The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Onnoghen

  • Osinbajo to Onnoghen: be just

    Osinbajo to Onnoghen: be just

    •Ayade hails CJN

    Acting President Yemi Osinbajo yesterday swore in Justice Walter Onnoghen as the 17th Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).
    Onnoghen was sworn in as acting CJN by President Muhammadu Buhari November 10, 2016 following the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
    He took yesterday’s oath on substantive basis following his confirmation by the Senate.
    By virtue of the position, Onnoghen automatically gets the second highest national award of Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON). Osinbajo decorated him with the badge and the sash for the award, yesterday.
    Osinbajo, said: “From this day March 7th, 2017, Justice Onnoghen becomes the custodian and protector of the highest duties that society owes its people, fairness, Justice and truth. The responsibility is an awesome one.
    “It is the closest that man serves as the Almighty God having powers of lives, livelihoods and futures, having power to give and indeed to take away power, and authority to supervise all men and women to whom our law and constitution given the position of judgeship.
    “Since we do not force men and women to be judges, they voluntarily take on the position of high priests in the temple of Justice. They will of course be held to a much higher standard, a much higher moral and ethical standard than the rest of us. They must not only be seen to be just they must be just indeed. The mere perception of judicial malfeasance poisons the waters of Justice let alone the reality. While delays in the administration of justice often defeats the ends of Justice.” he said
    Saying that Onnoghen assumed the position at a crucial time in the history of Nigeria, when all arms of government had suffered a loss confidence, he added: “I pray that your tenure will revive and sustain that confidence.” he added
    He added that President Muhammadu Buhari through a telephone call on Monday extended his congratulations to Onnoghen.
    Onnoghen urged all arms of government to adhere to the rule of law.
    He said: “On my part as the head of the judiciary, I assure you that from the past experience, the key to everything in a democratic setting is adherence to the rule of law. There lies the solution to our problems.
    “Let us try to encourage the independence of the judiciary so as to ensure the rule of law. If everyone realises that they are subject to the rule of law and that there are certain things that are tackled according to the rule of law and behave accordingly, it will benefit all of us.” he added
    He thanked President Buhari, the Senate and Nigerians for the appointment and pledged his loyalty to the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
    Speaking with State House correspondents at the end of the ceremony, Onnoghen said.
    “I have already initiated measures, I have my reform agenda, and that is my blueprint.”
    Cross River State Governor Ben Ayade, described Onnoghen’s appointment as putting a round peg in a round hole.
    In a statement by his spokesman Christian Ita, Ayade said: “We the people of Cross River State rejoice with you on your appointment as the Chief Justice of Nigeria. For us, this is another well-deserved honour and recognition of your deep intellect, integrity and experience. There is no doubt that you will bring your expertise and ingenuity to bear on the administration of the justice system in Nigeria.
    “Given your antecedent, Nigerians can be rest assured that the much needed reforms in the judiciary will take place during your time as CJN, even as you strive to uphold its independence.”
    While lauding President Mohammadu Buhari for considering yet another Cross Riverian for an appointment to such an exalted position as CJN, Ayade said: “I want to thank r. President Mohammadu Buhari for finding our son, Justice Walter Onnoghen worthy of the exalted office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria. Once again, His Excellency has demonstrated that he is indeed a President for all.”

  • Onnoghen and southern ‘jinx’

    By one newspaper, it is a misnomer; by two, it is a disaster — referring to Justice Walter Onnoghen, the first southerner becoming the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) in 30 years (1987-2017) as breaking a “jinx”.

    Now, was that a capacity problem?  Or was it plain mischief?

    If it was capacity, then it was bad enough, for newspapers, purveyors of the best of lexical tastes, should know the meaning of words before they stamp them on their pages.

    If southern Nigeria held the CJN post for the first 27 years (1960-1987) and northern Nigeria held it for the following 30 years (1987-2017), wherein lies the jinx Justice Onnoghen was breaking, as CJN — even given the mutual suspicion and bad faith on both sides of the regional divide?

    Perhaps NTA needs to re-air “Mind Your Language”, that British TV comedy of the late 1970s and 1980s (attention newspaper editors), as informal tutorial on lexis!

    But Hardball doubts it is capacity. He can wager the aristocrats of contemporary Nigerian journalism suffer no lexical challenge.

    What is it then  — mischief? That would appear most likely and it’s unfortunate.

    When a southern-based newspaper’s headline shouts a southerner is regaining the CJN after a 30-year interval, without being so open on a previous 27 years of southern domination of that office, then the old thing ripples with mischief.  The same newspaper would talk of a “jinx”, even if, in its own story, it had just detailed the era of southern domination of the CJN office.

