Davidson Iriekpen
6 July 2009
analysis
Lagos — The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Idris Kutigi recently, preached the anti-corruption sermon to judges in the country, with a strong warning that he would not hesitate to hand them over to the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and the Independent and Corrupt Practices and Related Offences Commission (ICPC) if found corrupt. Davidson Iriekpen reports that some groups are already pressurising the CJN to go beyond verbal threat and investigate allegations against some of the judges who handled election matters.
It is no longer news that recent indications have shown that the battle against corruption has shifted to the law courts. For instance, at the opening of a two-week induction course for newly-appointed judges and khadis in Abuja recently, Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi, warned that henceforth, it would be zero tolerance for corruption among judges. He promised that corrupt judges would no longer escape the focal lens of the law, since they would be brought before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), for investigation and prosecution.
"As you are aware, the society expects much from the judiciary and as judiciary officers, you are expected to live above board like Caesar's wife. The National Judicial Council is watching and any erring judicial officer will be appropriately sanctioned," he warned.
The CJN was not alone in the warning to the judges, ICPC Chairman, Justice Emmanuel Agboola, at the same occasion, disclosed that the two essential qualities that any credible judicial activity or system of administration of justice must possess are the twin qualities of judicial integrity and judicial independence. He told the judges that a corruption-ridden judiciary cannot lay legitimate claim to independence nor can it retain its independence for long as it looses confidence of and credibility in society, saying that there was need at all times to ensure judicial integrity.
"Two essential qualities that any credible judicial activity or any system of administration of justice must possess are, therefore, the twin qualities of judicial integrity and judicial independence. A corruption-ridden judiciary cannot lay legitimate claim to independence nor can it retain its independence for long as it looses confidence of and credibility in society. There is need at all times to ensure judicial integrity.
"Judicial integrity is policed by accountability. Integrity not monitored is subjective integrity that may make integrity an abstract virtue divorced from reality. Accountability is the anchor of integrity. It is not a negation of judicial independence. If corruption is to be removed from the wheel of administration of justice, accountability must be deliberately and firmly pursued in all its ramifications.
The warning by the two eminent jurists may not be unconnected with the series of criticisms and petitions to the CJN, NJC, EFCC and ICPC to investigate corruption allegations against the tribunal judges and justices of the Court of Appeal for the controversial manner some of them handled the petitions before them. For instance, a foremost constitutional lawyer, Professor Ben Nwabueze (SAN), at a public function in Lagos recently, criticised some judges and justices on quality of their pronouncements. Nwabueze accused them of allotting governorships and presidency at their whims and thereby diminishing the tenets of justice cum constitutional democracy.
This was followed by a petition by the National Coalition for Justice (NCJ) to the ICPC that the judges who presided over the Abia governorship appeal case at the Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt had compromised themselves by accepting cash gifts before delivering judgment on the case last February. Confirming the receipt of the petition to THISDAY, the Resident Media Consultant of the commission, Mr. Folu Olamiti, said the anti-corruption agency was presently investigating the case.
Also recently, a socio-political group, Justice for Peace Foundation (JPF), in a press statement signed by its Chief Campaign Officer, Comrade Kehinde Bakare, called on Justice Kutigi in his capacity as Chairman of the NJC, to commence immediate investigation into allegations of corruption against the judges who presided over the Abia case.
Referring to the allegations against the judges by the National Coalition for Justice as "a grave, extremely serious and damaging to the image of the Nigerian judiciary", Bakare reminded the CJN that as the head of the judiciary and a man reputed for his integrity, he had a moral and constitutional responsibility to get to the truth of the matter to ensure justice and save the judiciary from disrepute.
"The ICPC's investigation into these grave allegations is unhurried and lacks transparency. They are merely confirming being in possession of a petition said to have been filed in March, three months after. The commission should be addressing the press to update Nigerians on the progress of their investigation but they are not doing that. The allegations are too grievous to be swept under the carpet. If the judges were found to have compromised their position in that case, then the judgment must be set aside and a new panel appointed in the interest of justice and transparency.
"If the allegations are found to be false, then the petitioners must be made to face the law. What is need now is urgency and transparency in the investigation. This is why we believe that only the NJC has the capacity and weight to do a thorough investigation. The Justice for Peace Foundation will continue to mobilize all stakeholders and critical sections of the Nigerian public on this matter until justice is done. We call upon all lovers of democracy and those like us who desire a judicial system free from corrupt influences, to support our clarion call for a full investigation into this allegation to clear the dark cloud of suspicion that has set upon the Court of Appeal since after the publication of the ICPC acknowledgement of investigation two weeks ago".
Incidentally, before news of the petitions rented the air, some judges had berated fellow judges for some of their pronouncements that fall short of fairness. For instance, in Osun State, another tribunal was ordered to be constituted to hear the petition of Action Congress (AC) governorship candidate, Rauf Aregbesola de novo. The same thing for the petition of All Nigerian Peoples Party (ANPP) governorship candidate, Senator Ibikunle Amosun, in Ogun State.
