When judges undermine public trust

By Levi Obijiofor

EVER since Nigerian politicians and election officials invented unspeakable strategies for manipulating the outcomes of elections, the judiciary has struggled to maintain some consistency in the interpretation of electoral laws. More fundamentally, the independence and integrity of the judiciary in resolving election disputes have been questioned on numerous occasions by a significant segment of the population.

When the Supreme Court ruled in an excruciatingly close but split decision last December that the sham that passed off as presidential election on 21 April 2007 was won by Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, the judgment was greeted by public indignation. How a majority of the Supreme Court justices managed to overrule clear evidence of malpractices that marred that election on the basis of legal technicalities astounded a lot of people. As Atiku Abubakar and Muhammadu Buhari, two of the presidential candidates who challenged the legitimacy of Yar'Adua's election, walked away to mourn their electoral misfortune, an entire nation was stupefied by the legal rigmaroles that produced the majority judgment.

Not only did the Supreme Court decision baffle some key members of the legal fraternity, the judgment also polarised public opinion about the judiciary. Many people wondered whether the apex court had indeed jammed the wheels of justice against an object hidden in a dark corner.

Has the quality of judges and justice in Nigeria diminished as a result of growing evidence of discrepancies in legal decisions relating to election petitions? The answer depends on who you speak with. Not surprisingly, a number of high court and Federal court judges have been bundled out of office for dodgy interpretations of the law that suggested they may have compromised their positions. Among members of the Bar and Bench, improper conduct or an infraction that undermines professional integrity is regarded as a hanging offence.

It is in this context that we must understand the recent decision by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to recommend to President Yar'Adua the dismissal of Justice Chudi Nwokorie of the Federal High Court, Owerri, for breach of his oath of office and abuse of his powers. The charges against Justice Nwokorie, coming on the heels of previous offences that led to the dismissal of some other judges, have compelled the public to view the judiciary as an imperiled institution. When aspersions are cast on the uprightness of senior judicial officers, society has reason to be concerned about the quality of judges in Nigeria.

In fact, President Yar'Adua's endorsement of the NJC's recommendations for Justice Nwokorie's dismissal has further strengthened public belief that the judiciary may not be, afterall, the hallowed institution it once was. It may not be out of character to suggest that the moral excellence of judicial officers has diminished significantly. For Justice Nwokorie, his shameful exit from office marks an inglorious juncture in his legal career.

Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdullahi Mustapha, admitted in an interview published in The Guardian on Monday, 9 March 2009 that the integrity of the Bench has been smeared irretrievably by occasional dishonest conduct of some judges. He said stricter procedures have been established to ensure that only men and women of character would be appointed as judges of the Federal High Court. His words: "Before we appoint any judge at the court I will first of all write letters to all justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to make recommendations in writing giving details of the character of the would-be judges. For private lawyers, they must be in active legal practice particularly at the trial court."

The question is whether the new procedures would be sufficient to forestall the appointment of men and women of doubtful character into the High Court. Justice Nwokorie is certainly not the first judicial officer to suffer the pain of losing his job in such an ignominious manner. Justice Wilson Egbo-Egbo, formerly of the Abuja High Court, and Justice Stanley Nnaji of the Enugu High Court were at various times victims of the National Judicial Council's disciplinary rules. Both men were deemed by the NJC to have contravened their professional oath of office. For example, Justice Nnaji committed what amounted to judicial hara-kiri when he ordered that Chris Ngige, the then governor of Anambra State, should be removed from office.

The order given by Justice Nnaji was viewed widely as the wackiest judicial pronouncement ever made by a high court judge ever since Justice Egbo-Egbo overreached himself through a similar blunder committed in July 2003. Justice Egbo-Egbo and Justice Nnaji outraged not only their judicial peers but they also challenged the validity of the nation's Constitution which had set down clear procedures to be observed before an elected governor could be removed from office. Thankfully, the National Judicial Council has a way of chastising stubborn judges who assumed powers they did not have.

The decision by the two former judges to order the removal or suspension of a sitting governor not only went against the spirit and letters of the Constitution, it also raised questions about the sharpness of mind of the two men, including their ability to interpret the 1999 Constitution. By virtue of the 1999 Constitution, neither Egbo-Egbo nor Nnaji had the power to order the removal or suspension of a state governor. It was in this context that many people wondered whether political interference had anything to do with the thoughtless judgments made by the two men.

As I argued in a previous essay, there are two relevant sections in the Nigerian Constitution that stipulate if and how a state governor should be removed. These are sections 188 and 308. While Section 188 outlines the conditions that could warrant the removal of a governor and indeed grants that power of removal to the legislature (not High Court judges), Section 308 makes it clear that a state governor should enjoy immunity from civil or criminal prosecution. It is sad that such clear provisions of the Constitution were ignored and violated by two senior judges who ought to know better than the layperson.

