievous charges against an accused without taking his plea; refused to release the Certified True Copy of his ruling to the lawyers; and issued a bench warrant on some officials of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for contempt even when the counsel who was directed by the Court to serve them filed an affidavit that he had not been able to serve the contempt application.

NJC said he made unfounded remarks on the professional competence of some Senior Advocates of Nigeria; and that there were glaring procedural irregularities which showed that Justice Archibong did not have a full grasp of the Law and procedure of the Court.

The disciplinary body further said that he granted the leave sought for in the originating summons that had no written address of the parties and without hearing both parties in the originating summons after he had earlier on overruled the preliminary objection.

Analysts praised NJC’s action. From powerful individuals who were discharged of corruption by some courts, but were later convicted abroad and jailed to allegations of corruption, the judiciary has been in the news for the wrong reasons in recent times.

Will the suspension of the two judges mark a turning point and beginning of a new judiciary? Observers believe the reinstatement of the essential ethic of the judicial order, the very value that sustains and validates public confidence in the judicial process may have been activated with the suspensions. Without question, other judges will be careful in their conducts and in the manner of judgments they deliver, as the public is watching.

A feature of judicial accountability is that judges must be subject to discipline if they fail to live above board. In ideal situations, it should almost be taken for granted that judges should be accountable to the application of the oath of office they took at their inauguration without fear or favour.

They ought to take decisions in accordance with the provisions of the law and not otherwise; and to the public whom they have sworn to serve. In the performance of their duties, the judge should not only do justice, but justice must be manifestly seen to be done by the common man on the street.

The Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers is the primary document that prescribes standards of ethical conduct for members of the judiciary.

Prior to the adoption of this code, judges had to rely on an unwritten code of conduct. They also had recourse to the Code of Conduct for Public Officers set out in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

With the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, the standard of conduct that a judicial officer should observe is now clearly prescribed.

The Judicial Officer must therefore actively participate in establishing, maintaining, enforcing, and observing a high standard of conduct so that the integrity and respect for the independence of the Judiciary can be preserved.

The violation of the provisions of the code constitutes judicial misconduct or misbehavior and may attract disciplinary action.

The code expects that judges should respect and comply with the law of the land and should at all times conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

They must avoid social relations that are improper or give rise to an appearance of impropriety, that cast doubt on the ability of the judicial officer to decide cases impartially, or that brings disrepute to the judiciary. Adherence to the ethical rules and code of conduct requires discipline.

In their adjudicative duties, a judge is expected to uphold the course of justice by abiding with the provisions of the Constitution and the law and must acquire and maintain professional competence.

The judge is under constitutional obligation to grant fair hearing to both parties. Consequently, the court must allow counsel to conduct case in the way they think best without undue interference from the judge.

Judges are also expected to minimise the risk of conflict with judicial duties by being careful in engaging in extra judicial or vocational activities.

Judicial analysts believe there is need for a more effective monitoring process of judges’ behavior and activities. They cite instances where judges sit as late as 11am everyday and adjourn even the simplest of rulings thereby wasting time.

Although the NJC in 2003 set up an evaluation and monitoring committee that visits all courts of high jurisdiction on a quarterly basis for assessment of their performance, observers urged the Judicial Performance and Evaluation Committee to insist on using each aspect of the code to bring erring judicial officers to account.

Such periodic assessments, some lawyers said, should be made public. The era of quietly easing out erring judges should be thing of the past, they argue.

The public need to be assured that the judiciary indeed offers them protection against executive excesses, and a forum for the peaceful resolution of disputes. This can only be achieved when judges abide by the ethics of the office.

The Judiciary occupies a crucial position in a democracy and is its indispensable partner. In abiding by its ethics, observers believe judicial officers will enhance its smooth running.

Therefore, a perception of corruption, bias, or other unethical traits can be almost as harmful to society’s confidence in its legal system and its respect for the rule of law as the reality of those traits.

For many observers, judges must not only avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety, if public confidence in the judiciary is to be maintained.

This explains why lawyers and rights groups welcomed the latest NJC decision involving the three judges.

A human rights group, the Access to Justice (AJ), said described the NJC action as “a positive intervention”, adding that it would “help change the perception that the judiciary is a major drawback to Nigeria’s drive towards a stable, just and progressive constitutional democracy based on the rule of law.”

In a statement by its Executive Director Joseph Otteh, AJ said: “We commend the CJN, Hon Justice Aloma Marian Mukhtar for her courage in leading the National Judicial Council (NJC) out of its long period of stupor, politicization and inertness on to a new path of rectitude and activism.

“The NJC has long suffered from a faltering loss of focus, ineptitude and partisanship and needed strong, resolute action to lift it out of its long inertia. The Chief Justice has signaled that she is up to this task.

“AJ, alongside many others, have for long expressed deep concerns about the dwindling public confidence in the judiciary following bizarre actions of judicial officials and questionable judgments of judicial officers. The NJC had acquired a sad reputation of either ignoring or politicizing the investigation of petitions against judicial officers.