    Another newspaper kicked up with a “jinx” in its own headline — that word again? — where there was no jinx! Why the careless use of language, when the reality is the opposite?  Blind mischief?  Or innocent naivety?

    The whole excitement over the CJN office, you must recall, arose from the debate over whether or not to continue with the present queue-and-push system to appoint a CJN; or discard the old convention and inject a fresh blood, to save a corrupt judiciary from itself.

    Justice Onnoghen was just a victim of circumstance.  It was his “turn” having queued for so long, particularly given the northern subversive strategy of lining up their own, for the plum job, over a long period of time, through this same queue-and-promotion system.

    The southern CJN hegemony the region achieved by being the only ones with requisite qualifications, a paradise many a southern partisan would wish had continued.  But alas!

    Still, if the current queue-and-push was good enough for the North, why wouldn’t it be good enough for the South?  Indeed, why not?

    But what if the old convention had become a racket that only reinforces opacity and corruption in the judiciary?  Can it then be good for anyone?

    That was the main issue. And even if Onnoghen was going to be the sacrificial lamb (and that would have been a patriotic sacrifice, if the judiciary was assured a rebirth), there was no guarantee that whoever was picked would not come from the South.

    Unfortunately, it is a Nigerian tragedy that when core issues are raised, counter-inanities would creep in, such that the empty noise of the inanity soon crowds out the quiet sense. That is all there is to the Onnoghen CJN controversy, which climaxed in the “breaking of a jinx” that was none.

    Still, Onnoghen is CJN. He’s a southerner — congrats to the victorious southern succession army! But does that start to address the perceived corruption in the judiciary, which climaxed in the hitherto unthinkable of hauling many of its proudest flowers in the dock for alleged corruption?

    Not so assuredly, CJN Onnoghen himself has started with a double-speak. The Judiciary would be free and incorrupt under his charge — good! But that came with the tame apologia that since the judiciary came from the Nigerian society; it couldn’t be expected to be cleaner than its very nursery!

    That painfully is true; and His Lordship probably spoke in all good faith. It could also well be an answer to a question which context was too narrow for general or collective interpretation.

    Still, it’s seeming double-speaks like these that would bolden some rogue judges still in the system, still determined to take their chances, anti-sleaze campaign be damned!

    Must Hardball repeat it again?  The task before the new CJN is not where he comes, or does not come from, but saving the soul of the judiciary.

    The Judiciary is the key to civilised society.  If that key is broken — it is now gravely threatened by long-term rot — it only paves the road to Mogadishu.

    A judiciary that tottered so tragically under CJN Alloysius Katsina-Ala and endorsed the blood-soaked governorship of Nyesom Wike certainly requires some urgent and drastic surgery.

    Hardball hopes and prays the new CJN is up to the task.

