The Nation Newspaper

Tag: NJC

EFCC lauds CJN’s move to prioritise corruption cases in courts

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has commended recent move by the judiciary to prioritise corruption and financial crime cases brought before it.

The commendation is in a statement by Spokesman of the EFCC, Mr Wilson Uwujaren in Abuja on Wednesday.

Uwujaren quoted the commission’s Acting Chairman, Mr Ibrahim Magu, as saying the development was right step in the right direction.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, announced the initiative at the opening of the 2017/2018 Legal Year in Abuja on Monday.

Onnoghen directed all heads of courts to compile and farward comprehensive lists of corruption and financial crime cases before them to National Judicial Council (NJC).

He said where such cases came on appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, special dates should be fixed for them every week.

“In order for the NJC to monitor and effectively enforce the foregoing policy, anti-corruption cases trial monitoring committee will be constituted at the next council meeting.

“This committee would be saddled with, among other things, the responsibility of ensuring that both trial and appellate courts handling corruption and financial crime cases key into and abide by our renewed efforts at ridding our country of the cankerworm,” the CJN had said.

He also directed heads of courts to clamp down on both prosecution and defence counsel who indulged in delay tactics to stall criminal trials.

The EFCC boss lauded the initiative, which he said would curtail “unnecessary delays in prosecution of corruption cases.”

Uwujaren stated that Magu had expressed optimism that the innovation would strengthen the fight against economic and financial crimes in the country.

He quoted the EFCC boss as saying “the spate of frivolous and unwarranted adjournments at instances of defence for the purpose of stalling proceedings is over.

“With special courts, cases stand great chance of being disposed of quickly.

“We had clamoured for the creation of special or dedicated courts for over six years.

“So, the action of the CJN is commendable.

September 20, 2017
NJC appeals verdict stopping Justice Ademola’s probe

THE National Judicial Council (NJC) has asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to void a judgment given by Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja restraining it (NJC) from proceeding with its investigation of Justice Adeniyi Ademola over allegation of misconduct.

Justice Tsoho had, in his judgment of July 7, this year, barred the NJC from inviting Justice Ademola, a judge of the Federal High Court, for investigation over a petition written against him by Jenkins Duvie Giane Gwede sometime in 2016, but was later withdrawn by the petitioner.

The judge, who held that Justice Ademola could not be made to prove his innocence over a petition that was voluntarily withdrawn by the petitioner, said NJC’s insistence that Justice Ademola must appear before it was contrary to the provision of Section 36 (5 and 6) of the Constitution and unlawful.

In a notice of appeal filed before the Court of Appeal, Abuja on August 14, for itself and three members of the panel investigating the petition against Justice Ademola – Justice Umar Abdullahi (rtd), Justice Babatunde Adejumo and Mrs. Rakiya Ibrahim, the NJC raised 10 grounds of appeal and urged the court to set aside the judgment.

NJC argued that Justice Tsoho erred in law by assuming jurisdiction in the case where the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has exclusive jurisdiction. It noted that Justice Ademola being a serving judge was under its supervision and regulation.

It argued that by seeking to investigate Justice Ademola on issues relating to the performance of his official duties, it was performing its supervisory and regulatory roles.

The NJC faulted Justice Tsoho for assuming jurisdiction in the case despite its being incompetent for failing to comply with Order 34 Rules 5(4), 5(5) and 6(4) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule 2009.

It argued that the trail judge erred when he held that the investigation being conducted by its panel was for Justice Ademola to prove his innocence.

It contended that it was empowered to investigate the conduct of judicial officers, insisting that the invitation to the judge being investigated was in line with rules of natural justice

The NJC faulted the trial judge for holding that Section 36 (5) & (6) of the Constitution preclude it from investigating the subject matter of a withdrawn petition.

It argued that “Section 36 (5) & (6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria relate to every person, who is charged with a criminal offence. The investigation of the 1st Appellant (NJC) into the conduct of the respondent (Justice Ademola) is not a criminal charge against the respondent”.

The NJC argued that Justice Tsoho misdirected himself by relying on the Justice Ademola’s assertion that he was required to prove his innocence over an allegation arising out of or in connection with a withdrawn petition

The NJC argued that Justice Tsoho misdirected himself by not finding that the Respondent’s action was premature, because Justice Ademola, being a judicial officer,

It was learnt yesterday that the trial court has requested the appellants to begin the compilation of records, preparatory to the filing of appellants’ brief or argument.

August 22, 2017
NJC appeals judgment restraining investigation of Justice Ademola

The National Judicial Council (NJC) on Monday asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to void a judgment delivered by Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, restraining the Council from proceeding with the investigation of Justice Adeniyi of the same court, over alleged misconduct.

Justice Tsoho had on July 7 barred the NJC from inviting Justice Ademola for investigation over a petition filed against him by one Jenkins Duvie Giane Gwede in 2016, but was later withdrawn by the petitioner.

The judge, who held that Justice Ademola should not be made to prove his innocence over a petition that was voluntarily withdrawn by the petitioner, said NJC’s insistence that Justice Ademola must appear before it was contrary to the provision of Section 36 (5 and 6) of the Constitution and unlawful.

In a notice of appeal filed before the Court of Appeal, Abuja, on August 14, for itself and three members of the panel investigating the petition against Justice Ademola – Justice Umar Abdullahi (retd), Justice Babatunde Adejumo and Mrs. Rakiya Ibrahim – the NJC raised 10 grounds of appeal and urged the court to set aside the judgment.

The Council said Justice Tsoho erred in law by assuming jurisdiction in the case where the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has exclusive jurisdiction.

It noted that Justice Ademola being a serving judge was under its supervision and regulation.

NJC argued that it was performing its supervisory and regulatory roles by seeking to investigate Justice Ademola on issues relating to performance of his official duties.

