Introduction
It is no longer news that the National Judicial Council (NJC) – the nation’s judicial regulatory agency – reversed its earlier suspension (on corruption charges), of Hon. Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia and re-instated her as a judge of the Federal High Court. Today, we shall further x-ray the unfair criticism on NJC and draw my humble conclusion and the way forward on this issue.
The unfair criticism
In castigating the NJC for reinstating Justice Ajumogobia, Access to Justice (which has undoubtedly made its mark as a credible civil society organisation over the years), unfortunately, terribly missed the mark this time around. This is because, without proffering any convincing logical, moral, legal or constitutional arguments for impugning Justice Ajumogobia’s reinstatement following her exoneration by various courts of law, A2J came across in its press release as less-than-professional (with all due respect) and motivated by less than altruistic considerations. Perhaps, one of the very few instances, though.
The constitutional regime
For the avoidance of doubt, any criticism of Ajumogobia’s reinstatement can only be accommodated and must be located within the precincts and four corners of the clear provisions of Section 153(1)(i) and Paragraph 21(b) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, which clearly spell out the functions of the NJC –and no more. Anything short of that would be unconstitutional. Yes, corruption is bad, and judicial corruption is even worse – in fact, more deadly. I once described corruption as the 37th state of Nigeria, which is the wealthiest and most powerful. I had, therefore, theorized, and I still maintain my theory, that we must kill corruption before it kills us all. But fighting corruption with corrupt, unorthodox or unconscionable means is a worse form of corruption. Thus, to condemn a citizen’s reinstatement to her position from which she was wrongly and unconstitutionally removed in the first place, so as to perpetually subject her to the asphyxiating and hanging sword of Damocles, despite having been fully cleared of all charges by courts of competent jurisdiction – as Access to Justice appears to suggest should be the ignoble fate of Hon. Justice Ajumogobia – is simply most unfair and uncharitable, to put it mildly.
This stance is surprising, given A2J’s pedigree as an organization consisting mostly of legal practitioners. They are, first and foremost, ministers in the Temple of Justice. They, therefore, ought to be familiar with the famous aphorism that, “it is better for 10 guilty men (or women) to be set free than for an innocent man or woman (in this case, Justice Ajumogobia) to be convicted”. This is even worse if such conviction is by the court of public opinion that lacks all the facts and the peculiar workings our justice system. Put simply, A2J got it wrong this time around – big time.
Conclusion
My humble take on this is that, instead of the NJC apologizing for doing the right thing and obeying valid court orders as A2J appears to suggest, it is the organization that ought to apologise to both the NJC and Justice Ajumogobia, for allowing itself to buy into frenzied ‘mob’ sentiments; the usual government’s “name-and-shame” mantra; and pedestrian logic in its knee-jerk reaction to NJC’s action, which ought to be applauded by all and sundry. discharge.
Justice Ajumogobia has been tried in courts of law and given a clean bill of health. She has had her day in court. She has been vindicated. Whoever is aggrieved by her well-deserved exoneration and reinstatement should give her – and the NJC – a total break; and move on. The courts have spoken and it is final. Decisions of the NJC are inferior to that of a court of law. That is the extant position under our constitutional dispensation. There is no room for jungle justice, trial by media, sensationalism, hype, or speculation-least of all, from respected senior lawyers that ought to know better.
Beyond this, it remains to be emphasized that the common law or Anglo-saxon system of jurisprudence, which we operate in Nigeria is accusatorial. It is not the French model, which is inquisitorial. In the accusatorial model, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the state. This is unlike the inquisitorial French model which is the other way round: a defendant is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence. Accordingly, to the extent that Hon. Justice Ajumogobia has undergone the full rigours of a trial and came out unscathed, to that extent is it most uncharitable for anyone to suggest, let alone insist, that she should continue to prove her innocence, as it were.
The way forward
The role of the NJC in all this also deserves some commentary. This is because, as a constitutional body, its role should be no more than to dispassionately investigate allegations of misconduct against Judges and, where unproven or disproved, it should unhesitatingly and promptly reinstate such Judges, in the event that they had earlier been interdicted. Under no circumstances should NJC go so far as appealing against a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction which exonerates a judicial officer-as it is currently doing with respect to the cases of Hon. Justice Gladys Olotu and Hon, Justice Agbadu-Fishim. This, with all respect, due deference and full humility, is patently wrong. I hereby humbly appeal to the NJC to immediately discontinue and withdraw those appeals. They are as unnecessary as they are persecutory. The NJC should admit to errors and fallibility. It is not God.