  • Osinbajo, Onnoghen and appointment of justices

    Osinbajo, Onnoghen and appointment of justices

    AFTER the Department of State Service (DSS) raided the residences of some top judges in Abuja, one of whom was a justice of the Supreme Court, it was clear that the judiciary was ripe for radical overhaul. The raid was unprecedented, injurious to the reputation of the judiciary, dampened the spirit of many judges, but triggered excitement and small talk among the public. The immediate past Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mahmud Mohammed, fought the ‘invasions’ bravely and boldly, but it was clear even to him that the old ways of doing things were no longer sustainable. And when rather than appoint a new CJN the Muhammadu Buhari presidency opted for an Acting CJN, the image damage became almost incalculable. Mercifully, after a difficult and needlessly protracted process that ended anticlimactically, the same Acting CJN has been confirmed as the new CJN.
    Despite the ponderous and controversial methods chosen by President Buhari to sanitise, not reform, the judiciary, both the judiciary and the wary and distrustful public they serve agree that ultimately the overriding objective is to develop and nurture a judicial system Nigeria could be proud of. In fits and starts, that objective now appears in sight. In circulars emanating from the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen and the President, Court of Appeal of Nigeria, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, calls have been made for nominations of eligible candidates from the bar and bench for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court and Court Appeal. It appears this is the first time such an exercise will be given media prominence. In the past, appointment of judges was shrouded in secrecy, with little or no contribution from the bar.
    The judiciary, it bears repetition, is an important arm of government. It exclusively plays the prominent role of settling disputes among citizens and governments. It determines the rights of individuals and governments. It is also saddled with the constitutional responsibility of providing essential checks on both the executive and legislative arms. The art of dispensing justice is also undoubtedly a sacred power with grave responsibilities. Every decision of a judge has consequences. Every error, even an unintentional one, can have serious negative effects for the parties and the society at large. A judge lives with the weight of this responsibility from the beginning of his judicial career to the end.
    But in recent times, the Nigerian judiciary has come under attack and criticisms. Concern has been expressed about the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency or otherwise of Nigeria’s judicial system. Indeed, the general perception of the public is that the judiciary is corrupt. And, gradually but steadily, the confidence of the public in the judicial system is being eroded. Many judges are perceived as incompetent and lacking in integrity. This perception puts the administration of justice in grave danger and calls for urgent rescue efforts. Indeed, one of the nagging problems militating against the establishment of a credible justice delivery system is the process of appointment of judges. It is believed that the judiciary operates an obsolete process that compromises excellence. Mediocrity is enthroned. Hard work, integrity and diligence are sacrificed on the altar of expediency, religion, tribalism and state of origin. A judiciary founded upon such parochial considerations cannot raise its head in the judiciary of the civilized world. It is, therefore, a serious challenge to the CJN and Justice Bulkachuwa to abandon the old paradigm in the ongoing exercise to ensure that henceforth, appointments to the higher bench in the country are based on objective factors.
    They can achieve this by making the judicial appointment process more transparent and merit-based. The process must not only be transparent but manifestly seen to be so. Candidates nominated from either the bar or the bench should be afforded the opportunity of proving his or her mettle before a credible and respectable screening or interviewing panel of the Federal Judicial Commission. And, of course, the yardsticks of measurement of appointment should include excellence, special skill, competence, integrity, comportment and notable contributions to the advancement of law. Seniority or lack of it shouldn’t be an obstacle to the appointment of deserving candidates of demonstrable high standard of integrity and excellence. The CJN and Justice Bulkachuwa should take a cue from the suggestions made by Acting President Yemi Osinbajo last Thursday at a two-day National Dialogue on Corruption organised by the Office of the Vice President in collaboration with the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption. Said Professor Osinbajo, himself a law teacher: “…Aside from the DSS investigation, there should be particular test and proper investigation of candidates to be appointed as judges. In some of the systems that we inherited, the UK system, for instance, there is a process of almost 17 different tests before you can become a judge of the High Court…” He counselled that judges should not be appointed on ‘man-know-man basis’, and also recommended the Lagos example of taking care of the welfare of judges in addition to modernising their courtrooms.
    The competence and integrity of a judge are basic elements that form the bedrock for the enthronement of justice. The competence of a judge is defined by what he knows and the courage he brings to bear in the discharge of his judicial duties. This notion is predicated on the assumption that a knowledgeable and courageous judge will decide cases impartially. The judge’s impartiality is not only an obligation imposed by the law but by the words of his oath. It arises out of an intellectual attitude and desire to be independent. Independence here involves a conscious liberation of a judge from all forms of pressures, external and internal.
    The legal profession, consisting of the bar and bench, provides the exclusive pool from where judges are drawn. But regardless of where a judge is appointed from, from the bar or bench, more attention should be paid to professional competence and personal attributes. High professional qualifications and high moral qualifications should be viewed as functionally linked, because without doubt, such character or personality traits as diligence, conscientiousness, fairness, responsibility, critical thinking, tolerance and honesty have direct effects on the actions and decisions of a judge. Hopefully, the current exercise will produce the best justices the legal profession can offer. The Nigerian judiciary at this critical stage of its history needs justices who are honest, hard-working, conscientious, brave, patient, cultivated, intellectually curious and gifted with an intuitive sense of justice, men and women justices who carry the gravitas of judicial officers with all the boldness, dignity and nobility possible.
    In the end, the raids on the residences of the justices in October 2016 may help nudge the country in the direction of nurturing a judiciary the country can boast of, one of the best in the world. Then, perhaps, attention will shift more appropriately in the direction of the executive, as exemplified by the Olusegun Obasanjo and Buhari presidencies, which had and still has a notorious penchant for disobeying court judgements under the guise of defying venal courts and judges or claiming the higher moral ground, of course without any substantiation.

  • Senate confirms Onnoghen as CJN

    Senate confirms Onnoghen as CJN

    The waiting game for Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen, ended yesterday.

    The Senate unanimously confirmed Onnoghen’s nomination as Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) after over one hour question and answer session in a plenary session.

    If inaugurated by the President, Onnoghen will become the 15th CJN after independence.

    The confirmation hearing started by 11.45am and ended by 1pm.

    What followed was a mild protest by some senators who claimed that they wanted to ask Onnoghen some questions bothering their minds.