August 21, 2017
NJC faults UNODC/NBS report on corruption in judiciary

•Council admits existence of ‘some bad eggs’

The National Judicial Council (NJC) has faulted the report of a survey by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and National Bureau of Statistics (NBC) listing the Judiciary as the second most corrupt public institution in the country after the police.

The UNODC and NBS, in the report titled: ”Corruption in Nigeria: Bribery – public experience and response,” released in Abuja on August 16, said it found that the public service is the most corrupt sector in the country, with law enforcement agencies, particularly the police and the Judiciary being most susceptible to corruption.

NJC, in a statement yesterday, said although there were few bad eggs in the Judiciary, the institution has consistently taken necessary steps to curb corrupt practices among its personnel.

In the statement signed by its Director, Information, Soji Oye, the NJC queried the criteria adopted by the UNODC and NBS in arriving at their conclusion.

It said the concussion was not only subjective but speculative.

Part of the statement reads: “The question that should agitate the minds of the people is the criteria used by the UNODC and the NBS to measure the level of bribe taking in the judiciary to grade it as the second largest receiver of bribe.

“For instance, what is the percentage of judges caught receiving bribe out of a total number of 1,059 judges in both the federal and state judiciaries? What is the percentage of magistrates caught taking bribe from an estimated total number of 4,000 in the country?

“How many judges or magistrates have been arrested and/or prosecuted and convicted of corruption till date to deduce such conclusions? One then wonders the criteria used by the organisations to arrive at the conclusion.

“There is no denial of the fact that there are few bad eggs in the judiciary, like in every other arm of government; at the same time, there are many honest and hardworking judicial officers and magistrates making the judiciary and the country proud.

“It should be noted that the judiciary is the only arm of government that has been investigating its judicial officers and dealt appropriately with those found guilty by dismissal or removal from office, subject to approval for such recommendation from the President or the governor of a state as the case may be, and publish such in electronic and print media for the consumption of the public.

“Members of the general public are also aware that the NJC has been recommending judges found guilty of corrupt practices to the appropriate security agencies for prosecution.

“It is unfortunate that this orchestrated allegation is coming at a time the current Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial Council, Hon. Justice W.S.N. Onnoghen, GCON, is making frantic efforts to stamp out corruption, restructure the judiciary and also give the Nigerian legal system a new lease of life for the rule of law to take its firm roots in the country.

“The Judiciary calls on the general public to disregard the aforestated allegation as it is untrue, baseless, unfounded and a figment of the agencies’ imagination.”

August 21, 2017
‘NJC must be consistent in disciplining judges’

Mr Okoi Obono-Obla is Senior Special Assistant on Prosecutions to President Muhammadu Buhari. Before his appointment, he was known for his human rights activism and crusade against corruption. In this interview with JOSEPH JIBUEZE, he speaks on corruption in the judiciary, why cases drag in court and the role of judges, and why Nigerians should not worry about loss of high profile cases in some high courts.

Are the concerns of Nigerians about loss of high profile cases misplaced?

The loss of cases should not be an issue. There are those who have expressed concerns – unnecessary alarms. You saw the conviction rate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). In the first quarter of the year, it secured over 60 convictions. We have lost about four cases involving politically exposed persons but it’s not an issue. The war is on course. Anybody familiar with the legal system knows that we’re just beginning. Cases will go through the three hierarchies of courts. Even if Senate President Bukola was convicted, won’t he appeal? He would definitely go to the Court of Appeal, and if he wins there, we (the prosecution) would go to the Supreme Court. Let Nigerians wait until we have gone through the three hierarchies of courts before they can pass judgment. For now, it is premature. It’s going to be a long-drawn fight.

How would you react to accusations that the prosecution does not do a thorough job?

Don’t forget that this people won’t take is easy. If you’re convicted, your career and name are gone. So, they will fight to the last. There is this narrative that we’re losing cases because we’re not serious, that investigations are done shoddily, or that prosecutors are incompetent. These are false claims. It is the supporters of corrupt people who are selling this narrative to Nigerians. Those who prosecuted Saraki and Ademola were among the best prosecutors. I am a lawyer. I present a case to the best of my ability, but who is to rule? It’s the judge. No matter how brilliant you conduct a case, if the judge does not want to give you judgment, he will definitely look for a reason not to do it. And that is why we have the appellate courts to correct the errors made by trial courts. That is how the system works. So, we should not be unnecessarily alarmist. We’ll get there, I can assure you of that.

What frustrations have you experienced in the war?

A lot of people who are used to the old way of doing things – lawyers and judges – don’t want to change. They’re resisting, and that is what you see as tension between the executive and the judiciary. Society is not static. For instance, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) ACJA says if you want to bring an objection against a charge, you can argue it, but a ruling will not be given until at the end of the matter. Also, section 306 of the Act says there should be no stay of proceedings. Despite that, you still find lawyers filing stay of proceedings pending appeal. If they’re overruled, they go on appeal. Recently the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in a case brought by Olisa Metuh. He brought an appeal on a ruling by Justice Abang on a no-case submission. He also asked for a stay of proceedings. The Supreme Court gave a judgment on the constitutionality of Section 306. They had argued that the section is unconstitutional and impinges on the right to appeal. The lower court stayed the matter for about five or six months. So, there’s a refusal of some lawyers to cooperate, abide by the ethics of the profession which says that are lawyers ministers in the temple of justice. Our work is to ensure that justice is done, not only to the defendant, but to society.

What is the role of judges in enforcing ACJA?

You see, some of the judges are not firm. They pander to senior lawyers which shouldn’t be. Everybody is equal before the law. So why must a judge who has control of his court pander to the antics of a senior lawyer? If a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) makes an application for an adjournment, they will indulge him. In one matter, a SAN claimed that he was in Mecca. We argued to the contrary that even if you’re in Mecca, you have lawyers in your chambers. Yet the judge acceded to the application for a long adjournment. What do you expect us to do? Who is to be blamed? It’s either the judge is incompetent or is not firm or is not knowledgeable about the law. And in that case, you cannot blame us.

What do you expect of the National Judicial Council (NJC) in this regard?

We want the NJC to do the needful. They should be alive to their constitutional functions. The NJC is responsible for disciplining of judges. It is made up of eminent jurists. They know what to do. They should just do what is right. It is in the interest of the judiciary that we have a judiciary that is perceived to be fearless, knowledgeable, has integrity, and is very mindful of its image. So, that’s what we’re asking them. Just be mindful of your image. Don’t send the signal that you’re trying to protect some judges or some categories of judges, which we have seen.

Do you think the NJC has been protecting judges?

I have mentioned elsewhere about a judge against whom a petition was written on the 14th of July 2016. It was received at the NJC registry on July 16. Till now, they have not investigated that complaint. The complaint was filed by aggrieved Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) members of the National Assembly who claimed that they were beneficiaries of a judgment of the Federal High Court. But one of the recalled judges sat on that matter, and technically overruled his learned brother as if he was sitting as an appellate court. You cannot overrule the decision of your learned brother, being courts of coordinate jurisdiction. The petition was that the judge wrote two different judgments. The one read in court was different. NJC didn’t investigate the matter. So, the NJC should be consistent in punishing judges who have gone contrary to their oath of office.

Why has the Special Courts Bill not been passed?

The bill was prepared by the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), which did a fantastic work. I think we should have that court if it will facilitate expeditious hearing of cases on corruption and economic and financial crimes. I support it. It will go a long away. Most courts are so busy with full dockets. You should direct that question to the National Assembly. This fight should not be soon as Buhari’s fight or the fight of the executive branch of government. Everybody – the judiciary and the National Assembly – should work together to fight corruption because it has become cancerous. It’s pandemic, endemic and has to be tackled. People should stop seeing it as Buhari’s battle, it’s not.

Do you believe in the fight against graft?

I have faith that the fight against corruption can be won. We’re resolute. We’re bent on cleaning up the country. We’re determined. We’ll fight on despite the setbacks and challenges. We have done so much. For the first time in the history of this country, at least this government has shown the will to take big people to court – people who used to consider themselves sacred cows. That alone is enough. If you’re a good man, built a reputation, have character, people respect you in the society, and then you’re dragged to court, put in the dock, even if you’re freed of the charges, there is a doubt around your character, what I’ll call stigmatization. The essence of criminal law is to reform people – deterrence. Even in the ACJA, there are provisions for suspended sentence. The essence of criminal law is not about conviction. So the narrative must change. We’re just beginning. A lot of cases are pending against politically exposed persons. And the ones on appeal, we’ll pursue them to their logical conclusions.

What do you have to say about ‘media trial’?

That’s nonsensical. There’s nothing like that. The Fourth Estate of the Realm has to report. If people are arrested, they have to report. They have to tell Nigerians who have the right to know. If people are put on trial, they have to report. Does that amount to media trial? It is not. If naming and shaming will change Nigerians to stop putting their hands into government till, then so be it. If the media reports cases under investigation or those who have been arrested, there’s nothing wrong with it.

Is it true that you criticize the judiciary a lot because you were denied the SAN rank?

Some people have told me to be careful about what I say as a lawyer, but I don’t give a damn. This country comes first. If I will be denied of what I am entitled to because I am all out to ensure we have a transparent judiciary, then so be it if that’s the price I have to pay. It is not a personal fight. A Justice reported me to a Chief Judge. I met the CJ a funeral in Calabar. He asked me to see him but I forgot. He called me the next day and said a judge of the Supreme Court complained that I was not fair to him. He said I talked about his case on TV. I said it’s not a personal thing. I don’t have any personal issue with the justice. I don’t even know him personally. If I am given an assignment I will do it to the best of my ability professionally, conscientious and diligently. I’m not doing this because I have been denied the rank. I am qualified, at least based on the prescribed number of cases required of lawyers applying for silk. I think I have the learning and the scholarship to be a SAN. I have always been vocal about good governance. I’m an activist of 25 years. All through my practice I have spoken against social injustice, corruption and advocating for good governance. I’m not being critical because I’ve been denied a rank. I’m not desperate to be SAN. If they don’t want to give it to me because I’m outspoken, no problem. That is the price I have to pay for Nigeria to move forward. I also suffered non-confirmation for the Nigerian Communication Commission (NCC) membership job by the Senate. I see corruption fighting back. I’m just doing my work. I’m enthusiastic about it, passionate about this country. I want this country to move forward. If that will make me not to have some privileges, fine.

Do you agree with Prof Itse Sagay’s view that the NJC was working against the corruption fight?

I support Sagay’s position. There is no doubt about it. We’re not saying that if we take people to court, if there’s no evidence, you should convict them. Just do the right thing. We hear a lot of stories. We have eyes. We know the system. I have practised law for over 20 years. I know how the system works. We know the judges who are bad. It’s not all the judges who are bad. We know the bad ones. NJC is not doing enough. If they’re doing enough, all judges that have undergone criminal investigation, that have allegedly collected money from lawyers, they should make a list of them and send to Mr President, and recommend their retirement from the Bench. And they should stop protecting some judges.

Hasn’t NJC been disciplining judges?

We have taken complaints to NJC and they don’t want to handle them. Let me give you an instance. We reported a judge of the Rivers State High Court. We got a petition from a woman who was elected a member of the River State House of Assembly under the platform of APC. Her opponent challenged her victory. He went to the tribunal and lost. He appealed and lost. The Court of Appeal ordered that a certificate of return should be issued to the woman. INEC issued a certificate of return to her. Her opponent went to the Rivers State High Court to file a lawsuit against her. The judge issued an ex-parte order restraining her from taking her sit for one year. For one year, she was not allowed to be inaugurated in the Rivers State House of Assembly. We petitioned against the judge as to why he should dabble into an election matter that the Court of Appeal had given a final judgment on. National Assembly election petition cases terminate at the Court of Appeal so any judge who is knowledgeable, who has integrity should know that he should not issue an ex-parte order to restrain somebody who has been elected and gone through the litigation process. Do you know what NJC did? It said that judge should be warned. And that he’s on their watch-list.

Is that all?

Another judge in Akwa Ibom issued an ex-parte order against EFCC, the police, DSS and ICPC to restrain them from investigating a former governor of Akwa Ibom State. Some lawyers reported that judge. NJC said he should be put in a warning list. There’s also a judge from my state who granted an ex-parte order in an ordinary civil proceedings. Do you know the punishment he was given? He was retired. But the one who restrained anti-graft agencies was put on watch-list. The one who gave ex-parte order preventing someone from taking her seat in the House of Assembly for one whole year was placed on watch-list. So, you see the inconsistency of the NJC.

How can such inconsistencies be solved?

I’ve expressed the view that you cannot be a judge in your own case. That is a fundamental principle of the law of natural justice. Why should judges be the judges of judges? NJC should be made up of members of the civil society. They don’t need to be judges. They don’t need to be lawyers. We have a lot of members of the civil society who are people with integrity. They can look at complaints against a judge dispassionately and objectively. We see them trying to protect some classes of judges. Some because their parents or grandparents were eminent jurists, their grand fathers were chief justices of Nigeria, their fathers were at the Court of Appeal, then they’re seen as children of the judiciary, then they have to protect you. But if another judge who does not have that sort of pedigree commits an offence, they will descend heavily on that judge. We have seen it. That is why we have a lot of judges who have misbehaved but have become institutions. A friend of mine who is a SAN filed a complaint against a senior judge of Federal High Court. He was very certain NJC would retire the judge after the case. But the judge was exonerated. And he has dirty records. We know them.

What is the role of lawyers in this?

Lawyers know the corrupt judges but they’re afraid to speak out because judges will punish them or not give them good recommendations. But we have to change the system, because lawyers are no longer making money. A SAN told me: ‘We may not come out and clap for you. But we’re very happy with what you’re doing to cleanse the judiciary. As a SAN, I cannot pay my bills. Litigants don’t come to us again. They prefer to go to judges directly.’ Why must we be hearing scandals about the Supreme Court? In the past, judges will not allow a politician to visit them and begin to discuss pending cases. But now you see Supreme Court justices allowing politicians to come and discuss cases before them. And they will not arrest them?

July 11, 2017
How NJC shields corrupt judges, by presidential adviser

•‘Litigants now bypass lawyers to see judges directly’

The national judicial Council (NJC) has been accused of shielding corrupt judges.

Senior Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Okoi Obono-Obla, said the NJC “descends heavily” on judges who have no godfathers or connection, but leaves judges known to be corrupt on the Bench because of their family history and other considerations. He did not name such judges.

Obono-Obla, in an interview with our correspondent in Abuja, said corruption had become so rife in the judiciary that some litigants approach judges directly, bypassing their lawyers.

He said a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) once confided in him that lawyers’ income was dropping because litigants prefer to go to judges directly.

The presidential spoke in an interview with our correspondent in office in Abuja.

Obono-Obla disagreed with those who complain about loss of high profile cases.

He said critics should wait until all the cases had been decided by the Supreme Court.

Obono-Obla said he agreed with the view expressed by Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) that the NJC was working against the anti-corruption crusade.

“I support Prof Sagay’s position. There is no doubt about it. We’re not saying that if we take people to court, if there’s no evidence you should convict them. Just do the right thing. We hear a lot of stories. We have eyes. We know the system. I have practised law for over 20 years. I know how the system works. We know the judges who are bad. It’s not all the judges who are bad. We know the bad ones.

“NJC is not doing enough. If they’re doing enough, all judges that have undergone criminal investigation, that have allegedly collected money from lawyers, they should make a list of them and send to Mr President, and recommend their retirement from the Bench. And they should stop protecting some judges,” he said.

Obono-Obla said several complaints have been taken to the NJC without being treated.

He said judges who were expected to be sanctioned because of the severity of their offence were merely warned and placed on a “watchlist”.

“We have taken complaints to NJC and they don’t want to handle them. Let me give you an instance. We reported a judge of the Rivers State High Court to the NJC. We got a petition from a woman who was elected a member of the Rivers State House of Assembly on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

“Her opponent challenged her case. He went to the tribunal and lost. He appealed and lost. The Court of Appeal ordered that a certificate of return should be issued to her. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) issued a certificate of return to her.

“Her opponent went to the Rivers State High Court to file a lawsuit against her. The judge issued an ex-parte order restraining her from taking her sit for one year. For one year, she was not allowed to be inaugurated in the Rivers State House of Assembly.

“We petitioned against the judge as to why he should dabble in an election matter that the Court of Appeal had given a final judgment on.

“National Assembly election petition cases terminate at the Court of Appeal, so any judge who is knowledgeable, who has integrity should know that he should not issue an ex-parte order to restrain somebody who has been elected and gone through the litigation process to the end.

“Do you know what NJC did? It said that judge should be warned. And that he’s on their watch-list,” Obono-Obla said.

He recalled that NJC once warned a judge in Akwa Ibom who restrained anti-graft agencies from arresting a former governor and placed him on a watchlist, but retired a judge who committed a lesser offence..

