The country’s judiciary is a mixed bag of the good, bad and ugly.
The country’s Chief Justices, since 1999, have been doing their best in the circumstances, to fight corruption on the bench. Even at that, compared to the legislative and the executive, the judiciary can still be rated best in self regulation.
Once judges are found to have transgressed, they are offloaded from the bench through the instrumentality of the National Judicial Council.
Unfortunately over the years, it is on record that none of the judges that had been sent off the bench on account of criminal offences; corruption and abuse of office, money laundering or others criminal cases have been prosecuted and sent to jail.
We then have an odd situation where judges that have been found to have committed criminal offences are only given administrative discipline and sanction.
Note that all these offences have been committed under the Criminal Code, EFCC Act, Money Laundering Act, and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission, ICPC Act
The severest sanction Is dismissal From the bench, which is then accepted by the executive, as the judges alleged to have collected bribe are sent home; they are not charged to court for any further offence. It is like being asked to go home and enjoy the loot. Sadly, these few bad eggs in the judiciary are giving a bad name to the system’’, said a legal expert.
There is no doubt, there are hardworking serious minded, incorruptible judges on the bench, who are putting their best in the job, they work at odd hours, day and night, with the NJC breathing down their necks to determine the number of judgments they must deliver within a quarter.
While these set of committed and patriotic judges are only rewarded either by promotion or appointment, their erring colleagues are rewarded by letting them off the hook through compulsory retirement or some face saving measure.
Recalled that on Tuesday, the 8th of October, 2016, Nigerians woke up to the shocking news of the raid of the homes of nine honourable judges of courts of superior record. The raid which was described by members of the security sector as a clampdown on corrupt judicial officers, did not leave out Justices of the Supreme Court who were hitherto considered untouchable. In a fell swoop, nine ministers in the temple of justice were taken down in what many described as an unprecedented attempt at ridding the judiciary of corrupt elements.
The Department of States Services (DSS) whose men had carried out the sting operation, had claimed that the agency was furnished with actionable intelligence on the activities of the corrupt judges, and had to move swiftly without giving any notice.
The operations which were carried out simultaneously across four geo-political zones of the country between the hours of 11:00pm and 2:00am, culminated in the arrest of Justices Sylvester Ngwuta and John Inyang Okoro of the Supreme Court whose houses in Abuja were forcefully entered, Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court Abuja, who feigned absence from home when the operatives came for him, but was busted when his mobile phone signal indicated to the operatives that he was inside his house, Justice Dimgba Nnamdi of the Federal High Court Abuja, Justice Abdullahi Liman of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, whose arrest was reportedly intercepted by the Rivers State governor, Nyesom Wike, Justice Muazu Pindiga of the Federal High Court, Gombe, who upon his arrest, was swiftly transported to the headquarters of the DSS in Abuja, Justice Muhammad Ladan Tsamiya who was compulsorily retired from the Court of Appeal, Justice Kabiru Auta of the Federal High Court, Kano and Justice Uchenna Agomor of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt.
As was expected, Nigerians reacted to that controversial development in a number of ways. While a cacophony of voices from the judiciary condemned the move and cast it off as an outright attack on the Nigerian judicial system and a clear attempt at bringing the judicial arm of government to disrepute, other discordant voices applauded it and even described it as a revolution that heralded the beginning of the end of corruption in the judiciary.
Those who had supported the move had also taken a swipe at the National Judicial Council (NJC) whose duty it is to discipline errant judges, and accused the apex judicial body of shading its judges from the heat of the disciplinary actions that ought to have been brought against them. The NJC on its part was very quick to issue a statement condemning the Gestapo-styled move against its judges, and described it as illegal, unconstitutional and demeaning. The Council raised concerns over the ripple effect that such a gross move could and would generate, and expressed fears that such humiliation of highly-revered judicial officers may still continue in the future.
