USA Africa Dialogue Series - Judges arrest: How to cleanse the Judiciary

Judges arrest: How to cleanse the Judiciary

 

KAYODE KETEFE

 

The biggest news rocking the nation at this moment is the arrest of seven of the judges between last Friday and Saturday, by the operatives from the Department of Security Services. These highly placed judiciary icons comprising two Supreme Court Justices Sylvester Ngwuta and John Okoro, were alleged to have collected bribes to pervert the cause of justice by subverting judgement in favour of one of the two leading political parties in Akwa Ibom State and another state in the South East.

The five other judges enmeshed in this debacle are Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja; Kabir Auta of the Kano High Court; Muazu Pindiga of Gombe High Court, Mohammed Tsamiya of the Court of Appeal in Ilorin, and the Chief Judge of Enugu State, I. A. Umezulike.
Nigeria has grappled with corruption in the Judiciary over the ages with many judges being booted out of office with ignominy over gross misconduct. The list of such judges includes a former judge of the Lagos High Court, Justice Adebayo Manuwa; a former judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja, Justice Chukwuemeka Nwaogwugwu; and a former Chief Judge of the Abia State High Court, Justice Kalu Amah. Others are former Justice Wilson Egbo-Egbo of Abuja High Court; and a former judge of the Enugu State High Court, Justice Stanley Nnaji.

Earlier this very month, the National Judicial Council (NJC) (an organ constitutionally charged with appointment and discipline of judges) recommended compulsory retirement of, the Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Justice Mohammed Tsamiya and sack of Chief Judge, Enugu State, Justice I. A. Umezulike and Justice Kabiru Auta of the High Court of Justice, Kano State, for professional misconduct.

The instant  clampdown by the DSS on judges have sharply polarised the discerning Nigerians into two camps, we have those who faulted the arrest, especially the mode it was executed, seeing it as a slap on the Judiciary which consists an independent arm of Government.  This group insists that the findings of the DSS should simply have been made available to the NJC which would then recommend the appropriate punitive action.

On the other hand, we have those who assert that fighting corruption should not encumbered with the so-called due process and unnecessary adherence to technicalities. They believe that the invasion of the judges' homes and subsequent arrest could be justified on the grounds of necessity – that it would otherwise have been difficult to get to the root of the matter without resort to such sudden invasion and arrest.

This writer will rather take a somewhat middle ground from these two sharply divided perspectives. To start with, the DSS has the powers to arrest anybody except those covered with immunity under section 308 and ambassadors and diplomats. Judges don't have such immunity.

Specifically, Sections 12 (2) & 13 ACJA give a law officer the power to break into and out of any house for the purpose of arresting a suspect who fails to let the arresting officer in.
6Section 43 (1) ACJA states: "A warrant of arrest may be executed on any day, including a Sunday or public holiday."

Notwithstanding the above, given the prime place judges occupy as head of another arm of government, the normal thing should have been for the DSS to invite the judges for quizzing.  However, if the finding of humongous amount of moneys allegedly found in the homes of the some of these arrested judges is factored into the equation, the option of inviting the judges becomes problematic.

It would take a fool to get an invitation from a topmost security agency like the DSS and still retain in his home the evidence that can nail him! For this reason the sudden invasion may be excused. Not that it is proper, but as a necessary aberration to unearth a cogent evidence that would otherwise be lost and frustrate the case.

The judges deserve to be treated with utmost dignity and respect and all of them should be given bail (after making their statements) on self-recognisance, though they may be placed on surveillance, after all they are still innocent now until proven guilty.

The proper route should still be followed. That is DSS should forward their findings to the NJC while the latter should make their recommendations to the President on the appropriate punitive measures, which of course, can include prosecution of the erring judges.

In that case all the due process would have been followed and the expected ends would still be procured.

Having said that I am not oblivious of the fact that the NJC itself has attracted criticisms over the years for perceived conservatism and lethargy. There has been a belief that the NJC has not particularly been active on the issue of discipline of judicial officers. The institution is seen to be overly cautious about taking punitive measures against judicial personnel in order not to give impression to the public that the judiciary is corrupt.

True, the Council has disciplined many judges over the years with sanctions like caution, suspension or outright removal from the bench but, People do wonder what the number of casualties  would have been if  the Council has not been "liberal" with the judges!

An objective and rational approach would be to insist that judicial integrity should not be compromised for whatever reason. So going forward, the NJC itself needs restructuring, to make it more dynamic and efficient. The composition of the body needs to be tinkered with to ensure that no one in the Council is too powerful to influence its decisions

 

Ketefe may be followed on twitter @Ketesco