You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
14 — Vanguard, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2022<br />
Apprehension as S’Court sets to review<br />
powers of NJC to discipline judges<br />
Continues from Page 13<br />
the National level had changed<br />
hands from Dr Goodluck Ebele<br />
Jonathan to President Muhammadu<br />
Buhari who was touted as a<br />
no-nonsense Army General with<br />
zero-tolerance for corruption and<br />
injustice.<br />
Why I was sacked<br />
— Justice Olotu<br />
Sometime in October 2016, the<br />
sacked judge attempted a political<br />
solution to her case as she<br />
wrote a 13-page letter to President<br />
Muhammadu Buhari, urging him<br />
to intervene in her case.<br />
In the letter, Justice Olotu told<br />
President Buhari that she was a<br />
victim of victimisation orchestrated<br />
by a former Chief Justice of<br />
Nigeria, Justice Aloma Muktar,<br />
who was working with some powerful<br />
figures in the judiciary.<br />
Mrs. Olotu stated that she was<br />
compulsorily retired by the<br />
former CJN in order to satisfy “the<br />
wicked agenda of some judicial<br />
consultants” that wanted her to<br />
pervert the course of justice which<br />
she refused to do.<br />
According to the former judge,<br />
her ordeal started because she did<br />
not accede to the request of a<br />
former CJN, Justice SMA Belgore,<br />
and Chief Gabriel Osawaru<br />
Igbinedion to pervert the course<br />
of justice in some cases involving<br />
a widow and her children in suit<br />
No. FHC/UUY/CS/250/2003 and<br />
a case involving Mrs. Mona<br />
Youssefian and three others vs. Elf<br />
Petroleum Nigeria Limited.<br />
She added that in the suit filed<br />
before a Federal High Court in<br />
Uyo, the widow and her children<br />
sought redress over alleged negligence<br />
that led to the death of their<br />
husband and father on board a<br />
hotel vessel operated by the defendants.<br />
Mrs. Olotu stated that she gave<br />
judgment in favour of the family,<br />
which they sought to enforce in<br />
garnishee proceedings filed in the<br />
Port Harcourt Division of the Federal<br />
High Court.<br />
According to the petitioner, the<br />
judicial consultants, acting on<br />
behalf of Elf Petroleum and other<br />
defendants wanted her to vacate<br />
the garnishee order she made but<br />
she refused.<br />
“When I refused to do so, I incurred<br />
their wrath. This is my real<br />
offence and not any other picture<br />
Justice Aloma painted to the<br />
world,” Mrs. Olotu said.<br />
She added that the former CJN<br />
unconstitutionally used the instrumentality<br />
of her offices as CJN<br />
and Chairman of the NJC to further<br />
the vendetta of the judiciary<br />
consultants.<br />
Mrs. Olotu further alleged that<br />
the immediate past Attorney-<br />
General of the Federation, Mohammed<br />
Bello Adoke, was also<br />
conscripted into the conspiracy by<br />
misleading President Jonathan<br />
into approving the recommendation<br />
for her compulsory retirement,<br />
stating that the former CJN<br />
also withheld several material<br />
facts including her entire defense<br />
to the petition written against her.<br />
She went further to say that her<br />
retirement contravened several<br />
constitutional provisions, particularly<br />
Section 36 on fair hearing,<br />
adding that she wrote several letters<br />
to former President Jonathan<br />
but to no avail.<br />
The former judge urged President<br />
Buhari to “please pay attention<br />
to (her) relentless cry for truth<br />
and justice.”<br />
Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, CJN.<br />
NIC throws out Justice<br />
Olotu’s case<br />
While Justice Olotu was still<br />
awaiting action from President<br />
Buhari, the National Industrial<br />
Court fixed judgment in the lawsuit<br />
filed by her.<br />
Specifically, the trial judge, Justice<br />
E. N. Agbakoba on September<br />
20, 2017, threw out her case<br />
and declined to compel President<br />
Muhammadu Buhari and the National<br />
Judicial Council, NJC, to<br />
recall Justice Gladys Olotu to office.<br />
The trial court had held that the<br />
NJC acted rightly when it recommended<br />
the Judge for compulsory<br />
retirement.<br />
The court said there was no evidence<br />
that the investigative panel<br />
of the NJC that indicted Justice<br />
Olotu breached the tenets of natural<br />
justice or failed to follow laid<br />
down procedures before recommending<br />
her for compulsory retirement.<br />
Olotu runs to<br />
Appeal Court<br />
Dissatisfied with the National Industrial<br />
Court’s decision, Justice<br />
Olotu approached the Court of<br />
Appeal in Abuja for redress.<br />
On February 25, 2022, a threemember<br />
panel of the intermediate<br />
appellate court, led by Justice<br />
Peter Ige, held among others, that<br />