“So, you see the inconsistency of the NJC,” he said.

He called for a reform of the NJC, saying it was not objective in handling corruption cases against judges.

Obono-Obla said: “I’ve expressed the view that you cannot be a judge in your own case. That is a fundamental principle of the law of natural justice. Why should judges be the judges of judges? NJC should be made up of members of the civil society. They don’t need to be judges. They don’t need to be lawyers. We have a lot of members of the civil society who are people with integrity. They can look at complaints against a judge dispassionately and objectively.

“We see them (NJC) trying to protect some classes of judges. Some because their parents or grandparents were eminent jurists, their grandfathers were Chief Justices of Nigeria, their fathers were at the Court of Appeal, then they’re seen as a children of the judiciary, then they have to protect them.

“But if another judge who does not have that sort of pedigree commits an offence, they will descend heavily on that judge. We have seen it. That is why we have a lot of judges who have misbehaved but have become ‘institutions’.

“A friend of mine who is a SAN filed a complaint against a senior judge of the Federal High Court. He was very certain NJC would retire the judge. But the judge was exonerated. And the judge has dirty records. We know them.

“Lawyers know them but they’re afraid to speak out because they fear judges will punish them or not give them good recommendation. But we have to change the system, because lawyers are no longer making money.

“A SAN told me: ‘We may not come out and clap for you (the Federal Government). But we’re very happy with what you’re doing to cleanse the judiciary. As a SAN, I cannot pay my bills. Litigants don’t come to us again. They prefer to go to judges directly.

“In the past, judges will not allow a politician to visit them and begin to discuss pending cases. But now you see Supreme Court justices allowing politicians to come and discuss cases before them. And they will not order their arrest?”

NJ

July 4, 2017
Saleh: Activist as NJC’s secretary

Former National Judicial Council (NJC) Executive Secretary Danladi Haliru vacated office after attaining the mandatory retirement age of 60 years. Immediate past Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court Ahmed Gambo Saleh has succeeded him. Eric Ikhilae examines the tasks ahead as Saleh assumes office.

The baton changed hands on July 1 at the National Judicial Council(NJC). Former Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ahmed Gambo Saleh, mounted the saddle as NJC Executive Secretary succeeding Danlandi Haliru, who retired on attaining the mandatory retirement age of 60 years.

It was not an easy ride for Saleh, whose dream of succeeding Danladi was almost aborted by the tide of the current administration’s anti-corruption war.

Shortly after the then Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed accepted Saleh’s choice for the NJC job, came the allegation of his involvement in corrupt practices.

The office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) brought a charge against Saleh and two others – Muhammed Abdulrahman Sharif and Rilwanu Lawal – at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), accusing them among others, of involvement in a N2.2billion contract fraud.

But, they were never arraigned. On February 7, this year, the charge against them were withdrawn in exchange for Saleh’s testimony as prosecution witness in the trial of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta (of the Supreme Court), charged with money laundering, before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Observers said with a new CJN in Justice Walter Onnoghen and an Executive Secretary, who is less than 50 years, the NJC is, this time, well-fortified for the tasks ahead.

The NJC has been criticised for being too slow in attending to petitions against judicial officers, withholding the stick against erring judges, poor exhibition of transparency in the appointment of judges, among other inadequacies.

Many, however, hope that this change of baton will yield a change of affairs at the NJC.

Saleh was born on June 3, 1969 in Hadejia, Jigawa State. He obtained his first and second degrees in Business and Commercial Law from Usman Danfodio University Sokoto and Bayero University Kano. He was called to the Bar in 1996.

Saleh practised Law for two years before joining the Jigawa State Ministry of Justice as a Senior State Counsel, where he rose to become the Deputy Director, Legal Drafting. He was seconded to Federal Ministry of Works, where he served as the Special Assistant to the Minister from 2003 to 2005.

Thereafter, he returned to the service of the Jigawa State Ministry of Justice as the Acting Director, Legal Drafting.

As a Bar activist, he was elected the Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Dutse Branch in 2008. He was appointed the Special Assistant to former CJN, Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi.

In 2010, he was appointed a Deputy Chief Registrar and in November 2014, he became the 16th Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court.

Many said Saleh brings with him a wealth of administrative experience, having performed creditably as the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, during which the court recorded some major improvements.

While at the Supreme Court, Saleh worked to ensure the continued automation of court processes, part of which resulted in a more active web site for the court. Interviews of candidates for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) are streamed live on the website of the Supreme Court.

The initiative is to enable members of the public to view and assess the suitability or otherwise of the interviewees in order to forestall allegations of preferential treatment, bias and nepotism in the appointment process.

Other major activities of the court, including its new Legal Year Ceremony, are streamed live on the apex court website.

The internal structure and fittings of the courtroom known as Court Two have been completely re-structured, re-constructed and re-fitted with modern digital and state of the art equipment and computers.

Justices’ Bench, in the court, is now fitted with computer displays and audio visual equipment (AVE) that enables the judge to view exhibits and documents, control court proceedings and make research on citations. These features are also available on the desks for the court registrar and lawyers for effective synchronisation.

The introduction of these technologies enable the courtroom to be connected to a unified system that has a central repository for all audio/video recordings proceedings and associated linked notes. The court record includes the transcript, audio or audio and video recordings of any hearings, appearances and courtroom proceedings.

A software for digital court reporting called: FTR Reporter, has also been installed to allow for real-time transcription and transmission of court proceedings.

It was learnt that the software works by capturing, annotating, playing back and managing the record of court proceedings. It can record and manage up to four-channel audio. It can also facilitate electronic court reporting through linked note-taking as well as review and playback of pre-recorded coA mobile podium has been installed. It is mounted on a swivel base to enable the presenter face the judges or the barristers as may be required. The podium contains a touch-screen monitor for viewing and make-up of evidence sources including the document camera and various other input

There are also USB and SD Card connections for displaying media from these external devices. There is a remote control that can be operated by the presenter. The podium also houses electronic components that gather and disseminate the media throughout the courtroom.

