Indications emerged during the week that the National Judicial Council (NJC) headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun is set to hold a crucial meeting anytime soon to consider, among others, reports of its several committees that investigated allegations of misconducts against several serving judicial officers in the country.
The meeting which is the first quarterly meeting of the Council to be chaired by Justice Kekere-Ekun and the last for the year, barring any unforeseen event, has sparked palpable tension in the judiciary following a recent vow by the new Chief Justice that errant judicial officers would no longer be spared.
NJC is a creation of section 153 of the 1999 Constitution with statutory powers to appoint, promote and sanction errant judicial officers in the country.
A credible source close to the Council told reporters that a date for the meeting would be fixed as soon as the Chief Justice who is at present on an official assignment outside the country is back.
It was also learnt that the number one judicial officer in the country is not comfortable with the present perception of the third arm of government and that she is prepared to restore sanity into the system in no time.
“I can tell you that the Chief Justice is eagerly awaiting the reports of the various panels earlier constituted to probe sundry allegations of misconduct against the judicial officers to enable her act decisively on them,” the source said.
It would be recalled that between May and August 2024, a total of 22 petitions were written against 27 serving judges of both the Federal and state high courts in the country while the NJC referred all the complaints to one of its standing Committees , Preliminary Complaints Assessment Committee, for consideration.
The Committee had examined each of the petitions and threw out a majority 18 on the accounts that they were either lacking in merit, abandoned by the petitioners or found to be subjudice since some of the issues raised therein were still subject to litigation either at the high courts or the appellate courts.
This is aside a separate eight panels earlier set up by the same NJC in June 2024 to investigate another set of judges for alleged judicial misconduct.
Specifically, the Council’s Preliminary Complaints Assessment Committee had examined 35 different petitions written against 33 judicial officers from both the Court of Appeal and the state high courts but found only eight to be meritorious.
Apart from the previous eight panels set up by the NJC in June, 2024 to probe judges, another four panels were also set up by the NJC on August 15, 2024 to investigate judges against whom prima facie case had been established.
By implication, there are 12 surviving petitions from 55 petitions affecting several judicial officers across the country being investigated by the various standing committees of the NJC.
Each standing panel, it was learnt, comprised a chairman and two other members of the Council.
It was also learnt that each of the 12 panels had separately forwarded copies of the petitions to the affected individual judges to defend themselves both in writing and orally.
A source privy to the procedure at the NJC told Vanguard that the affected judges were allowed to be represented by counsel of their choice.
Although, all the panels were given till penultimate Thursday, October 31, 2024 to wind up their sittings, some of the affected judges including the Chief Judge of a high court had requested for more time to adequately defend the petitions against them since the names of some of them featured in more than one petition.
But the Committees which were forced to give them additional 24 hours had reportedly told them that they did not have eternity to hear their petitions and should forward their responses if they had any.
“As soon as the Chief Justice is back in the country, the last quarterly meeting of the NJC would be fixed for the reports of the different panels investigating the affected judges to be taken.
“I think cases will be differently handled this time and I think this new CJN will recalibrate, in no time, the perception of the judiciary and its legitimacy,” the source added.
Ahead of the consideration of the reports, top lawyers in the country have been piling pressure on the National Judicial Council, NJC, regarding the latest crisis that erupted in Rivers State in the last few days arising from conflicting orders by two high court judges of coordinate jurisdiction on whether or not local council election in the state should hold on October 5, 2024.
Some of the stakeholders pushing the position are respected members of the inner bar. Among them are former member of Imo State House of Assembly Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, one-time Abia State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice Prof Awa Kalu, SAN, renowned academic Prof Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, and respected silk Chief Samuel Jibrin Okutepa, SAN.
The lawyers who described the current practice of serving judges in the country to struggle for jurisdiction in political cases as embarrassing said that until examples are made, the integrity of the judiciary will continually wane, putting the nation’s fledgling democracy at risk.
Saturday Vanguard reports that sometimes in May, this year, under the watch of the immediate past Chief Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, three judges of coordinate jurisdiction —Justice Mohammed Liman, Justice S. Amobeda and Justice Amina Aliyu, in quick succession, similarly granted conflicting orders in Kano emirship dispute, which not only heated up the polity and scandalized the judiciary but also left the Kano emirate with two substantive emirs till date.
Both Justices Mohammed Liman and Justice S. Amobeda are serving under the Federal high court bench while Justice Amina Aliyu is of the Kano state judiciary.