the process leading to Justice Olotu’s<br />
removal was flawed and must<br />
therefore collapse.<br />
Justice Danlami Senchi, who<br />
read the lead judgment, held that<br />
since the Federal Judicial Service<br />
Commission did not recommend<br />
that Justice Olotu be compulsorily<br />
retired, the recommendation<br />
made by the NJC to the President<br />
in that regard was not only inchoate<br />
but also unlawful, null and<br />
void.<br />
Justice Senchi noted that since<br />
the FJSC is constitutionally empowered<br />
to recommend lawyers<br />
for appointment as Federal Judges,<br />
its recommendation is also<br />
necessary before such a judge<br />
could be relieved of his or her appointment.<br />
He proceeded to hold that without<br />
the FJSC first recommending<br />
a judge for removal as envisaged<br />
under section 13 (b) of the First<br />
Schedule to the 1999 Constitution,<br />
such recommendation by the<br />
NJC (as it is in the case of Justice<br />
Olotu) and the subsequent acceptance<br />
of the recommendation by<br />
the President is a nullity.<br />
The Appeal Court thus set aside<br />
the earlier judgment by Justice E.<br />
N. Agbakoba of the NICN which<br />
upheld Justice Olutu’s compulsory<br />
retirement.<br />
Implication of the<br />
The court said<br />
there was no<br />
evidence that<br />
the investigative<br />
panel of<br />
the NJC that<br />
indicted Justice<br />
Olotu<br />
breached the<br />
tenets of natural<br />
justice or<br />
failed to follow<br />
laid down<br />
procedures<br />
before recommending<br />
her<br />
for compulsory<br />
retirement<br />
Appeal Court decision<br />
By implication, the judgment in<br />
Justice Olotu’s case, according to<br />
analysts, may be likened to a timebomb<br />
capable of scattering all that<br />
the NJC had done in the last 22<br />
years.<br />
Vanguard Law and Human<br />
Rights reports that since the NJC<br />
came into existence by the virtue<br />
of the 1999 Constitution and began<br />
operations in 2000, it has solely<br />
exercised powers over judges’<br />
discipline.<br />
In its 22 years of operation, it has<br />
recommended over a thousand<br />
judges for various disciplinary<br />
measures, ranging from issuance<br />
of warnings, ban on promotion for<br />
a specified period of time, suspension<br />
from office, compulsory retirement<br />
and outright dismissal.<br />
From 1999 till date, NJC has recommended<br />
sanctions for all classes<br />
of judicial officers who served<br />
in superior courts of records to the<br />
executive arm of government.<br />
The implication of the Appeal<br />
Court decision, according to analysts,<br />
is that all previous recommendations<br />
made by the NJC to<br />
either the President of the Federal<br />
Republic of Nigeria or state governors<br />
between 1999 and 2022 re-<br />
*Justice Gladys Olotu<br />
garding discipline of judicial officers,<br />
were not only inchoate having<br />
not got the endorsement of the<br />
FJSC, but also invalid.<br />
Until reversed, the Court of Appeal<br />
decision on the powers of the<br />
NJC on judges’ discipline remains<br />
the law.<br />
Given the likely implication of<br />
the judgment of the Court of Appeal,<br />
the NJC has approached the<br />
Supreme Court of Nigeria with a<br />
request to interpret the import of<br />
section 13 (b) of the First Schedule<br />
of the 1999 Constitution on<br />
section 21 (b) and (d) of the same<br />
First Schedule of the 1999 Constitution.<br />
Issues before the S’Court<br />
The sole issue submitted before<br />
the Supreme Court by NJC revolves<br />
around a quick review of the<br />
decision of the Court of Appeal<br />
which appears to have altered the<br />
status quo regarding the exercise<br />
of disciplinary powers over judicial<br />
officers in the country.<br />
The Appeal Court has specifically<br />
held that in determining who has<br />
powers over judges’ appointment<br />
and discipline, section 21 (a), (b)<br />
and (d) of Part I of the Third Schedule<br />
of the 1999 Constitution of the<br />
Federal Republic of Nigeria, must<br />
be read alongside that of section<br />
13 (a) and (b) of the same First<br />
Schedule.<br />
What actually does the law say<br />
about the role of NJC and FJSC<br />
on judges’ appointment and discipline?<br />
Section 21 (a), (b) and (d) of Part<br />
I of the Third Schedule of the 1999<br />
Constitution of the Federal Republic<br />
of Nigeria provides in clear<br />
terms thus: “The National Judicial<br />
Council shall, have powers to:<br />
(a) recommend to the President<br />
from among the list of persons submitted<br />
to it by -<br />
(i) the Federal Judicial Service<br />
Commission, persons for appointment<br />
to the offices of the Chief Justice<br />
of Nigeria, the Justices of the<br />
Supreme Court, the President and<br />