    But many Senators felt that Onnoghen discharged himself creditably by answering questions frankly.

    Onnoghen said that setting up special courts to handle corruption cases may not necessarily be the solution to delay in trial of corruption matters.

    He blamed the delay on shabby investigation and prosecution. He said that there should be proper investigation before bringing a case to court.

    Onnoghen added that it takes three to ensure speedy trial and conclusion of corruption cases.

    He named the three as investigation, prosecution and the judge.

    He said, “If the government wants to set up any court, the judiciary won’t say no. But I believe that there should be proper investigation before coming to court.”

    On corruption in the judiciary, Onnoghen was categorical that the Judiciary is part of the society.

    He added, “We agree that there is corruption everywhere. I assure you that we have strong willed, determined judicial officers who are prepared to do their work. I believe that the judiciary will come out from the current situation stronger.”

    On some judicial officers facing corruption charges, Onnoghen requested to be excused from commenting on the matter because it is subjudice.

    Onnoghen also declined to answer questions on the delay in submitting his nomination to the Senate for screening.

    On independence of the judiciary, Onnoghen assured the Senate that he would work to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

    ”I assure you that the independence of the judiciary will continue under my watch and be strengthened because justice is blind, it doesn’t look at anybody. The judiciary is not only the hope of the common man but the hope of everybody. So, I assure you that the Judiciary will remain independent under my watch. Independence of the Judiciary cannot be compromised. I don’t think that can ever happen,” he said.

    On what the Judiciary will do at the event of “reckless” policy statement by the Executive like the Judiciary did in the United States over the immigration policy of President Donald Trump, Onnoghen said the system that operates in the U.S. is different from the system that operates in Nigeria.

    He explained that “there if there is a judgment, the President obeys and if he does not like it, he seeks constitutional means to avoid it. But here is that what operates? Are we ready to adopt that system? Don’t forget you must approach the court. The court does not approach you.”

    There was pin- drop silence in the chamber when Onnogen threw back the question to the Senate.

    Onnoghen said if the appointment of CJN is thrown open, there would be unbridled lobbying for the position.

    Onnoghen said if precedent was thrown away, “the entire system collapses.” He noted that whether alive or dead, the decisions of the court would be analysed by generations unborn.

    On conflicting judgements by judges, he said conflicting rulings occur when a court was not careful enough to see through the gimmick of some cases.

    He noted that they had seen a case with seven appeals.

    He added that conflicting rulings are not abnormal because the Appeal and Supreme Court are there to handle such situations.

    On the way out of conflicting rulings, he said: “Some of you (Senators) know that your cases stop at the Court of Appeal, but you still bring them to the Supreme Court.”

    He told the Senate that a new rule is coming that would compel lawyers to bear the cost of litigation for failing to advise their clients properly.

    The Senate erupted when Onnoghen pointedly told the lawmakers that they were the cause of conflicting rulings by judges.

    When the mild row subsided, Senate President asked whether Onnoghen would be allowed to take a bow and go.

    The senators chorused in the affirmative.

  • Onnoghen to face Senate for screening today

    Onnoghen to face Senate for screening today

    The Senate will today conduct confirmation hearing and screening of Acting Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Walter Onnoghen.
    Senate President Bukola Saraki, who said this yesterday, added that the hearing will be conducted by the Senate in plenary.
    He asked senators to attend the session on time.
    Saraki said the session would begin by 11a.m.
    The news came after Saraki read the nomination letter of Justice Onnoghen for confirmation as CJN.
    It was forwarded to the Senate by Acting President Yemi Osinbajo.
    The Senate procedure says that the lawmakers can refer the nomination of anybody to its relevant committees and in this case, the Committee on Judiciary, for screening and await its report before going ahead with the confirmation during plenary.
    The upper chamber can also decide to subject the screening and confirmation to the committee of the whole during plenary.
    The Senate President opted to adopt the latter option to screen Onnoghen in the committee of the whole.
    Saraki, on February 21, read a letter from the Acting President seeking the confirmation of Justice Onnoghen as CJN.
    Onnoghen has been in office in an acting capacity since November last year and his tenure elapsed on February 10.
    But the National Judicial Council (NJC), which had nominated Onnoghen for the position, re-nominated him on February 9 – a day before the expiration of his three-month tenure.
    Pressures were mounted on the Federal Government to send his name to the Senate for confirmation as the substantive CJN.

  • How to ensure speedy criminal trial, by Onnoghen, Bello

    How to ensure speedy criminal trial, by Onnoghen, Bello

    The Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen and the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Justice Ishaq Bello yesterday suggested ways of ensuring speedy trials in the nation’s courts.