Also installed is a device called: the document camera, with the capacity to display exhibits, which can be viewed by judges, registrars and lawyers. The device instantaneously converts a paper document or physical exhibit to an electronic image, with the ability to enlarge and reduce the image as needed.

The transformation of the court is not limited to its interior offerings as could be seen from the alluring landscape and fittings within the court’s premises.

A first-time visitor to the Supreme Court complex is welcomed by well-paved walkways, gardening with luscious lawns, fitted with several watering pipes and sprinkling taps, which keep the lawns, shrubs and trees evergreen even during dry seasons.

The court, during Saleh’s time, also witnessed massive infrastructure upgrade. The roofing was replaced, the vast external white-tile walls were craftily cleaned up with chemical and machines, while the internal wall was re-painted.

So many offices within the complex have either been rehabilitated or reconstructed; with state of art fittings, furniture, gadgets, computers, windows and bullet proof doors, among others have been installed.

These offices so upgraded include Internal Audit, Account, IT offices, and Litigation department/rooms. This is just as the main entrance to the complex has been re-tooled with sensory doors.

A marble-tiled Justices ‘retiring room containing dining, rest rooms and relaxing furnishings have been constructed adjacent to a court room in the complex to provide comfort for the Justices, especially after court sessions.

The retiring room is also necessary during a stand down of an appeal for the Justices in the panel hearing the appeal to consult with one another before taking decision. Attached to this retiring room is a library for easy research/reference by the Justices in case lawyers appearing before the panels make ambiguous and frivolous submissions.

Besides, there is a library (physical or analogue) and a virtual library for ease of researches by the Justices that were also created recently, all in addition to the old Justices’ library.

The court’s Registry has streamlined and improved the archival and retrieval process of case files. This is to reduce incidents of loss and/or misplacement of case files and its incendiary effects as witnessed sometimes in the past.

The court’s security architecture has been effectively upgraded to enable it cope with security realities.

Many hope Saleh will replicate this feat as he settles in office as the Executive Secretary of the NJC.

July 4, 2017
How NJC shields corrupt judges, by presidential adviser

…Litigants now bypass lawyers to see judges directly

Special Adviser to the President on Prosecution, Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Okoi Obono-Obla, has accused the National Judicial Council (NJC) of shielding corrupt judges.

He said the NJC “descends heavily” on judges who have no godfathers or connection, but leaves judges known to be corrupt on the bench because of their family history and other considerations.

Obono-Obla said corruption has become so rife in the judiciary that some litigants approach judges directly, bypassing their lawyers.

He said a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) once confided him that that lawyers’ income was dropping because litigants prefer to go to judges directly.

The presidential spoke in an interview with our correspondent in office in Abuja.

Obono-Obla disagreed with those who complain about loss of high profile cases.

He said critics should wait until all the cases have been decided by the Supreme Court.

Obono-Obla said he agreed with the view expressed by Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) that the NJC was working against the anti-corruption crusade.

“I support Prof Sagay’s position. There is no doubt about it. We’re not saying that if we take people to court, if there’s no evidence you should convict them. Just do the right thing. We hear a lot of stories. We have eyes. We know the system. I have practiced law for over 20 years. I know how the system works. We know the judges who are bad. It’s not all the judges who are bad. We know the bad ones.

“NJC is not doing enough. If they’re doing enough, all judges that have undergone criminal investigation, that have allegedly collected money from lawyers, they should make a list of them and send to Mr President, and recommend their retirement from the Bench. And they should stop protecting some judges,” he said.

Obono-Obla said several complaints have been taken to the NJC without being treated.

He said judges who were expected to be sanctioned because of the severity of their offence were merely warned and placed on a “watchlist”.

“We have taken complaints to NJC and they don’t want to handle them. Let me give you an instance. We reported a judge of the Rivers State High Court to the NJC. We got a petition from a woman who was elected a member of the River State House of Assembly under the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

“Her opponent challenged her case. He went to the tribunal and lost. He appealed and lost. The Court of Appeal ordered that a certificate of return should be issued to her. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) issued a certificate of return to her.

“Her opponent went to the Rivers State High Court to file a lawsuit against her. The judge issued an ex-parte order restraining her from taking her sit for one year. For one year, she was not allowed to be inaugurated in the Rivers State House of Assembly.

“We petitioned against the judge as to why he should dabble into an election matter that the Court of Appeal had given a final judgment on.

“National Assembly election petition cases terminate at the Court of Appeal, so any judge who is knowledgeable, who has integrity should know that he should not issue an ex-parte order to restrain somebody who has been elected and gone through the litigation process to the end.

“Do you know what NJC did? It said that judge should be warned. And that he’s in their watch-list,” Obono-Obla said.

He recalled that NJC once warned a judge in Akwa Ibom who restrained anti-graft agencies from arresting a former governor and placed him on a watchlist, but retired a judge who committed a lesser offence.

“So, you see the inconsistency of the NJC,” he said.

He called for a reform of the NJC, saying it was not objective in handling corruption cases against judges.

Obono-Obla said: “I’ve expressed the view that you cannot be a judge in your own cause. That is a fundamental principle of the law of natural justice. Why should judges be the judges of judges? NJC should be made up of members of the civil society. They don’t need to be judges. They don’t need to be lawyers. We have a lot of members of the civil society who are people with integrity. They can look at complaints against a judge dispassionately and objectively.