The NJC in a bid to deflect from itself the loud criticisms and condemnation that were thrown at it by the public, claimed that it had not relented in its duty of disciplining errant judges, and even gave instances where it had taken swift disciplinary actions against judges who were clearly found culpable for the offences they were charged with; but that did not do much to still the voices of criticism that had already risen to a crescendo against the NJC.
It proved difficult for the NJC to convince the public of the non-culpability of the arrested judges since it was allegedly found in the homes of some of the judges all manner of incriminating exhibits such as stacks of hard and domestic currencies, fleets of very expensive cars and other very expensive valuables. Curious members of the public and public affairs analysts wondered how it was possible for judges who were mere civil servants to be in possession of such huge sums of money.
Lots of questions were thrown up as to why the judges who were found with such huge sums of money would choose to stash them away in their homes rather than take them to the bank, if they weren’t proceeds from shady deals. The controversy that was generated by that singular development was quite unparalleled.
It was quite disconcerting that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which is the umbrella body of lawyers and legal practitioners in Nigeria and which by right is a voice of authority and a force to reckon with, approved of the clampdown on the judges and even called for their outright prosecution. The position of the NBA on that matter cast it at variance with the NJC which maintained firmly that the raiding of the homes of the judges was in breach of the law since there were no prior complaints brought before it by those who sought to have the judges penalized.
The NJC even asserted that there were no other premises for disciplining errant judicial officers except the ones provided by it, and that it was not in anybody’s jurisdiction to mete out disciplinary actions against errant judges but the NJC’s.
Then the DSS, in a bid to defend its action, issued a statement countering the claims of the NJC that it did not first approach the Council before clamping down on the judicial officers. The Secret Police insisted that it furnished the NJC with enough complaint on the misconduct of the judges, and even obtained the consent of the NJC to move against two defaulting judges, a claim that the NJC vehemently denied.
In the heat of the controversy, the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) issued a statement defending the DSS’s move against the judges, and described it as a swift move towards saving the judiciary from rot, and added that the DSS did not act outside its jurisdiction since according to the then CCB’s chairman, Mr. Sam Saba, corruption and stealing are a breach to national security.
And from the presidency, reactions came in promptly, and as it was expected, they were skewed in favour of the DSS’s move, making it seem as though the president had himself authorized the crackdown on the judges. The reactions from the presidency lent credence to the hitherto insinuated notion that the president nursed some grievance against the judiciary since he (the president) had often accused the judiciary of being terribly corrupt, the reason he said was responsible for his being denied his mandate to be president during his previous struggles for power.
Interestingly, critics of the current administration did not hold back their utter disapproval of the presidency’s support for the unceremonious and humiliating treatment of citizens as highly placed and revered as the honourable judges, especially as the presidency comprises senior lawyers and the vice president himself, who is a professor of law and a senior advocate of Nigeria.
Now, it has been over two years since that sting operation was carried out, and speckles of the dust raised by that incident have remained visible even till today. There are still arguments that have refused to be laid to rest on the issues of the mode of penalizing errant judicial officers. Many public affairs analysts and opinion holders have questioned the rationale behind the sack or compulsory retirement of judges who were found culpable for corruption and corrupt practices, instead of sentencing them to appropriate jail terms.
There are provisions of the law on penalties for corrupt practices and by which dictates judges sentence culprits, but the judges themselves are hardly ever made to face the law when found guilty of violating such provisions of the law, but are rather given the option of resigning compulsorily and are allowed to go unscathed. There seems to be only a few cases where judges were relieved of their duty and handed over to the law enforcement agencies for outright prosecution; a notable one being the prosecution and trial of Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court of Lagos, who was found to have violated almost all the codes of conduct of judicial officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Critics of the Nigerian Judicial system have averred that the judge was not shielded by the NJC as is the usual practice, but was abandoned to face the music because her misconducts were too gross and her case very helpless, since the evidence brought against her by the EFCC was overwhelming and irrefutable.
