The National Judicial Council (NJC) rose from its 107th meeting to fire judicial officers guilty of recklessness. SUNDAY EJIKE reports how Justice Kekere-Ekun set the tone at her first meeting as NJC chair.
The National Judicial Council (NJC) is created by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to, amongst other functions, be responsible for the appointment, promotion and discipline of judicial officers. The Council has through various reforms ensured that it protects and preserves the sanctity of the judiciary.
The Council, daily steered by the Gambo Ahmed Saleh-led management has consistently pointed out that its desire is to foster a justice system that is fair, speedy and which meets the hope of all Nigerians through efficient and effective administration of justice in the country.
The Council says it is also working to ensure a judiciary that is integrity-driven with adequate measures to enhance timely and equitable dispensation of justice in Nigeria.
With its sight firmly on the stated mission and vision, NJC, at its 107th meeting, which was the first to be presided over by the incumbent Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun since her appointment three months ago, following the retirement of her predecessor, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, deliberated on petitions against heads of court and some judicial officers, handing down various disciplinary measures after what the new spokesperson of the Council, described as thorough investigations.
The apex judicial body recommended the duo of the Chief Judge of Imo State, Justice T. E. Chukwuemeka Chikeka, and the Grand Kadi of Yobe State, Babagana Mahdi, for compulsory retirement. The recommendation is expected to be acted on by their respective state governors.
A statement by NJC’s deputy director of information, Mrs. Kemi Babalola-Ogedengbe said the compulsory retirement of the two heads of court was among other disciplinary actions NJC took against affected judges, with others ranging from suspension to watch-listing and issuance of caution letters over various acts of judicial felony.
Judging by the usual time frame for the Council to investigate alleged misconducts by judicial officers, it would appear that investigations into the various errant acts of the affected judicial officers were likely carried out before Justice Kekere-Ekun took over as CJN and chairman of the Council, and for her to act on the outcomes of the petitions predating her headship of the Council, leading to the roll-out of sanctions against the erring judges, points to her showing fidelity to her inaugural promise to restore discipline in the judiciary and ensure public confidence in the system again.
Should ICPC prosecute judges caught in forgery?
Rising from its meeting led by Kekere-Ekun, Governor Hope Uzodinma of Imo State was asked by the Council, to compulsorily retire the state’s CJ, Justice T. E. Chukwuemeka Chikeka. The Council recommended the compulsory firing to take effect from 27 October 2021, while all salaries and allowances perceived to have been received in excess by the sacked judicial officer, from 27 October 2021 to date, running into three years, be compulsorily refunded to the Council.
The recommendation was pursuant to the findings of the Council that Justice Chikeka has two different dates of birth; 27 October 1956 and 27 October 1958. However, 27 October 1956, appeared to be the consistent date of birth, but in 2006, “the chief judge swore to an affidavit changing the date of birth to 27 October 1958” the statement from Babalola-Ogedengbe read.
Similarly, Council said it found out that Hon. Kadi Babagana Mahdi has three different dates of birth (10 December, 28 January and July) all in 1959, while his actual date of birth was 1952, prompting the request to Governor Mai Mala Buni of Yobe State to immediately fire him.
The Council held that “Grand Kadi Mahdi committed an act of misconduct in violation of Rule 02908 (i) and (ii) of the Public Service Rules, 2021 and ought to have retired from service 12 years ago”.
The Council therefore resolved to recommend him for compulsory retirement to the Yobe governor who is the appointing authority in the circumstance, while directing that the errant judicial officer should refund all salaries and allowances received in the last 12 years.
With the proven falsification acts, Justice Chikeka and Kadi Mahdi reportedly gained additional years of service beyond their due stay on the Bench.
Age falsification is a recurring decimal among Nigerian judges, which many believe is not being adequately punished by NJC.
Many observers argue that merely imposing compulsory retirement on those involved and ordering them to refund illegitimately earned salaries and allowances is inconsistent with the high moral standards expected of judges.
This is more so because judges that are compulsorily retired are still entitled to all their retirement benefits.
Age falsification for illicit gains is a criminal offence which falls under the purview of law enforcement agencies like the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), but no judge sanctioned for such violations has faced prosecution for the crime in recent time.
Sanction galore
The Council, at the Kekere-Ekun inaugural meeting, also issued letter of caution to Hon. Justice I. A. Jamil of Kogi State, to be more circumspect in handling sensitive matters in the future.
The Council further resolved to issue letter of caution to Hon. Justice J. J. Majebi, Chief Judge, Kogi State, for assigning a sensitive matter to a junior Judge on the Bench.
It also suspended Justice G. C. Aguma of High Court of Rivers State from performing judicial functions for a period of one year without pay and placed him on “Watch-List” for two years thereafter.
Also, Justice A. O. Nwabunike of Anambra State High Court, was suspended from performing judicial functions for one year without pay and placed on “Watch-List” for two years thereafter.
The Council’s findings revealed that Justice G. C. Aguma, committed acts of misconduct by aiding a litigant who obtained a judgment at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, and filed a garnishee against judgement debtors in Bori Division of the High Court, Rivers State.
The Council found out that, Justice Aguma failed to raise any query as to why the garnishee proceedings were brought to his court in Bori for a money judgment that could effectively be enforced in Abuja.