“We see them (NJC) trying to protect some classes of judges. Some because their parents or grand-parents were eminent jurists, their grand-fathers were Chief Justices of Nigeria, their fathers were at the Court of Appeal, then they’re seen as a children of the judiciary, then they have to protect them.

“But if another judge who does not have that sort of pedigree commits an offence, they will descend heavily on that judge. We have seen it. That is why we have a lot of judges who have misbehaved but have become ‘institutions’.

“A friend of mine who is a SAN filed a complaint against a senior judge of Federal High Court. He was very certain NJC would retire the judge. But the judge was exonerated. And the judge has dirty records. We know them.

“Lawyers know them but they’re afraid to speak out because they fear judges will punish them or not give them good recommendation. But we have to change the system, because lawyers are no longer making money.

“An SAN told me: ‘We may not come out and clap for you (the Federal Government). But we’re very happy with what you’re doing to cleanse the judiciary. As a SAN, I cannot pay my bills. Litigants don’t come to us again. They prefer to go to judges directly.

“In the past, judges will not allow a politician to visit them and begin to discuss pending cases. But now you see Supreme Court justices allowing politicians to come and discuss cases before them. And they will not order their arrest?”

July 3, 2017
Families petition NJC, Presidency over trial ‘manipulation’

The Integrity Leadership Organisation, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), has petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC) over alleged manipulation of the trial of suspects arrested in the alleged murder of a World Bank consultant, Dr Ayodeji Daramola, and the late Tunde Omojola.

The duo were allegedly murdered between 2005 and 2006 in Ekiti State.

Daramola was reportedly murdered at Ijan-Ekiti on August 14, 2006 while Omojola was killed during 2005 councillorship election crisis at Ifaki-Ekiti.

In a petition, dated June 16, by its Ekiti State Coordinator, Lekan Oyediran, and received in the Office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, on June 23, the group said it was writing on behalf of the families of the deceased.

The deaths occurred during political crises arising from the governorship and councillorship elections.

It pointed NJC’s attention to reports of alleged manipulation in the consolidated murder trial of Daramola and Omojola in the Ekiti State High Court, Ado-Ekiti, in an alleged connivance of the governor with a section of the Judiciary to save the suspects in the murder.

The petition was also copied to Acting President Yemi Osinbajo; Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Ibrahim Idris, Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Lawal Daura and the Chief Judge of Ekiti State, Mr Justice Ayodeji Daramola.

The petitioners claimed that 11 “fake” witnesses were listed from Ifaki-Ekiti home country of Omojola while six were listed to come from Ijan-Ekiti, Daramola’s home town.

It averred that following investigations at Ijan-Ekiti and Ifaki-Ekiti, it was discovered none of the witnesses was aware of any hearing of the murder case in court.

The petition reads: “In Ijan-Ekiti, there was nobody called Kehinde Femi at 6, Ikota Street, as the house was fully rented out to strangers, according to the online publication.

“It also reported that there was nobody called Edward Kehinde in Dr Daramola’s house, adjacent to Ujilogun Grammar School, as the house had been rented out to a sports club called Phoenix Athletic Sports Club and a football academy that conducts football coaching for Ekiti youths.

“In Ifaki-Ekiti, Suleiman Bakare, Omojola’s brother-in-law and a banker living in Lagos, who is the authentic author of the petition on the murder of Omojola and who is also a purported witness listed as living at P7, Ona Oja St, Ifaki-Ekiti, said he was not aware that he was a witness in the trial.

“It is the same denial by another purported witness, Sule Aliru Olatunji, who was put in a newspaper report in 2007 with his photograph by alleged Fayose’s men as having disowned his earlier statement to exonerate the governor only for Aliru to renounce the publication as a fraud to save the suspects in the murder case.

“It was also discovered in Ifaki that witness Number Four in the alleged witness list, Suleiman Labaika of Ilero Quarters, Ifaki-Ekiti, was Suleiman Bakare’s brother and in fact was the councillorship candidate in the ill-fated election. Labaika knew nothing about the list and in fact he was not aware that a trial is ongoing in Omojola’s murder.

“The same with Osenatu Suleiman, mother of both Bakare and Labaika, who knew nothing about the ongoing trial, while Ogunleye Akeem, Suleiman Bakare’s nephew, would be hearing about the trial for the first time.”

The petitions also pointed the attention of the NJC to the alleged travesty of justice in a murder trial in which the chief suspect is said to be the chief prosecutor in a trial that the families of the deceased, who are also the chief complainants and petitioners, were kept in the dark.

June 29, 2017
NJC, recused judges and anti-graft war

THE wrangle between the judiciary, particularly the National Judicial Council (NJC), and the Muhammadu Buhari presidency over the direction, not the objectives, of the anti-graft war humiliates the republic. Whether the combatants are sincere or not, or whether they mean what they say or not, they have both said they are committed to stamping out corruption from all corners of public life. However, neither that ennobling war against corruption nor yet the methodology of carrying it out has been prosecuted with the diligence, care and circumspection the situation demands. Under President Buhari, the federal government has carried on with reckless indifference and sanctimoniousness, unmindful of the wider dimensions and implications of the methods by which they hope to root out the evil. On its own, the NJC has consistently given the impression that it is more concerned about protecting the image of the judicial arm than extirpating corruption within its ranks and in the wider society.

Hamstrung by the display of mutual antagonism between the querulous government and the squeamish NJC, it is not surprising that the anti-graft war appears to have been arrested midstream. The most poignant indication of this paralysis is the matter of the suspended and recused judges accused by law enforcement and security agencies of engaging in corrupt acts. After many false starts and deep unease and contemplation, the NJC, last November, suspended eight of the judges. About eight months after the recusal of the judges, the NJC recalled six of them on June 1. The judicial body argued that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to charge five of the six in court many months after their suspension, and was sloppy in appealing the acquittal of one of the six.