    They said the general application of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 was a sure way of ensuring speedy trials and prompt disposal criminal cases.

    They advocated the domestication of the Act by all states.

    Onnoghen and Bello spoke in Abuja yesterday at the opening of a two-day conference for judges and stakeholders in the criminal justice sector tagged: “Judicial Colloquium on Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015,” organised by the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS).

    Represented by Justice Mary Peter Odili (of the Supreme Court), Justice Onnoghen identified the innovative provisions of the Act, which he said would aid prompt trials of criminal cases if fully applied.

    The Acting CJN noted that from objectives of the Act, as reflected in Section 1,  it is imperative all states domesticate the ACJA.

    “It is common knowledge that, Nigeria, alongside other developing countries, is moving away from a punitive criminal justice system to a restorative one that recognises the various needs of society and is determined to protect the rights of her citizens, including the defendants, the victims and vulnerable persons.

    “One beautiful features of the ACJA is the provision of a monitoring committee to ensure that the provisions of the Act are effectively complied with by all stakeholders of the criminal justice system – judges, prison staff, police officers, social workers, the victims and defendants,” the Acting CJN said.

    He praised the event’s organiser, the CSLS, for it commitment to the campaign for full application of the ACJA.

    Justice Onnoghen noted that the CSLS  was instrumental to the creation of the law, including its involvement in the drafting of the Bill,  its development and advocacy, leading to its passage and signing in 2015.

    Justice Bello urged  participants at the event – judges and states’ directors of Public Prosecutions – to adopt the ACJA and modify it to suit their local environment in order to ensure “uniformity of the criminal justice system”.

    He said the ACJA  had an added advantage of making prosecution easy.

    “May be you are a policeman, a prosecutor in various states from Ibadan to Ondo or Kaduna, you find out that substantially, the criminal justice system is the same.

    “It makes it easy for the prosecution and the courts either for the magistrates or the judges,” the FCT CJ said.

    He said, in line with the Act, courts in the FCT no longer take arguments on application challenging the competence of a charge.

    “This is because at that stage when the plea has not been taken the court has yet to have dominion over the charges.

    “It is not likely that the court will consider arguments that there is no nexus between offences and the defendants when the charges are not yet before the court.

    “The defendant has opportunity to raise the issue through a no-case submission when the prosecution will have concluded its case and the court will be able to review the evidence.

    “So even if argument is taken on the objection before plea is taken the ruling will be reserved till the end of the trial.

    “At that stage the court will be able to take a holistic view of the evidence adduced in the case and if the application succeeds the case ends there.

    “So we need to be more pragmatic. It is high time we cultivated the spirit of the Act.”

    The President of the CSLS, Prof. Akinseye-George, expressed delight that more states were beginning to appreciate the Act and have domesticated it.

    “At the last count, not less than seven states have enacted the Administration of Criminal Justice Law.

    “These do not include Lagos State which set the pace for the entire country by being the first state to enact the Administration of Criminal Justice Law in 2007 and again in 2011 when it passed a revised version of the same law. Others are Anambra, Ekiti, Ondo, Enugu, Oyo and Rivers states.

    “These and the FCT are now referred to as ACJA compliant jurisdictions. Several others are at various stages in the process of passing the legislation. These include Kwara, Kaduna and others,” Prof Alinseye-George said.

    A Deputy Director at MacArthur Foundation (one of the foreign agencies supporting justice sector reform in the country) DayoOlaide called for a sustained effort to ensure the full implementation of the ACJA nationwide.

    The two-day conference ends today.

