This story seems to stick around. As a 'layman' as opposed to a 'learned man', I am keen to know why these legal minds (the umpires I mean) are playing games with this case. Perhaps the learned ones on this forum would enlighten me. It seems like a 'Tom and Gerry game'
Gbola Gbadamosi
By From Yusuf Alli and Kamarudeen Ogundele, Abuja
Court of Appeal President Ayo Salami yesterday got a clean bill of health from the National Judicial Council (NJC), which refused to recommend his removal – as widely speculated - despite pressure.
But the NJC cautioned Justice Salami and asked him to apologise to outgoing Chief Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu for allegedly lying on oath against him.
Justice Salami is, however, likely to head for court on the observation of the Justice Ibrahim Auta Committee that he lied on oath.According to some NJC members, only the court can determine whether there is a case of perjury or not.
The Nation learnt that for about nine hours, members of the NJC were locked in a stormy session over the report of the Auta committee on the feud between Justice Katsina-Alu and Justice Salami.
The NJC raised the Auta Panel to review the findings of the Justice Umaru Abdullahi Fact-Finding Committee on the crisis of confidence between the CJN and Justice Salami.
The Abdullahi Committee concluded that a breakdown of communication accounted for the misunderstanding between the CJN and the President of the Court of Appeal.
A source, who spoke in confidence with our correspondents, said: "We were split over the recommendations of the Auta Committee and we had to engage in a heated debate.
"The crux of the matter was whether punitive actions should be taken against Salami or not in the light of the findings of Abdullahi's committee that the CJN acted in good faith over the arrest of the judgment of the Court of Appeal on Sokoto Governorship Election.
"At the end of the day, we still noted that the Abdullahi committee also claimed that the CJN has no power to interfere in any proceedings of the legally constituted court.
"Some members wanted Salami punished for allegedly lying on oath against the CJN, but others opposed it.
"After much argument, the NJC did not recommend the removal of Salami because doing so will amount to outright indictment of the President of the Court of Appeal, which was not the verdict of the Auta Committee.
"But the NJC recommended that the President of the Court of Appeal should be cautioned with a letter of warning and he should apologise to the NJC and the CJN over certain allegations he made on oath, which were not true. There is inference of perjury.
"The NJC also declared the matter closed, and decided that it will not revisit it again. Instead, the Council will work towards reuniting the judiciary."
Responding to a question, the source said: "Salami will remain the President of the Court of Appeal because the NJC did not recommend his removal at all.
"The NJC does not want Salami out because the issues at stake were more personal and politically induced than being judicial.
"There was pressure, no doubt, but the NJC resisted the plot to ask Salami to quit because it was not convinced of any cogent basis for that."
As at press time, another top judicial officer, who also pleaded not to be named, said: "I think we have not heard the last word because the Council cannot make a pronouncement on perjury, only a competent court could do so.
"There is no doubt that Salami will certainly head for court on the decision of the NJC. It is also a good development that Salami has not been asked to quit. This will enable him to fight his case in court.
"By asking Salami to apologise to the NJC and the CJN, they are laying a landmine for the eventual removal of the President of the Court of Appeal. The politicians behind the travails of Salami will not relent in their plot."
The source said the NJC also ought to establish the fact that the CJN lied on oath too.
The source added: The CJN, in his affidavit sworn to on the 7th of March, 2011, deposed on oath as follows:-
"7(i) That I did not any time whatsoever interfere in any from or manner with the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal.
(iii) That one of the complaints is the petitions was that the judgment about to be delivered by the Court of Appeal in respect of the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal had leaked.
(vi) That I, therefore, called the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal by telephone to come to my Chambers.
(vii) That when Hon. President of the Court of Appeal came to my Chambers, in the presence of Hon. Justice Dahiru Musdapher, I told him I had received a complaint that the judgment to be delivered in respect of the Sokoto Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal had leaked.
(viii) That the Hon. President of Court of Appeal, Justice I.A. Salami, OFR admitted that the judgment had leaked.
(ix) That I showed him the petitions I had received in respect of the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal and told him that the only way to maintain the integrity of the Court was to reconstitute the panel, as that was the proper cause of action to take.
(xvii)That the only step I took in my capacity as the Chairman, National Judicial Council, was to direct, vide letter No. NJC/CA/DM/IV/48 of 19th February, 2010, that the judgment that was to be delivered in the Sokoto Gubernatorial Election Petition Appeal 'be put on hold' pending the investigation of the petitions I had received. That I did not, in the letter under reference, direct the Panel on the Sokoto Gubernatorial Election Appeal not to deliver judgment."
The depositions contained in the CJN's affidavit were controverted by the PCA in his affidavit sworn to on the 31/3/2011 in the following depositions:-
"4.(iii)That to my knowledge, there were no allegation of judgment leakage and no judgment, whether actual or leaked was shown to me by the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria .
(iv)That with particular reference to the deposition in paragraph 7(viii) of the aforesaid affidavit of Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria , I did not admit (to the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria ) that the judgment in the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Appeal had leaked.
(v) The Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria actually instructed me to direct the Panel of Justices hearing the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Appeal panel to dismiss the Appeal which I told him I could not do.
(vii) The Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria instructed the Justices of the Court of Appeal in the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Appeal panel not to deliver judgment which had been reserved.
5(i) That it was on the 8th day of February, 2010 that the Hon. Chief Justice invited me to his office.
(vi) That each of the petitions Annexures 2 and 3 is dated 15th day of February, 2010, seven (7) day after the Hon. Chief Justice called me to his office in the presence of Hon. Justice Dahiru Musdapher.
(vii)That as at 8th day of February, 2010 there was no petition against me on any issue."
"At page 96 Paragraph 'U' of the Umaru Abdullahi Panel's Report, it was found that there was no evidence of leakage of judgment that was about to be delivered in Sokoto Gubernatorial Appeal. It was also found that the petitions did not state that there was leakage of judgment.
"Above all, from the uncontroverted deposition in the affidavit of the PCA, the petitions upon which the CJN purported to have asked the PCA to disband the Sokoto State Appeal Panel was not in existence at the time the CJN called the President to his office and 'advised' him to disband the panel.
"Who then is lying on Oath in the present circumstances? With the finding of the NJC Panel, headed by Hon. Justice Umaru F. Abdullahi CON, it is crystal clear that the depositions contained in the CJN's affidavit are not true. The CJN therefore lied on Oath.
"The aforesaid affidavit, having woefully failed to establish any allegation of leakage of the said judgment, the only valid and correct position is the affidavit of the PCA. If the petitions upon which the CJN based his directive were not in existence, the only conclusion is that he called the PCA to prevail upon him to take certain steps in the Sokoto State Election Petition Appeal, an act which was not based on any complaints by the parties to the petition.
"Paragraph 'K' of page 85 is to the effect that the CJN and NJC have no constitutional powers to interfere in any proceedings of a legally constituted Court. Paragraph 'M' of the same page 85 is to the effect that the CJN acted in good faith.
"It is noteworthy to observe that lack of statutory or Constitutional powers to support an action negates good faith. It is therefore absurd for the panel to conclude that the CJN acted in good faith."
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment