The Judiciary: Matters arising

When in 2016, the Directorate of State Security (DSS) raided the homes of some judges, including one or two that were very senior in the Supreme Court, it was the first signal that the government anti-corruption searchlight has turned its full glare onto the Judiciary. The signals were clear enough. It was like ringing the […]

When in 2016, the Directorate of State Security (DSS) raided the homes of some judges, including one or two that were very senior in the Supreme Court, it was the first signal that the government anti-corruption searchlight has turned its full glare onto the Judiciary. The signals were clear enough. It was like ringing the alarum-bells, making the announcement that there would be no sacred cows. Somehow the lights and the bells seemed not have made the right impressions on the Judiciary as business went on as usual. Yet the relentless pressure on the Judiciary continued until we woke up to the news that the Chief Justice of the Federation is being charged to the Court of Conduct Bureau (CCB) for failure to declare his full assets.

Things then moved at a phenomenal pace with expositions of huge of amounts of dollars in the Chief Justice’s accounts which he never denied owning but said to forget to declare them as the law required. Elsewhere when such sordid disclosures reach the public arena, the tainted public officer takes the noble step of relinquishing office to clear up the allegations and clean up his name. But such noble steps did not seem to be forthcoming from the Chief Justice, and in fact, he appeared to be just sitting tight and surreptitiously digging in, aided by an apparently orchestrated wave of support by the same operators of the tainted system particularly the so-called body of senior advocates. It was then obvious that the Chief Justice needed a shove to vacate the office. He got that push when the CCB asked him to step aside, ruling that you cannot be a Judge when you an accused. The Government finally banked on that ruling to suspend him from office.

Not many Nigerians can remember when the Judiciary had a jolt as big as this. The last time such an event happened was more than 40 years ago in 1975. I was getting into my final year at ABU Zaria, that year, when General Murtala Mohammed’s new regime unleashed a purge of top officers in the public service, all in the bid to sanitise the society. I recall that one of the most prominent victims affected was Taslim Elias the Chief Justice of the Federation who was summarily retired, ostensibly on health grounds. For a government that ruled with decrees, it was easy for the regime headed by General Murtala Mohammed to undertake such swift and drastic operation once they were convinced it was for the public good.

Taslim Elias was a jurist of immense international proportions. He was the first African to earn a PhD in Law from the University of London in 1949. He was also the first Attorney-General and Minister of Justice at independence in 1960 and he served throughout the First Republic as well as in the military regime of General Yakubu Gowon, before ascending to the office of the Chief Justice of the Federation in 1972. He was also a well-grounded academic, a Professor of Law and Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of Lagos, whose works are still standard reading in law schools. Despite all these intimidating credentials in the Judiciary as well as his overarching influence in the academic circle of the legal profession, the government went ahead to retire him.

But as General Olusegun Obasanjo, who was second in command in that regime, explained in his memoir, Not My Will, they had to do that because at the point they seized power in 1975, ‘the Judiciary had lost credibility and confidence in it had greatly eroded’. The General, added that despite the Chief Justice’s legal competence and high academic credentials, ‘his management competence and integrity to administer the Judiciary, was called to question – – we considered his capacity to administer the Judiciary thereby impaired. He would not be able to move with the new order and new dispensation. He had to be relieved of his assignment’. It was only after the Chief Justice left office that the Government decided to soften the situation by recommending him for appointment in the International Court of Justice, of The Hague. And to his eternal credit, Taslim Elias went on to prove himself brilliantly at The Hague by eventually becoming the President of the International Court of Justice, the first African to do so.

Many years after, another Chief Justice is faced with similar travails though clearly under different circumstances. Justice Onnoghen might not be the first Chief Justice to be removed from office but he will go down in history as the first to be docked for corruption and abuse of office. But it is rather saddening that our sense of outrage and indignation is misdirected at the wrong outlets. Instead of our anger being directed at the Chief Justice for being caught out, some quarters are taking umbrage at the President for taking a swift action on the Chief Justice, a bold step to clean up the Augean stables in the Judiciary. I like to think that it is a duty imposed on any President to remove persons from offices when their continued retention is inimical to orderly administration or no longer permitted by their individual conducts.

Then there are those who make a mountain over the rule of law and separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary. I really doubt it if the distinction mean that the two arms are mutually exclusive and would not intersect at a point or the other during the course of the conduct of State matters. I feel that the more they intersect, the better for the country in terms of sharpening of governance and elaboration of the demands of each other.

The fact that the President in the discharge of his constitutional duty to run the government and uphold the rule of law found it necessary to suspend the Chief Justice for reasons that are patently apparent and justiciable does not indicate that there is a trespass in the realm of the Judiciary. On the contrary it should be assumed that his action in so far as it was aimed at expanding and deepening the vistas of the war against corruption and enforcing accountability in the Judiciary was a healthy development that should be welcome by all discerning persons.

It should not be forgotten that declaration of assets by all public officers without any exception, is a constitutional duty and basic requirement of the public service. It is also a crucial weapon in the fight against misuse of office and prevention of corruption in the public service. To declare assets periodically is a basic minimum that must be demanded of all persons who have voluntarily decided to occupy offices of State. It is more so on the Judiciary who should be the first to be held to account and serve as the testing ground for the fight against all ills in the society which they as Judicial officers are supposed to be in the vanguard.

Now that the deed is done and Justice Onnoghen has been replaced on an acting capacity, by the next ranking judge, Justice Tanko, what are the matters arising? Would it be business as usual in the Judiciary? Is Justice Tanko the man of the moment and the right tool for the job of overhauling the judiciary?

We shall return to this matter. Keep a date with this page.