The NJC should only indict Judges in the clearest of cases. It should never allow itself to be used or misused, wittingly or unwittingly, by the other arms of Government (particularly the intolerant and unaccountable Executive), to hound, hunt, or persecute hapless Judges doing their legitimate work. That would be grossly unfair and amounting to a flagrant affront to the Constitution. Those arms of Government should first cleanse and deodorize their stinking Augean stables – where confirmed cases of corruption-on-steroids abound – before turning to the Judiciary – Alexander Hamilton’s weakest of the three arms of government (Federalist Paper No 78). This is because, compared to these, other arms of government, the Judiciary – as a body – is a Saint occupying mother earth. (The End).
Adc crisis over as Chief Ralph Okey Nwosu loses
The Hon. Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered judgment in favour of Kinglsey Temitope Ogga and other plaintiffs in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1541/2022, and barred the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and Chief Ralph Okey Nwosu from extending Nwosu’s tenure of office after it had expired, going by the extant provisions of the ADC constitution. The court held that the party was bound by the extant provisions of its constitution; and, therefore, the actions taken by the ADC and Chief Ralph Okey Nwosu in wanting to extend Nwosu’s expired tenure of office is unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever. Justice Nyako also ordered the ADC to conduct a special convention for election to the positions of the ADC national chairman and members of its National Working Committee (NWC). In the suit filed and argued by leading constitutional lawyer and human rights activists, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, Justice Nyako answered in the affirmative, all the three questions posed by the plaintiffs under Articles 2; 17 (2) m, n, o, p; 23 a, b; and 24 (a) of the ADC Constitution, 2018, as amended. She consequently granted all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs (Kingsley Temitope Ogga & 9 Ors) who had sued the ADC, Chief Nwosu and INEC.
The suit before Nyako was commenced by means of an Originating Summons filed on the 30th of August, 2022. The questions put by the plaintiffs for determination were:
1. Whether, having regard to Article 2, Article 17 (2) m, n, o, p and Article 23 a, b of the Constitution of the African Democratic Congress, 2018 (as amended), the tenure of office of the Chairman and members National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant elected and sworn into office at the National Convention of the 1st Defendant held in Osun State on the 28th day of August, 2018 does not expire by effluxion of time at the expiration of 4 years from the date of their being sworn in.
2. Whether, having regard to Article 23 (a) and (b) of the Constitution of the African Democratic Congress, 2018 (as amended) and the mandatory requirement for the giving of 7 days notice of a National Executive Committee meeting of the 1st Defendant summoned by the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant, the purported National Executive Committee meeting held at the instance of the 2nd Defendant wherein the tenure of the National Officers of the 1st Defendant elected and sworn into office on the 27th day of August, 2018 is not null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. Whether, having regard to Article 24 (a) of the Constitution of the African Democratic Congress 2018 (as amended), on behalf of ADC the National Officers of the 1st Defendant can be validly elected or their term of office extended other than by the National Convention of the 1st Defendant.
The court disagreed with the submissions of P. I Oyewole, Esq, who appeared for the ADC and Chief Nwosu, and granted in their entirety, the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff through their Counsel, Chief Ozekhome. The reliefs sought and granted in the Originating Summons are as follows:
1. A DECLARATION that the tenure of the National Chairman and members of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant who were elected and sworn into office at the National Convention of the 1st Defendant held on the 28th day of August, 2018 expired by effluxion of time upon the expiration of 4 years from the date of their being sworn in being midnight on the 27th day of August, 2022.
2. A DECLARATION that only the National Convention of the 1st Defendant can elect and or extend the tenure of the National Chairman and members of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant.
3. A DECLARATION that the purported emergency meeting of the National Executive Committee of the 1st Defendant held on the 25th day of August, 2022 is null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever, not having been convened upon the giving of at least 7 days’ notice to the Plaintiffs and every other member of the 1st Defendant eligible to attend the meeting as mandatorily stipulated in the Constitution of the 1st Defendant.
4. A DECLARATION that the purported resolution passed at the purported emergency National Executive Committee meeting of the 1st Defendant held on the 25th day of August, 2022 extending the tenure of the 2nd Defendant as the National Chairman of the 1st Defendant and the tenures of the other members of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant who were elected and sworn in at the National Convention of the 1st Defendant held on the 28th day of August, 2018 is null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
5. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd Defendant and the entire National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant elected and sworn in on the 28th day of August, 2018 from parading themselves or holding themselves out in any manner as the National Chairman and members of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant.
6. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 3rd Defendant, whether by itself, its Chairman, officials, agents, privies or otherwise howsoever, from recognizing, dealing with or in any manner relate with the 2nd Defendant as the National Chairman of the 1st Defendant beyond midnight on the 27th day of August, 2022.
(The End)
Sounds and bites
“Omo house sweet die. I don chop like 15 times, dem no debit me.” – Anonymous