“In the case of Justice Naron, petitions against his conduct whilst sitting as a Judge of the Osun State Election Petition were filed since 2008. It has taken about five long years to come up with a decision in the matter.

“This time gap left very adverse and unfavourable impressions about the integrity of the Council, and helped to further foster the view that the Council was now incapable of fulfilling its constitutional mission.

“There was growing suspicion that the NJC’s interventions appear to be deliberately manipulated to fall within a few months prior to the retirement of a Judge being complained against so that it would lose jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or enforce sanctions against judicial misconduct.

“Hopefully, Hon. Aloma Mukhtar’s fortitude and forthrightness will help the arduous tasks of repairing this negative image. AJ salutes the Chief Justice of Nigeria and applauds her resolve to lift Nigeria’s judiciary from the bottom of the barrel and out of prevailing clouds of public disenchantment with the behavior of some of its Judges.”

Mallam Yusuf Ali (SAN) hailed the recommendation, saying the action shows that the judiciary would not tolerate any form of unethical conduct among officers.

He said the recommendation would serve as a warning to other serving judges that impunity and indiscipline on the bench must be abhorred.

His words: “Even though I don’t know the details of the grounds for the decision of the NJC, it is salutary. It will send signal to our judicial officers that impunity will not go unpunished. Indiscipline should have no place on the bench!”

Dr Joe Nwobike (SAN) believes that while the recommendation shows that the judiciary’s disciplinary machinery is working, the affected judges must, however, be given a fair hearing.

“I don’t know the details given for their suspension, but I should think that they should ensure that their rights under the Constitution are protected. They should give them fair hearing.”

On whether the development is good for the judiciary, he said: “Well, it is not good for the judiciary that these types of incidents are occurring.

“But it also shows that there are disciplinary measures within the judicial sector. But then, they should give them fair hearing before final decisions are reached.”

Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) described the action as “a determined move to restore confidence in the judiciary”.

He hailed Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Aloma Mukhtar, saying: “Having regard to the fact that the petition against Justice Naron was lodged with the NJC in 2007, the leadership of the Honourable Justice Muktar deserves commendation for plucking up the courage to determine the matter in spite of the desperate moves of certain powerful forces to cover up the judicial scandal.

“The NJC has sent a clear message that the days of judicial impunity are over. We, therefore, call on President Goodluck Jonathan and Governor Jonah Jang to approve the retirement of Justice Archbong and Justice Naaron as recommended by the NJC.

“It is hoped that the Nigerian Bar Association will collaborate and team up with the NJC to purge the Bar and the Bench of corrupt lawyers and judges to reposition the Judiciary to discharge its constitutional duties to the Nigerian people.”

Bamidele Aturu described the decision of the NJC as a welcome development and a step in the right direction.

“I have no problem with the decision of the NJC, if these judges have been found guilty of unethical practices.

“I believe they were given fair hearing before the decision was reached, and so their sack will only send warning signals to other corrupt judges,” the lawyer said.

Lawyer and social critic Mr Ebun Olu-Adegboruwa, praised the council for the bold decision to sanitise the judiciary.

He said the sack of the judges would no doubt send warning signals to others who are treading the same path.

President, Coalition of Lawyers for Good Governance, Mr Joe Nwokedi, said NJC’s decision was timely.

He said: “NJC acted rightly and timely because the citizenry are beginning to lose confidence in the judiciary, particularly regarding the recent development where culprits would be tried and set free in Nigeria only for them to be convicted and sentenced for several years for the same offence in foreign countries that operate almost the same judicial system with us.

“Something is definitely wrong with our judiciary. The earlier we embarked on the process of ridding the judiciary of bad eggs that deface its image the better for our society.

“Another place to we should beam our searchlight are on the prosecutors and state counsel. They should exhibit due diligence in their prosecution of cases, especially high profile ones.

“Most of them are heavily compromised while some of them simply manifest gross ineptitude in the prosecution of their cases. I am fully in support of the action of the NJC.”

For the Welfare Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch, Samson Omodara, cleansing the judiciary of bad eggs was better begun late than never.

“It portends systemic cleansing though belated but a welcome development since every fact leading to NJC’s decision was long ago accentuated even to a layman.”

Constitutional lawyer Mr Theophilus Akanwa, believes the judges’ retirement “is a step in the right direction.

The head of Lagos law firm T.C Akanwa and Co said: “The NJC has a duty to rescue the judiciary from all manner of unethical conducts and to restore the sanctity, confidence, trust and hope of the common man which the judiciary is known for.

“The NJC’s action clearly sends a strong signal and warning to all concerned. I sincerely welcome more sanctions that will truly being back the public’s confidence in the judiciary.

“I urge the NJC to beam its searchlight more and more closer.”

Lagos lawyer Jonathan Iyieke said the swift retirement of judges whose judicial activities are questionable would serve as an example to others.

“It is my humble view that the retirement of Archibong and Naron will help checkmate members of the bench and warn others to be careful in the conduct of their judicial assignments,” he said.