Although Chief Justice Ariwoola invited the heads of the Federal high court and the Kano state high court to his Abuja office to get first-hand information on the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the embarrassing conflicting orders, Vanguard reports that none of the three judges handed off the cases until judgment while none was sanctioned.
But upon her assumption of office, the new CJN said it would not be business as usual.
However, few days after her elevation, two judges—Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja and Justice Chigozie Igwe of the Rivers State High Court, Port-Harcourt, issued conflicting orders regarding local council elections that recently held in Rivers state.
The conflicting orders had set the state on fire.
Judgments that defile logic, justice flying around —Okutepa, SAN
Following the shenanigans, a firebrand advocate, Mr Samuel Jibrin Okutepa, SAN who did not mention any particular case had wondered aloud why impeccable elder statesmen of the bar were keeping mum in the face of waning integrity of the legal profession.
“In those days when members of the legal profession were the hope of the marginalised and oppressed, there were strong and impeccable elder statesmen of the legal profession. When any member within the legal profession exhibited conduct that had potential of lowering the integrity of the legal profession, these elders waded in and ensured that the integrity of the legal profession did not suffer jeopardy in the hands of bad legal practitioners and judges.
“Do we still have elders of Spartan courage and mien in the profession? I am asking because the legal profession is in need of elders who can save the profession from coming to a calamitous end. Today, judgments that defiled logic and justice are flying here and there. There are strong perceptions of state capture of our justice systems. Politics has entered the legal profession.
Where are our elders? This is not the best time for the legal profession,” he added.
Court orders these days are so ‘lucrative’ —Prof Odinkalu
Also reacting, a former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Prof Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, said that the joke now is that “court orders these days are so lucrative that many judges make them – in good old Nigeria-speak – double-double. Responsibility for this sorry state lies mostly with the Federal High Court.
“The ancient city of Kano now has two Emirs, one state and the other federal after a rogue Federal High Court judge decided to take chieftaincy into the federal realm. Edo State has two Deputy Governors too.
“By dint of the judicial labours of Peter Lifu, a judge, the Federal High Court also attempted to impose two separate dates on Rivers State for the conduct of Local Government elections after Chigozi Igwe, a judge of the High Court of Rivers State, had issued a considered decision setting 5 October as the date for the election.
“Rivers State Governor, Sim Fubara, acknowledged Peter Lifu’s hard work by handing him the moniker of “that justice that gave that fraudulent judgment.”
“This is not the first time the Federal High Court will gratuitously constitute itself into an appellate forum to review without benefit of the records of proceedings and with the practised ill-will of a political hit-job dressed up in judicial robes, decisions of State High Courts.
“Nor is it the first time that the Federal High Court will convert itself into a court of unlimited jurisdiction that it is not at the expense of a State High Court which, under the Constitution, is indeed the only court of unlimited jurisdiction. This Federal High Court has become the place where the law falls into disrepute and Lady Justice suffers repeat rape,” he added.
Why should a judge order police not to provide security —NBA
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) which has also lamented the menace of conflicting judgments from the affected high court judges concerning the scheduled elections stated that even if a court has directed the Police not to work with the Electoral Commission on Rivers State, nothing says the Police should not provide security for peace and order of Rivers State, adding that the refusal to provide security was not only unconstitutional but also illegal, immoral, and a dangerous signal that invites lawlessness and undermines democracy.
NJC should wade in even without petition, scapegoat erring judicial—Ahamba, SAN
A respected member of the inner bar, Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN has also expressed revulsion at the abhorred practice of judges granting conflicting orders to heat up the polity and scandalize the judiciary.
“Those who are supporting the Federal high court in this affair should let us know under what section of the constitution a Federal high court has jurisdiction on matters outside the purview of section 251 of the constitution,” adding that the Federal high court in the first place ought not to hear such matter.
He said the National Judicial Council should not wait for petition when this kind of thing happens, advising that they should make reference to the law, call the errant judge to order and punish him.
He added that until one or two judicial officers are retired, others would not sit up.
A Federal high court has no jurisdiction to entertain cases on LG and its affairs —Prof Kalu, SAN
Also contributing, Prof Awa Kalu, SAN said that a Federal high court has no jurisdiction to entertain cases on local government and its affairs just as he wondered why a high court judge would order police not to perform its constitutional duty.
“A Federal high court, a state high court and a National Industrial Court are equal under the Constitution. What we expect as law abiding citizens is that no court should place itself beyond another when you are on the same level. “When you have local government election, why should it be controlled by federal high court? And again, the primary duty of the police is to maintain law and order. So, why should a court direct police not to do what they are supposed to do—maintenance of law and order,” he queried rhetorically.
Vanguard