Justices of the Court of Appeal, the<br />
Chief Judge and Judges of the Federal<br />
High Court, and<br />
(ii) the Judicial Service Commission<br />
of the Federal Capital Territory,<br />
Abuja, persons for appointment<br />
to the offices of the Chief<br />
Judge and Judges of the High<br />
Court of the Federal Capital Territory,<br />
Abuja, the Grand Kadi and<br />
Kadis of the Sharia Court of Appeal<br />
of the Federal Capital Territory,<br />
Abuja and the President and<br />
Judges of the Customary Court of<br />
Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory,<br />
Abuja;<br />
(b) recommend to the President<br />
the removal from office of the judicial<br />
officers specified in subparagraph<br />
(a) of this paragraph<br />
and to exercise disciplinary control<br />
over such officers;<br />
(c) recommend to the Governors<br />
from among the list of persons submitted<br />
to it by the State Judicial<br />
Service Commissions persons for<br />
appointments to the offices of the<br />
Chief Judges of the States and<br />
Judges of the High Courts of the<br />
States, the Grand Kadis and Kadis<br />
of the Sharia Courts of Appeal<br />
of the States and the Presidents and<br />
Judges of the Customary Courts<br />
of Appeal of the States;<br />
(d) recommend to the Governors<br />
the removal from the office<br />
of the judicial officers in sub-paragraph<br />
(c) of this paragraph, and<br />
to exercise disciplinary control<br />
over such officers.<br />
In the above provisions, particularly,<br />
Section 21 (b) and (d), no<br />
role of any sort was given to the<br />
FJSC regarding the discipline of<br />
judicial officers but specific roles<br />
were assigned both the FJSC and<br />
the NJC in the appointment of judicial<br />
officers of the superior<br />
courts of records.<br />
However, Section 13 (a) and (b)<br />
of Part I of the Third Schedule of<br />
the 1999 Constitution provides<br />
that the FJSC shall have powers<br />
to advise the National Judicial<br />
Council in nominating persons for<br />
appointment as judges and in exercising<br />
disciplinary control over<br />
them.<br />
Specifically, Section 13 (a) and<br />
(b) of Part I of the Third Schedule<br />
of the 1999 Constitution says the<br />
FJSC shall have power to -<br />
(a) advise the National Judicial<br />
Council in nominating persons for<br />
appointment, as respects appointments<br />
to the office of -<br />
(i) the Chief Justice of Nigeria;<br />
(ii) a Justice of the Supreme<br />
Court;<br />
(iii) the President of the Court of<br />
Appeal;<br />
(iv) a Justice of the Court of Appeal;<br />
(v) the Chief Judge of the Federal<br />
High Court;<br />
(vi) a Judge of the Federal High<br />
Court; and<br />
(iv) the Chairman and members<br />
of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.<br />
(b) recommend to the National<br />
Judicial Council, the removal<br />
from office of the judicial officers<br />
specified in sub-paragraph (a) of<br />
this paragraph; and<br />
(c) appoint, dismiss and exercise<br />
disciplinary control over the Chief<br />
Registrars and Deputy Chief Registrars<br />
of the Supreme Court, the<br />
Court of Appeal, the Federal High<br />
Court and all other members of<br />
the staff of the judicial service of<br />
the Federation not otherwise specified<br />
in this Constitution and of the<br />
Federal Judicial Service Commission.<br />
From the above provisions, it is<br />
without doubt that the 1999 Constitution<br />
gives roles to the FJSC in<br />
the appointment and removal of<br />
judicial officers in the country.<br />
But it is not clearly stated whether<br />
the provisions of section 21 were<br />
sufficient in determining who exercises<br />
the power of discipline over<br />
judges in Nigeria or whether the<br />
provisions of section 21 should be<br />
read alongside those of section 13,<br />
the confusion that the Supreme<br />
Court is set to clear.<br />
Vanguard Law and Human<br />
Rights reports that the Supreme<br />
Court of Nigeria is the highest and<br />
final court of law in the country; a<br />
vital constitutional organ in the<br />
separation of powers scheme.<br />
The awaited pronouncement of<br />
the Supreme Court on this matter<br />
will, no doubt, either detonate the<br />
seeming‘time-bomb’ already activated<br />
by the judgment handed<br />
down by the Appeal Court in Olotu’s<br />
case in February 2022 or deactivate<br />
it if it reverses the verdict<br />
of the lower appellate court.<br />
Whichever way the pendulum<br />
swings, this is one case that the<br />
Supreme Court must not delay in<br />
hearing not only in the interest of<br />
the judge, Justice Olotu, who has<br />
engaged the NJC in a protracted<br />
battle but also for the stability of<br />
the third arm of government that<br />
is presently in limbo following the<br />
contentious Appeal Court verdict.