Lawyers call for prosecution of corrupt judges

When she was sworn-in as the nation’s first female Chief Justice on July 15, 2012, one of the desires of Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhtar was to put Nigeria’s judiciary and its agents on their toes.She said that was necessary to facilitate quick dispensation of justice and the re-evaluation of the role of the judiciary in […]

When she was sworn-in as the nation’s first female Chief Justice on July 15, 2012, one of the desires of Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhtar was to put Nigeria’s judiciary and its agents on their toes.
She said that was necessary to facilitate quick dispensation of justice and the re-evaluation of the role of the judiciary in the country.
Many Nigerians were in support of Aloma’s resolve to cleanse the Augean stable in the judiciary, which is generally regarded as the bastion of hope for the common man in the country. Some even felt that the judicial officers and agents like all others must go to equity with clean hands to evolve social change in the society.
Aloma’s sobriquet as ‘no-nonsense judge’ has brought a revolution in the administration of justice and moral reconstruction of officers and agents of justice in the country
Last week, the National Judicial Council (NJC) under the chairmanship of Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhtar ordered the compulsory retirement of Justice Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court and Justice Ufot A. Inyang of the Abuja High Court for gross misconduct.
The council said the two judges had been suspended pending approval by President Goodluck Jonathan for their retirement. The decision to suspend the duo, which starts immediately, was said to have been taken at the council’s meeting held on February 26.

Besides, the council also warned former acting President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Dalhatu Adamu and two high court judges, Justice A.A. Adeleye of the High Court of Ekiti State and Justice D.O. Amaechina of the High Court of Justice of Anambra State.
According to the  NJC, which is empowered by the 1999 Constitution to among other things discipline erring judges and recommend their promotion, Justice Olotu was recommended for compulsory retirement sequel  to its  findings on the petitions written against him and forwarded to the council.
The council said the judge failed to deliver judgment only to deliver same in Suit No. FHC/UY/250/2003, 18 months after the final address by all the counsels in the suit, in contravention of  the constitutional provisions that judgments should be delivered within a period of 90 days.
The council also said the judge admitted before the fact finding committee of the council that investigated the allegations that she forgot she had a pending ruling to deliver in an application for joinder.
The NJC further said the judge entertained a post judgment matter in Suit No. FHC/UY/CS/250/2003 in Port Harcourt after delivering judgment
And in another case: Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/505/2012, the council said  Justice Olotu failed to deliver judgment twice.
 According to the council, Justice Ufot A. Inyang of the Abuja High Court, also had the big stick wielded on him based on the findings of the council on the allegations made against him to the effect that he included in his judgment, references to the garnishee proceedings, which came after the judgment had been delivered on December 20, 2011.
The NJC also said Justice Inyang included the name of the counsel to the Federal Road Maintenance Agency (FERMA), Chief Chukwuma Ekomaru, SAN, who came into the matter after the judgment of December 20, 2011 was delivered.
The judge was said to have recklessly signed a writ of execution, a day after delivering his judgment of December 20, 2011, the same day a notice of appeal and motion on notice for stay of execution were filed.
The council also wielded the big stick on him because he continued with the garnishee proceedings despite application for stay of execution.
It further said before delivering his judgment of December 20, 2011, Justice Inyang ignored a properly filed motion on notice for leave to file additional witness statement on oath.
On April 26, last year, the council suspended Justice Abubakar Talba of the Federal Capital Territory for 12 months without pay. His suspension was sequel to the recommendation of a fact-finding panel that investigated allegation against him in his handling of a police pension case involving an Assistant Director in the Police Pension Office, Mr. John Yusuf.
The council noted that the charges had been brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Yusuf in the first charge sheet containing counts one to 10 under Section 315 of the Penal Code that recommends jail term or 14 years and a fine, were dropped by the EFCC counsel and substituted with another charge with only three counts under Section 309 of the Penal Code that gives a lesser punishment of two years imprisonment with or without an option of fine.