According to the petition submitted to the NJC by the EFCC against Ofili-Ajumogobia, the judge is the director, chief executive officer and sole signatory of Nigel and Colive Company, contrary to the code of conduct for judicial officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which forbids judges and members of the bench from dabbling into other engagements aside their core job of adjudication. The petition also stated that the judge had at different times, received varying amounts of money from individuals, government officials and cronies. Along with Ofili-Ajumogobia was also recommend for dismissal, Justice James Agbadu-Fishim of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, who was also found by the EFCC to have received various sums of money from litigants and lawyers that had cases before him, under the false pretence that he was bereaved and that his salary was delayed.
The NJC during its 87th meeting which was held on the 4th of October, 2018, took certain key decisions on a number of petitions brought before it by different complainants in a bid to show that it is effectively discharging its duty of overseeing the actions of its employees, the judges. Aside recommending Ofili-Ajumogobia and Agbadu-Fishim for dismissal, the Council also rejected the letter of voluntary retirement of Justice E. Ekede of the Delta State High Court who was found to have falsified his age declaration in order to remain in office for two years beyond his retirement age. He was asked to refund all the emoluments that he had received in those two years that he overstayed.
And too, the Council in performing its oversight function, issued a letter of advice to Justice K.C. Nwakpa of the High Court of Imo State, to refrain from unguarded utterances on matters before him. This was as a complaint came to the NJC on the unruly behaviour of the judge.
Several other issues were considered by the NJC during its last meeting of 2018, and issues that were subjudice (pending before a court) were not considered as the Council said to await the outcome of such issues.
Now, during the investigation of the allegations brought against Justices Ngwuta, Inyang-Okoro and Ademola, the judges were asked to step aside and desist from discharging their official duties pending the conclusion of the investigations. They had not yet been found culpable at that earlier stage of the saga, but were asked by the NJC to stay away from their offices since in the opinion of the public, they had become smeared in the stigma of corruption and were therefore not considered fit to sit in court and decide the fates of other people.
“The decision to stop the accused judges from discharging their duties was perhaps the strictest disciplinary measure that the NJC could mete out to those judges,” quipped Barr. Patrick Okereke Nwajah, secretary of the Kabba branch of the Nigerian Bar Association.
That case of Justice Ademola was particularly interesting because of the back and forth twists to the events that followed his arrest. The sequence of events that followed was such that he was first asked by the NJC to step aside and cease to sit in court until investigations had been concluded on his matter, and then he was afterwards asked to resume duty after it seemed that there was not enough evidence to nail him. Later on, when the EFCC had successfully dug up enough evidence against him, it became clear that the judge was not going to survive the trial, and that was how his burgeoning career as a judge was brought to a close: he was asked to proceed on compulsory retirement. Meanwhile, Justice Ngwuta was able to defend his case in court, but was still asked by the NJC to proceed on compulsory retirement because his reputation had been tarnished, making him unfit to continue to discharge his duties as a judicial arbiter.
This soft landing that was granted Ademola elicited vociferous calls from critics of the Nigerian judicial system, for the prosecution of the dismissed judge, since it had been established that he was culpable for the charges levelled against him.
Justice Ademola’s reputation for being a very cerebral judge was not too known until his fall. The renowned Prof. Akin Oyebode, a professor of Jurisprudence and a onetime teacher of Justice Ademola, touted him to be a potential Chief Justice of Nigeria since age was on his side and he had the intellectual stamina to muscle his way through. The errant Ademola’s chances of clinching the Golden Fleece were further sharpened by his pedigree as being the grandson of a former Chief Justice of Nigeria, and a son of a former President of the Court of Appeal, but his burgeoning legal career was nipped in the bud while it was yet to set off.
Now, as episodes of the controversial raiding of the judges’ home continued to unfold, those who followed the matter from the onset and who had expected that the retired judges would all be eventually made to face the full wrath of the law and possibly get jail sentences, were taken aback when the judges were not handed over to the law enforcement agents to be prosecuted, making it seem as though there were unseen hands that were manipulating the law to shield the sacked judges from proper prosecution.
