DSS raid: Dangerous contradictions in NJC’s position

THE National Judicial Council (NJC) in a communique over the raids of some members of the bench expressed its support to President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration on its policy of eradicating corruption in the country though within the ambit of the law. Overall, the body made emphasis on the executive’s calculated attempts to cowing the judiciary […]

THE National Judicial Council (NJC) in a communique over the raids of some members of the bench expressed its support to President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration on its policy of eradicating corruption in the country though within the ambit of the law. Overall, the body made emphasis on the executive’s calculated attempts to cowing the judiciary by the recent invasion of some of the judges and justices’ homes, and vehemently condemned the sting operations contending that some of them were not in the list of petitions received while some are still facing a panel over the allegations levelled against them.
Unfortunately, the Council forgot that the duty on the security agencies to give notice prior to actions is not absolute but dependent of circumstances. Where the operatives’ evidences are securely domiciled in the banks, consent or petitions could be filed with NJC while the accounts are monitored. The suspects can also be invited to report at convenient times. If on the other hand, the judges converted residences to banks as discovered in the raids, sting operations as carried out is indispensable. The reason is simple; the judges as humans cannot retain the evidences at the same positions on discovery that the deeds have been detected. Certainly, the positions will be altered knowing that criminal law requires as of necessity proofs beyond reasonable doubt. Or could a judge who strategically opted to heaping bribery proceeds in his house honour such invitations with the mega-cash intact at same position? Besides, any security agency that could disclose allegations without securing evidences is unfit, inept to be considered as operatives.
Interestingly, the Council noted that it overlooked some of the petitions for not adducing evidences as required, but still frowned at the sting operations aimed at substantiating the allegations. Sadly, on those petitions NJC upheld the allegations, the body was silent on what happens to the loots, but only recommended compulsory retirement or dismissal.  Perhaps, the Council is advocating for a special security agency within the judiciary to take charge of the lordships on crimes in view of the separation of powers. Until then, operatives’ activities are only limited by Section 308 of the Nigerian constitution.
Another grievous loophole in the position is that NJC, no doubt, constitutes the honourable judges and justices of the court, nevertheless, is obviously different from the court of law. Its resolutions are only advisory and not binding on the security agencies when carrying out its statutory duties.  The Council cannot stop operatives from prosecuting any citizen that is not covered by immunity provided in the 1999 CFRN, and failure to give prior notice doesn’t amount to disregard of due process.
By its position, members of the bench are sacred cows and indirectly shielded from investigations by the law enforcement agencies, hence can restfully convert homes to vaults where questionable public-funds are kept since all allegations must first be treated by NJC. The noble body shouldn’t forget the world is watching!
By Carl Umegboro, Abuja.