“The judgment was delivered on 15 July 2020 at the High Court of the FCT, while the certificate of judgment was registered at Bori Division of the High Court of Rivers State on 16 July 2020” the statement noted.
The Council said it further discovered that the speed with which Justice Aguma took and granted the order absolute against the judgment debtors showed that he had an interest, especially as he failed to take into consideration the stay of execution of the judgment granted in favour of the judgement debtors by the Bwari High Court, which had been brought to his attention.
On the part of Justice A. O. Nwabunike of Anambra State, NJC says it found him to have breached the provision of Rule 3.1 of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2016 and also failed to adhere to the principle of stare decisis from his different interpretation of the word “aspirant” and abused his judicial powers by granting ex parte orders without a Motion on Notice filed along with the Originating Summons.
In a move that suggests more trouble for errant judges still on the Bench, Kekere-Ekun also led the Council to consider the report of its Preliminary Complaints Assessment Committee {PCAC}, which worked on a total of 30 petitions, leading to the impanelling of six new committees for further investigation.
Constitutional powers of NJC
Created by virtue of Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in order to insulate the judiciary from the whims and caprices of the executive; and guarantee the independence of the judiciary, a sine qua non for any democratic government, NJC was vested with enormous powers and functions of the erstwhile Advisory Judicial Committee (AJC) which it replaced.
By the provision of Paragraph 21 of Part One of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, NJC has the power to; recommend to the President from among the list of persons submitted to it by – the Federal Judicial Service Commission, persons for appointment to the offices of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the President and Justices of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge and Judges of the Federal High Court, and the Judicial Service Committee of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; persons for appointment to the Offices of the Chief Judge and Judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the Grand Kadi and Kadis of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and the President and Judges of the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
It also has the power to recommend to the President the removal from office of the Judicial Officers and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers.
The apex judicial body is also constitutionally-empowered to recommend to the Governors from among the list of persons submitted to it by the State Judicial Service Commission persons for appointment to the offices of the Chief Judges of the States and Judges of the High Courts of the States, the Grand Kadis and Kadis of the Sharia Courts of Appeal of the States; and President and Judges of the Customary Courts of Appeal of the States; recommend to the Governors the removal from office of the Judicial Officers and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers; collect, control and disburse all monies, Capital and Recurrent, for the Judiciary; advise the President and Governors in any matter pertaining to the judiciary as may be referred to the Council by the President or the Governors; appoint, dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over members and staff of the Council; control and disburse all monies, capital and recurrent, for the services of the Council; and deal with all other matters relating to broad issues of policy and administration, among other functions and responsibilities.
What to know when petitioning a judge–NJC
With NJC’s power to hire and fire also comes with the responsibility to carry out performance evaluation of judicial officers of superior courts of record in the federation. The judges’ performance evaluation committee of the Council assesses and evaluates the performances of all judicial officers in the federation based on their quarterly returns of cases to the Council.
“The report of the performance evaluation of judicial officers in superior courts of records in the federation is used as a yardstick and mechanism to discipline judges and to determine the actual needs of courts vis-a-vis appointment of judges and for budget consideration. The report is also considered by Council when judicial officers from Customary Court of Appeal, Sharia Court of Appeal, High Court, National Industrial Court and Federal High Court are being recommended for appointment to the Court of Appeal and also from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.” the Council explained.
NJC has consistently ascribed premium to judicial accountability and ethical conduct in judicial office, hence its Judicial Policy placing a lot of emphasis on the need to strengthen existing judicial discipline procedures as a way of ensuring easier accessibility by complainants. The move was also aimed at engendering transparency and fairness in the process, both to the judge and the complainants as would meet international standards.
To this end, the Judicial Discipline Regulation may specify, among other things, who may make the complaints, time within which complaints could be made from the event or matter complained of, registration procedure of the complaint, form of a complaint, circumstances permitting consideration of information regarding incidents that may amount to breach of code of conduct without complaint, grounds of procedure for dismissal of complaints without investigation; reference of complaints for investigation and composition of investigating entity, terms of reference of such investigating entity or committee, procedure of investigation by investigating entity, form and contents of the investigation report and its disclosure to the subject of the investigation.
It is a policy of the judiciary on complaints that allegations of misconduct against judicial officers or employees of the judiciary shall not be leaked or published in the media. Where complaints or allegations against the judicial officers and court employees are submitted for investigation, the complainant or complainants shall be made to give an undertaking not to do anything to prejudice investigation or actions that may be taken.
The institutions of the judiciary concerned with investigation or/and implementation of decisions taken on such complaints shall be obliged to cease further action where such complaints are leaked or discussed in the media.
Where such a leakage is occasioned after the submission of a complaint, then all investigations on the complaints shall be suspended, the leakage investigated and if such leakage is from the complainants or through other parties known to such a complainant, such a complaint should be discarded.
Where such leakage is occasioned prior to the presentation of the complaint and the source of the leakage is found to be the complainants or through other parties known to and connected with the complaint, then such complaint shall not be accepted, upon submission, by the appropriate disciplinary body.
Upon all the conclusion of any investigation, the judicial disciplinary bodies may allow public disclosure of their findings, subject to following the proper channels for such disclosure.
READ ALSO: CJN Kekere-Ekun, Emir Sanusi, Fashola task judges on justice, accountability