But another school of thought wondered if the law enforcement agencies had to wait for permission from the NJC to perform their job.
One factor that followers of the judges’ raid drama named as a major determinant of the denouement of the saga was ‘sentiment.’ It was strongly argued in many quarters that the arrested judges would possible evade justice when they are eventually arraigned in court because according to them, there is the likelihood that a judge will be disposed to tampering justice with a huge dose of mercy when the defendant in a case pending before him is his fellow judge who was only unfortunate to have erred on the side of caution.
This ‘sentiment’ opinion was upheld by Barr. Patrick Okereke Nwajah who said, “The truth of the matter is don’t forget that the judge who is seated with his wig and gown is also a human being like you, he is not an angel from heaven. That is why no matter what the judgment a judge gives, his personal and emotional sentiment will always come to play. He’s not an angel.
On his own part, a Lagos-based legal activist who doesn’t want his name in print, corroborated the notion that sentiment will definitely play out when a judge is brought before his fellow judge for trial. “The sentiment that this person is a judge is there. It is easy for a judge to approach another judge. So, the judge being prosecuted can approach the trial judge even in his bedroom.
“To exchange money is very easy because you and I know that the judges are more corrupt than any other people. Judges are the reason we are not making progress in addition to senior advocates,” stated the legal activist.
But Dr. P.C Okorie of the Nigerian Law Reform Council (NLRC) does not see the judgment handed down by a judge on a case involving his fellow judge as the final judgment since there is room for appeal even up to the Supreme Court. He further stated that the perception that judges are being shielded from facing proper sentencing is not and cannot be true.
“No law in Nigeria exempts judges from being prosecuted. The only law that exempts you from being prosecuted is the law relating to immunity. It’s one that exempts you from being prosecuted at all, and so far, the only people that enjoy that right to the best of my knowledge are the president, the vice president, the governor and the deputy governor,” argued Okorie.
He asked rhetorically if there had ever been a case where a judge was successfully prosecuted without being sentenced. “Now, look at the individual cases. Is there any case where a judge has been successfully prosecuted, that is, tried and convicted but not sentenced?
“It is only when he has been tried and convicted that you can now say a judge has been sentenced or not. You cannot say a judge has been sentenced if you do not have a clear case of where the judge has been tried. If a judge has been tried, what we should be looking at is the outcome of the trial. Was that judge convicted?” asked Okorie.
But Prof. Akin Oyebode, a professor of International Law and Jurisprudence, has a different angle to whether a judge can be sentenced just like any other person. This he has to said: “A judge is immune from whatever judgment he hands down. It is part of the convention and not in the Constitution.” He added that it is not proper to have a judicial officer whose commission has not been abrogated put in the dock.
“For me, it will be strange to have a judicial officer whose commission has not been abrogated or terminated arraigned or be put in a dock. It doesn’t make sense,” argued the legal guru.
Going forward, it must be stated clearly that it is not the duty of the NJC to prosecute the defaulting judge, but to recommend such a judge to the president for dismissal in the same manner he was recommended by the NJC to the president for appointment. This power that the NJC exercises in disciplining its employees derives from Section 1(d) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). When the judge has been separated from his office, he becomes an ordinary citizen and can then face proper prosecution and sentencing if he is found culpable.
And concerning the protracted trend of corruption in the judiciary, Prof. Oyebode thinks that the mode of recruiting judges to the bench might just be the real problem. He argued that if reality and diligence checks are done before the appointment of judges is effected, it would be possible to recruit persons who are just upright to occupy such offices.
“With the way and manner we started appointing judges, it means we don’t do proper reality and diligence checks. Many of them are from the Magistracy. Corruption is rife at the magistrate level, and you promote them from the Magistracy to the court of superior record, and from there to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court.
“Old habits die hard. Those who have been corrupt as magistrates cannot change overnight. A leopard can’t change its spots,” Oyebode submitted