  • PMB on Onnoghen

    PMB on Onnoghen

    If President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) refuses to nominate Justice Walter Onnoghen, the only candidate recommended by the National Judicial Council (NJC), for the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), to the Senate; then he acts ultra vires his powers, as provided in section 231(1) of the 1999 constitution, as amended. The responsibility of the President in the words of the constitution is unequivocal, and it amounts to a disservice to the principles of interpretation of statutes, for his advisers to impute inferences and nuances not provided for.
    Section 231(1) states: “The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate” (emphasis mine). Clearly the part in italics is mandatory. So, the NJC cannot abdicate the function to recommend a candidate, while the President cannot refuse to send a nominee to the Senate, after the recommendation. With respect, any contrary action is ultra vires the constitutional powers.
    Notably, the Senate has discretionary powers to confirm or reject a nominee. The constitution uses the word: “subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate”. So, while the recommending authority (NJC) in determining who to nominate, has discretionary powers, within the ambit of the statutory provisions; the constitutional instruction given to the President is merely administrative, and he can only exercise a form of discretion, where the recommending authority gives him more than one name.
    Whereas in Justice Onnoghen’s case, the recommending authority, the NJC, recommends to the President not more than one name, he is no better than ‘a robot’ (as has been rhetorically asked by some commentators), and he must (the word shall) send the name of such a recommended person to the Senate for the confirmation process. Those arguing that the President cannot be a mere ‘rubber stamp’ with regards to section 231(1), are merely overwhelmed by the general humongous powers of an executive president. They are unable to accept that such a powerful person can be issued a simple, humble and unassuming directive.
    Sub-section 2, re-emphasise a similar procedure for the appointment of a Justice of Supreme Court. In my humble view, any appointment outside the purview of the constitutional provisions is unlawful. Sub-section 3, gives a constitutional guideline that is applicable at the starting process. It says: “a person shall not be qualified to hold the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria or a Justice of the Supreme Court, unless he is qualified to practise as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been so qualified for a period of not less than fifteen years”.
    So, the NJC cannot recommend a person who has not met that constitutional requirement, neither can the President appoint a person not recommended by the NJC. To argue otherwise is to do grave violence to the express provisions of our grundnorm, from which every public official derive legitimacy. Of note, whether the President can boisterously, unconstitutionally and egregiously disregard the express provision of the constitution, either because he is prejudiced, or annoyed that people are talking about it, or even from sheer intransigence or misrepresentation by otherwise knowledgeable advisers, is another kettle of fish.
    I can only say to those who are making subtle threats that the President could feel offended that Nigerians are pressuring him to do the right thing to stop wasting their energy. Such a blackmail will not work. The President has to be told the truth, and then he can choose whether to obey the constitution or to abuse it; after all, his predecessors, particularly President Olusegun Obasanjo, ran roughshod over the constitution many times. The consequences however include, whether we want to admit it or not, the prevailing dysfunction of our society.
    So, the truth must be told, regardless of whose ox is gored. Perhaps it is fair to ask, could the President refuse to inaugurate the National Assembly where the person duly elected as the Senate President and head of the legislature is not acceptable to him? It will be disingenuous, as some protagonists are doing now with respect to the head of the judiciary, to argue that if he has the power to inaugurate the National Assembly, then he has power to refuse to inaugurate it, all in the name of vetting the process.
    For avoidance of doubt, the power of the President in section 231(1) is purely administrative; to impute otherwise, is to grant him adjudicatory powers, and thus turn him to an appeal tribunal, over the constitutional responsibilities of the NJC. Of course, if his advisers grant him such powers, then he will be caught by the doctrine of fair hearing, which implies that before he can reject Justice Onnoghen’s nomination, he must apply the necessary principles. In my view, the section do not contemplate such unwinding process, rather it is the Senate that is imbued with the power to accept or reject the nomination by NJC; and there, by practice, the nominee will be given opportunity to be heard.
    Those arguing that the President can unilaterally, for a reason or no reason at all, disregard the NJC’s nomination, have not asked themselves whether the head of personnel can refuse to pass to the management committee for confirmation, the name of personnel, who has been duly screened and found qualified for promotion by the promotion committee? Or have they forgotten that it is a citizen’s promotion that is at stake here, albeit one having statutory flavour, as held by the Supreme Court in Olaniyan vs University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR Pt. 9.
    As succinctly stated by Herring CJ, in Arthur Yates & Co Pty Ltd vs. Vegetable Seeds Committee, (1945) 72 CLR 137 at 166: “It is not the English view of the law that whatever is officially done is law…. On the contrary, the principle of English law is that what is done officially must be done in accordance with the law”. For even when a President has a discretionary power, he is guided. According to Lord Halsbury, L.C., in Sharp vs. Wakefield (1891) A. C. 173, “discretion means when it is said that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion…. According to law and not humour…. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular.”
    Should the President have reasons why the nominee of the NJC should not be confirmed by the Senate, he has all the privileges to present such information to the Senate, which is constitutionally empowered and constituted in such a manner as to fairly determine the fate of the nominee. While we are entitled to love and hold the President in very high esteem, we are not entitled to imbue him with unconstitutional powers or expect him to act arbitrarily, just because he can get away with such act.
    As canvased by Justice Goodwin Adolphus Karibi-Whyte, in a paper titled: “The Relevance of the Judiciary in the Polity in Historical Perspective”: “A constitution is incontestably a legal document and it is the fons et erigo of all rights within the polity.”

  • Onnoghen gets nod to be CJN

    Onnoghen gets nod to be CJN

    •Presidency to submit name

    Those pushing for Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen’s confirmation are likely to carry the day.