In Niger State, the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) governorship candidate, has gone back to the court of Appeal in Abuja to challenge the dismissal of his appeal under some questionable circumstances. In Imo State, the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) governorship candidate, Chief Martins Agbaso, is currently at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal to challenge the dismissal of his petition by the Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt in spite of the weighty evidence of the annulment of the April 14, 2007 election which he presumably won in 22 local government areas of the state. In Abia State, indications have emerged that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate, Chief Onyema Ugochukwu is warming up to go back to the Court of Appeal to seek to set aside the judgment delivered on February 11, 2009 in Port Harcourt.
In spite of the judicial activism and pragmatism recorded by the judiciary since the attainment of democracy in the country a decade ago, it still does not exonerate it from criticisms. The enthusiasm which had greeted landmark decisions of some courts, was later replaced by apathy, frustration, anger and revulsion when conflicting rulings and judgments started emanating from the both election petition panels across the country. From accolades, judges, especially of the Court of Appeal were being held in silent contempt by Nigerians. The expectation that as cases go up the ladder of adjudication whatever errors of law, evaluation of facts which may have been committed at the lower courts would be corrected at the Appeal Court was deemed.
Even the justices of the Supreme Court did not spare some of the Appeal Court justices of the embarrassment they were causing the judiciary. In some of their rulings and judgments, they upbraided the justices of the appellate court for delivering contradictory judgments on matters that are similar in law and in fact. For instance, the Court of Appeal decisions that have attracted critical attention include the cases involving the governors of Kebbi and Sokoto states delivered in Kaduna, those of governors of Enugu and Cross River States delivered in Enugu and Calabar respectively.
The cases challenging the elections of the governors of Kebbi and Sokoto states were believed to be the same, yet the same court, comprising the same judges, sitting at the same venue, on the same day, delivered judgments that were different from one another. In the Kebbi governorship appeal, the court held that the issue of nomination was a pre-election matter in respect which election tribunal had no jurisdiction on. It consequently upheld the return of the PDP governorship candidate However, in the Sokoto case, the same court held that the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain pre-election issue of nomination and on that ground, it nullified the election of the PDP candidate.
In the case involving the governor of Enugu State, while delivering judgment in the consolidated petition of candidates of four political parties, Justice Adekeye who read the unanimous judgment, decided that late arrival of election material and non-availability of result sheets were not substantial enough to be the basis on which an election should be cancelled. Meanwhile, in Calabar and Port-Harcourt in the cases of Governor Liyel Imoke and Timipere Sylva, the Court of Appeal nullified their elections on the basis of non compliance with the Electoral Act; specifically on the point that election materials were not delivered on time and that results sheets were withheld.
Similarly, the judgment delivered in the matters between Senator David Mark and Usman Abubakar over their contest for the Benue South Senatorial seat contradicted the Court of Appeal ruling in the case filed by the APGA candidate in Imo State who was challenging the power of returning officer to cancel the result of an election already held.
Still fresh in the minds of most Nigerians is the way the court handled the petitions filed by Gen. Muhammadu Buhari and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, both presidential candidates in the 2007 election on the platforms of the ANPP and AC respectively. The two contenders were told that their petitions had no merit, thereby sending a wrong message to INEC and the PDP to continue to subvert the will of the people with brazen impunity. In particular, the court refused independent observers that monitored the election to testify in the petitions filed by the presidential candidates.
It is suspected that some of the judges might have been compromised in some of the controversial cases. For example, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the governorship election petition appeal for Abia State was delivered on February 11, 2009. The hearing of the appeal was allegedly concluded on November 26, 2008 when the briefs were adopted. Exchange of briefs was purportedly concluded in May, 2008. Apart from the fact that the delay in the hearing of the appeal was at the instance of the Appellants, the hearing notice for the judgment was allegedly issued on February 2, 2009 for a judgment date of February 11, 2009. In effect, the panel had enough time to deliver a type-written judgment, yet the judgment was said to have been delivered hand-written.
Against the backdrop of this and similar cases where the decisions or modus operandi of some judges were suspicious, many questions are being raised by critics as to what should be done to make judicial future rulings and procedure as transparent as a whistle. Here, the Chief Justice of Nigeria has a responsibility to fish out the rotten eggs among the judges and restore sagging confidence in the judiciary particularly in the way and manner it adjudicates electoral matters. If this is done early enough, it will help to rekindle faith in the system ahead of the fast approaching 2011 general elections.
QUOTE
Against the backdrop of this and similar cases where the decisions or modus operandi of some judges were suspicious, many questions are being raised by critics as to what should be done to make judicial future rulings and procedure as transparent as a whistle.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