Under our democratic system, politicians are not expected to interfere in the judicial process in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary. Similarly, judicial officers are expected to resist any temptation to engage in political decisions that could tarnish the image of the judiciary. Of course, there are excellent judicial officers in Nigeria. The knowledge and skills acquired by these fine gentlemen and women have been recognised by their peers at home and overseas.

In many parts of the world, high court judges and Supreme Court justices occupy highly privileged positions. They represent the fountainhead of justice. They are regarded as the last hope of the less privileged members of society. In everything they do, they are required to reflect the virtues of the high office they occupy. That's why these judicial officers must be seen to be above board. In order for high court judges and Supreme Court justices to uphold the highest standards of judicial service, they must be incorruptible. And they must not engage in politics. Where the rest of society embraces corruption, judicial officers must show that they are the symbols of hope and impartiality. Unfortunately, what we wish is not always what we get from the judiciary.

For all their expertise in judicial matters, for all their knowledge and understanding of the law, in spite of the high social status they occupy, some judges have, by their shameful conduct, damaged the image of their profession and the reputation of their peers. Some high court judges, including those who serve in the election petition tribunals, have been serving the nation an odd kind of justice, the brand of justice flavoured with political interference and other sweeteners.

Judicial officers who commit serious offences that undermine their professional integrity and moral decency should not be allowed to remain in service one day longer. The future of the judiciary in Nigeria would be endangered if some judges continue to violate their professional oath and code of ethics.

Robot  # 1 | 12.03.2009 23:35

When judges undermine public trust By Levi Obijiofor EVER since Nigerian politicians and election officials invented unspeakable strategies for manipulating the outcomes of elections, the judiciary has struggled to maintain some consistency in the interpretation of electoral laws. More fundamentally, the independence and integrity of the judiciary in resolving election disputes have been questioned on numerous occasions by a significant segment of the population. When the Supreme Court ruled in an excruciatingly close but split decision last December that the sham that passed off as presidential election on 21 April 2007 was won by Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, the judgment was greeted by public indignation. How a majority of the Supreme Court justices managed to overrule clear evidence of malpractices that marred that election on the basis of legal technicalities astounded a lot of people. As Atiku Abubakar and Muhammadu B...Read the full article.

olusiji  # 2 | 13.03.2009 02:17

When the Supreme Court ruled in an excruciatingly close but split decision last December that the sham that passed off as presidential election on 21 April 2007 was won by Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, the judgment was greeted by public indignation. How a majority of the Supreme Court justices managed to overrule clear evidence of malpractices that marred that election on the basis of legal technicalities astounded a lot of people. Justice cannot be served on emotions and feelings. How much rigour went into Buhari and Atiku's prosecution of their cases. From recent cases in Western Nigeria, the diligence, the efforts, the details nd the cost of pursuing gubernatorial cases is astounding and sets a new benchmark in legal efforts to upturn electoral fraud. Perhaps with a little more seriousness, forensic evidence, and better organisation, Buhari's case might have been more difficult to reject. Yet that the decision was so close was positive for the rule of law. The charges against Justice Nwokorie, coming on the heels of previous offences that led to the dismissal of some other judges, have compelled the public to view the judiciary as an imperiled institution. When aspersions are cast on the uprightness of senior judicial officers, society has reason to be concerned about the quality of judges in Nigeria. That a system exists for judges to purge their chambers of proven corruption must be seen as progressive and laudable. All we must urge the NJC to do is to move speedily and efficiently. Obviously, that they could expose and punish their colleagues speaks volumes for their efforts to sustain public sympathy and respect.

emenanjo  # 3 | 13.03.2009 07:15

Good piece! I believed that at our level of development, emphasis by our judges ought to be on social justice rather than on legal justice. Legal justice lays too much emphasis on the books and letters of the law rather than on the main substances in a case thus the undue emphasis on technicalites. Thus we have seen or read serious cases been thrown out because they were filled on wrong forms. That is why when legal justice is delivered, which a people interpret to be unjust, emotions go high. Like Olusiji pointed out, there is no emotion in law but the judges should note that in Nigeria and most third world countires, there is what is also called emotional truth. My take is that the judiciary and the Police, as the last hopes of the common man, should be made completely independent from undue interference by the Executive. Their funding too, ought not to be at the behest of any government in power. With the nature of politics Nigerians play, we can never doubt politicians antics. They are capable of going to any lenght to get what they want. It goes both ways, the man who bribed the judge and the judge who took, are both guilty of crime. Having sacked the judges, the onus also lies on government to also arrest those who tempted them, arrest them and prosecute them. Punishment for both crimes will send messages across to givers and takers of bribe.

ayafa  # 4 | 13.03.2009 16:09

It is high time we stop talking and start doing, Nigeria is ours. We need only to come together as a Watchdog or various Watchdogs on key parts within our society to highlight with Documentary evidence the failings of these systems we decide to watch.