    He has been cleared of all allegations impeding his appointment as the head of the nation’s Judiciary.

    The Presidency may send his name to the Senate for confirmation “any moment from now”, The Nation learnt yesterday.

    The nomination may either be sent by President Muhammadu Buhari or Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, depending on when the President’s vacation ends. He has asked for an extension.

    A security report on Justice Onnoghen is said to have been centred on “the fact that he is reform-minded and suitable for the anti-corruption agenda of the Buhari administration”.

    The Presidency is believed to have received the report.

    A government source said: “All hurdles against the nomination of Justice Walter Onnoghen as CJN have been resolved. He has been absolved of all allegations against him.

    “As a matter of fact, the nomination was delayed as a result of the need to address these allegations. Now, Justice Onnoghen has been given a clean bill of health.

    “Every allegation was investigated and proofs indicated that Onnoghen has no case to answer. The government went to this extent to ensure that the holder of the office of CJN is above board.”

    The source dismissed the insinuations that the delay in nominating Justice Onnoghen had to do with his being a Southerner.

    “There were issues against him and it became imperative to get to the roots of these allegations,” he said, adding: “More importantly, the outcome of the security checks rated Onnoghen as ‘reform-minded and suitable for anti-corruption agenda of Buhari administration’.

    Justice  Onnoghen’s appointment as Acting CJN will end on February 10.

    Justice Onnoghen underwent security checks by the Department of State Services (DSS) and other agencies in the light of the ongoing probe of some judges of the Supreme Court.

    Some of the checks focused on:

    • Justice Onnoghen’s antecedent as a lawyer.
    • What the 1994 Justice Kayode Eso (JSC) panel said on Onnoghen
    • How NJC Review Committee of 1999 on the Eso Panel’s report, headed by Justice Bola Babalakin(JSC), addressed issues against Justice Onnoghen
    • Outcome of recent investigation of bribery allegations against some Supreme Court Justices  by the DSS
    • Recommendations of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) on Onnoghen.

    Another government source added: “These agencies sent independent  confidential assessment to the President on the credibility and competence of Justice Onnoghen.

    “Some  of the allegations bordered on observations  made on Onnoghen  in 1994 by a Judicial Reform Panel which was headed by late Justice Kayose Eso (JSC).

    “The panel, which was raised by the late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha, indicted 47 judges and recommended their dismissal or retirement from the bench.

    “Members of the National Judicial Council (NJC) however rose in favour of Justice Onnoghen by producing evidence that Justice Bola Babalakin Review Panel, set up ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, cleared Justice Onnoghen in 1999.

    “They said it was on the basis of the clean bill of health that the NJC strongly recommended the confirmation of Onnoghen as the Chief Justice of Nigeria.”

    The source also said further checks revealed that Justice Onnoghen had been incorruptible.

    The source added: “Onnoghen was also rated as a conscientious judge and one of the three justices who wrote dissenting judgement on the 2007 Presidential Election in favour of the then candidate of the then All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Gen. Muhammadu Buhari.

    “The other judges were Justice Oguntade and ex-CJN Mariam Aloma Mukhtar.

    The tenure of the immediate past  CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, ended on November 10.

    Both the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) and the National Judicial Council (NJC)  recommended Justice Onnoghen to President Muhammadu Buhari as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).

    But the President appointed Justice Onnoghen as Acting CJN, a development which drew much criticism.

    The appointment of CJN is always in accordance with Section 231 of the 1999 Constitution, but subject to confirmation by the Senate.

    The section says: “The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to the confirmation of such appointment by the Senate.

    “A person shall not  be qualified to hold the office of CJN or of a Justice of the Supreme Court, unless he is qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been so qualified for a period of not less than 15 years.

    “If the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria is vacant or if the person holding the office is for any reason unable to perform the functions of the office, then until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of that office, or until the person holding the office has resumed those functions, the President shall appoint the most Senior Justice of the Supreme Court to perform those functions.

    “Except on the recommendation of the NJC, appointment pursuant to the provisions of subsection(4) of this section shall cease to have effect after the expiration of three months from the date of such appointment and the President shall not reappoint a person whose appointment has lapsed.”

  • Umar advises NJC to insist on Onnoghen

    Umar advises NJC to insist on Onnoghen

    A former Military Governor of Kaduna State, Col Abubakar Dangiwa Umar(retd.) yesterday faulted the silence of the Presidency on the appointment of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).

    He said the government should address fears that it does not want a Southerner as CJN.

    He however advised the National Judicial Council (NJC) to insist on the retention of the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Umar, who made his views known in a statement in Abuja, wondered why the Presidency  left Nigerians guessing on the appointment of the CJN.