Talba gave Yusuf an option of N250,000 for each of the three counts.
 The NJC also warned Justice Okechukwu Okeke of a Lagos Federal High Court, who later retired from service on May 18, last year.
Speaking on the suspension of the two judges, pioneer Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Justice Mustapha Akanbi, said the measure was  a very good development.
He explained that the council’s big stick on the judges is a proactive way of fighting corruption in the judiciary.
According to him, cleansing the judiciary is in the best interest of the country as well as to promote quick dispensation justice.
“That will be in the best interest of the country. When the judiciary is good, every judge is working hard, things will be better in this country,” Akanbi said.
Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Justice, Dr. Ali Ahmad, commended the NJC for the bold initiative.
He said the big stick will send a strong message to the nation’s judicial officers that they should rise above board.
He noted that though judicial officers were Nigerians, they should not behave like ordinary Nigerians and belittle their dignity and reputation.
“We know that in the past, those who aspired to be judges never looked out for money. It is the name and the honour that they looked out for. When judges are having houses all over the world, and having billions of naira in their accounts, you may begin to wonder where such huge wealth is coming from.
“Nigerians are smart, NJC should also be smarter because they know that NJC will be looking for personal accounts of judges; so NJC should be a step ahead of corrupt judges.
“The few corrupt judges have brought a bad reputation to the institution of the judicial sector. We commend the NJC and especially the chairman of the CJN who has decided to steer the NJC well and strengthen it,” he said.
Speaking with our correspondent, Chair of Ikeja chapter of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Ubani Chima said the suspension handed on the judges is a healthy development and shows that the NJC is upright and working assiduously to clean the mess of the nation’s judiciary.

He also explained that the council ‘s action will no doubt keep judicial officers on their toes as well as ginger them to work efficiently and effectively in the discharge of their duties as contained in the nation’s constitution .
According to him, the bar should borrow a leaf from the ongoing revolution in the bench by also cleansing the Augean stable there.
On whether sacked judges should be prosecuted, Sam Ologun-Orisa (SAN) said “nobody is above the law.”
Oluwarotimi Akeredolu SAN, former President NBA, said the erring judges should be prosecuted if corruption was established.
Yusuf Ali, (SAN), said that a crime is a crime, and the president, vice president, governor and deputy governor can be prosecuted for crime after they leave office. Any other Nigerian both in executive or judiciary, whether retired or not can be prosecuted if found wanting.
Awa Kalu, (SAN), in his reaction said no citizen who commits crime is immune from prosecution except the president, vice president, governors and deputy governors who enjoy immunity under Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.
He added however that none of the retired judges was indicted for corruption to warrant prosecution, rather they were indicted for misconduct which is an administrative infraction.
Garba Tetengi, SAN, said that they should not be prosecuted adding that the punishment suffices except if they have criminal offences by their conduct as the essence of a disciplinary body is to punish by reprimanding, suspension or dismissal.
On his part, Adetokunbo Mumuni a legal practitioner and notary public, executive director of SERAP said that the only way the criminal prosecution of the judges recommended for retirement would be a matter of compulsion is if the issues which led to their recommendation for retirement have the tinge of the violation of extant criminal legislations. “I will therefore call on the Attorney-General of Federation to go to work and decide whether the judges should be prosecuted. I sincerely opine that retirement is not enough and will not meet the demands of social and legal justice if they have violated criminal laws of the land in their conduct’.

However, according to John Baiyeshea (SAN), the judges are not to be prosecuted because the issues involved in their discipline are not criminal in nature. “In other words, there is no criminal content in their case.”
Bamidele Aturu said that if a judge has not been found guilty of corruption, the issue of prosecution cannot arise. “In these circumstances the judges were found guilty of negligence or indolence. It is not good to prosecute judges just because they are incompetent or indolent. We should not create a reign of terror within judicial officers who honestly did their work but incompetently. I agree that judges who are incompetent should be shown the way out.
‘Secondly, I am not satisfied with a particular issue handled by the NJC. One of the affected judges was said to have entertained proceedings while there was a motion for execution pending. That is not fair. There are decisions of the Court of Appeal which show clearly that even though you have motion for stay of execution, you can still do garnishee proceedings. There are more that two decisions of the Court of Appeal on that point. So if a judge has followed the decision of the Court of Appeal why then use that as a ground to throw her out of the bench. I think that is not proper and the NJC has not acted properly in that case.
“We should not confuse our judges or make them live under the reign of fear.”
Nigerians and stakeholders in the justice sector see the on-going cleansing as a battle that must be fought and won. They say it is high time the nation’s judiciary stands shoulder high and possibly beat its contemporaries, especially as Nigeria celebrates 100 years of nationhood.