Despite the strident arguments of the president’s special adviser on prosecutions, Okoi Obono-Obla, and notwithstanding the wide support his arguments attracted, nor even the government’s seeming nostalgia for military tribunals to try corruption cases, it is hard to fault the NJC. It seemed the government was content with trying the cases of the suspended judges on the pages of newspapers, and was even more satisfied keeping it there in abeyance. Indeed, it was not until a week after the recall of the judges that the EFCC hurried to the court to file charges against Justice Hydiazira Nganjiwa. This prompted observers to wonder whether the federal judge would have been arraigned in court had he not been recalled together with five other judges, one of whom is a Justice of the Supreme Court.

The argument of the NJC is unambiguous. The seven-month recusal was more than enough to charge the judges in court going by the highly publicised presentation of the government’s case in the media, including, in some instances, celebrated arrests underscored by what the security services described as a sting operation. The EFCC acted mala fide by quickly charging Justice Nganjiwa in court about one week after the NJC recalled him. What was the EFCC doing for seven months? Sadly, even those who support Mr Obono-Obla’s strange logic gave the worrisome and indefensible impression that the public should be willing to wait for as long as it takes to charge the judges in court once a case had been made against them in the media. The NJC sensibly recognised that neither the rule of law nor justice, nor yet common sense, supported an endless wait. The EFCC ought to have recognised that fact itself, even though in many of the cases, the Department of State Service (DSS) was incongruously the arresting and investigating authority.

In the case of Justice Adeniyi Ademola, over which a controversy has broken out regarding whether the case is recognisably on appeal or not, again it is hard to fault the NJC. The Appeal Court confirmed to the NJC that the case was not yet before it. It was further established that while the federal prosecutors had kick-started the process of appeal, that process had not yet been consummated. However, according to the government, Justice Ademola still had a case to answer before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT). Was the NJC unaware of this fact? Indeed, could it defend its ignorance? The NJC has responded to the appeal controversy; it has a responsibility to also respond to this latest disclosure by the government. For in the eyes of the public, the government has successfully, out of court, proved the malfeasance of some of the judges, and in fact established that the judiciary is in dire need of cleansing.

On the whole, however, the squabble between the government and the judiciary over the anti-graft war is both needless and vexatious, and a reflection of the government’s ratiocinative incompetence. A painstaking consideration of the government’s approach to the war shows that the Buhari presidency was completely unprepared for the war when it inaugurated the crusade. It had hoped that making wild but unsubstantiated allegations against suspects, some of them judges, was nearly enough to secure conviction. It had also implausibly hoped that the existing judicial administration structure was competent to secure rapid convictions. Unfortunately, not only was evidence clumsily and in some cases insufficiently gathered, the poor funding of the judiciary over many decades had starved the third arm of government of the needed competent personnel and infrastructure to make the administration of justice efficient and delivery of justice fast and effortless. Two years into his tenure, the president has still not grappled with these fundamental shortcomings. Instead, his government has continued to complain and to attempt to inflame public emotions for indeterminate ends.

However, on the other hand, the NJC cannot pretend not to know the damage malfeasant judicial officers have done to the image of the judiciary, nor fail to understand how that malfeasance was procured in the judiciary. While it is true that corruption is more structural than symptomatic, thus controverting the government’s populist and lackadaisical approach to the cancer, the NJC must find a way to insulate the judiciary from the general societal rot. Rather than adopt and stick to a combative but pedestrian approach to dealing with corruption in the judiciary, it is time the government met minds with the leadership of the judiciary to find realistic ways of defining the problems and resolving them. The government’s current approach of faultfinding is counterproductive and bound to fail in the long run.

But despite the poor funding of the judiciary and its broken infrastructure, which the government must find ways of tackling rather than sermonising about, the NJC must also re-examine its methods and determine precisely where and how the judiciary strayed from the path of rectitude. The humiliation of dragging judges as high as from the Supreme Court in the mud in the fashion seen last year is so galling and humiliating to both the third arm of government and the country as a whole that it must never repeat itself. That shame should nudge the judiciary into rediscovering itself and reclaiming its lost glory. That rediscovery will, however, not be possible if the present system of appointing friends and cronies into high judicial offices persists. The character and erudition needed to sit on appellate courts, not to say on the Supreme Court in particular, was sadly not evident when some of the arrested judges ‘stung’ by the DSS made a case for themselves. They were not inspiring at all.

There are indications that the process of appointing appellate judges may be heading for some modifications, going by the determination of the Appeal Court to re-engineer the recruitment methods. However, there is suspicion that the process may neither be thorough enough nor imbued with the kind of substance required to birth real change. It is time the appointing authorities seriously eschewed sentiments and favouritism. The courts, especially the appellate courts, need thinkers and judicial innovators. More, they need men and women of courage, wit and character, men and women able to constantly renew themselves and set inspiring judicial precedence not only for Nigeria but for the sub-region and beyond. The current malaise and paralysis are simply intolerable and unsustainable.

The NJC sensibly stood up to the hubristic and insensitive approach the government adopted in tackling judicial corruption and the suspension of errant judges. Perhaps the NJC is atoning for its connivance at the shameful truncation of the career of Justice Ayo Salami by the Goodluck Jonathan government. In protecting the independence of the judiciary, the NJC must, however, never be seen to be merely defending and shielding errant judicial officers. It should indeed now go ahead to recommend to the government all that needs to be done to re-engineer the judiciary and make the delivery of justice encyclopaedic and fast. It is also time the government get off its high moralising horse and listened to the judiciary on how the justice system could best be remoulded and refitted. After all, the executive arm is not insulated from the corruption and inefficiency which it has tried unsuccessfully and vaingloriously to banish from the judiciary.

June 17, 2017