    The statement said: “In a few days, the tenure of acting appointment of Justice Onnoghen will expire. Going by our extant Constitution, the Acting CJN will be disqualified  from appointment as the substantive CJN unless the NJC resubmits his  nomination to the President.

    “Without providing any cogent and plausible or believable  reason  for its  failure  to forward  the name of Justice Onnoghen  to the Senate for confirmation, the Presidency leaves Nigerians guessing and speculating about the reasons.

    “Already, many analysts view this action as a ploy to deny a Southerner his right to succession  based on  his seniority in keeping with  the appointment protocol observed by the  NJC in making  the appointment.

    “In the event of this occurrence, the NJC must not  forward any other name  nor should the Senate confirm any other nominee.

    “This will  serve to check  the excesses of this administration and reinforce the unity of the nation which has already been  pushed  to the precipice by the  recruitment  and appointment policies  of a government  which  tends to   favour the North in violation  of the Federal Character provision of the Constitution.”

  • Onnoghen’s reforms

    But the starting point is for Buhari to confirm him as CJN

    The news, last week, that the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen, is out with sweeping reforms in the judiciary, is a reminder of the sad state of our judiciary. The reform is geared toward bringing efficiency and stem corrupt practices, for which some judges and two Justices of the Supreme Court were recently charged to court. But equally scary is the neglect/refusal of the President to appoint a substantive Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), even when the constitutional process has been kick-started by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    While Justice Onnoghen as the acting CJN is pursuing an agenda to sanitise the judiciary, his authority as the head of that arm of government is still tenuous. So, where is the independence envisaged by the constitution, in the reported effort to cleanse and strengthen the judiciary? It is worrisome that President Muhammadu Buhari who holds the constitutional authority to nominate a substantive Chief Justice of Nigeria does not consider it a top priority. Otherwise, what is stopping the president from sending his nomination to the Senate for confirmation?

    The appointment of Justice Onnoghen as acting CJN instead of being recommended to the Senate as the substantive CJN, following his nomination by the NJC, leaves room for speculation. The executive arm has not given reasons for the present tardiness, and that does not speak well of a government that campaigned as an agent of change. We urge the president to note that his actions and inactions are the locomotives that propel either efficiency or lethargy in the Federal Government, and he should never prevaricate over very important matters of state.

    By the provision of section 231(1) of the 1999 constitution: “The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation of such by the Senate.” So far, the information in the public domain is that Justice Onnoghen’s name has been recommended by the NJC to the president for appointment to the office of the CJN, yet the president prefers to rather appoint the man in acting capacity.

    The public has been left to speculate as to why the president has ignored the recommendation of the NJC. Reasons ranging from ethnic and religious bias, to allegations of malfeasance were speculated, as to why the president has refused to act as envisaged by the constitution. There were even insinuations from those close to the present government that the president was going to appoint an outsider to that position. Some also believe that the executive is merely fishing for any straw to defeat Justice Onnoghen’s candidacy.

    In our view, the response of the president and his team, with respect to the appointment of a substantive CJN so far is disappointing. We hope the president remembers that by the provision of section 231(5), a person appointed as acting CJN will seize to act after three months, except on the recommendation of the NJC, and that by the provision of sub-section 4, where there is a vacancy the president can only appoint the most senior justice of the Supreme Court to act. So, if the allegation that forces around the president have a hidden agenda, how do they intend to manifest it? By violating the constitution or what?

    In the meantime, Justice Onnoghen is carrying on the functions of his office and he is expected to lead the charge to cleanse the judiciary of corrupt elements that has brought that arm to disrepute. Unless reappointed, his present tenure as acting CJN will end on February 10, 2017, having been appointed on November 10, 2016. According to report, he will be the first CJN from the southern part of Nigeria in 30 years, and is the first to be appointed in acting capacity, even when the appointing authority is in place.

    Among the reforms he is carrying out is to fast-track the investigation of petitions against serving judicial officers, for which the NJC received a lot of complaints from the public. Also, judges are expected to submit their judgments to a review panel every quarter, while they are restricted from travelling out of the country without approval from his office. There are also recommendations that judges and senior judicial workers write examinations to gain promotion or appointment. He also hopes to use ICT to promote efficiency in the judiciary, among other plans.

    Notably the acting CJN also adopted the recommendations of his predecessors, towards gifting our country a better judiciary. But all the above plans can only materialise if the tardiness on the part of the executive with regards to the appointment of a substantive CJN does not foist an avoidable crisis on the judiciary. We urge President Buhari to act now.