TheNewsGuru

Tag: Judiciary

  • Representative democracy and Nigerians lost battle – Godwin Etakibuebu

    Representative democracy and Nigerians lost battle – Godwin Etakibuebu

    By Godwin Etakibuebu

    It is for the purpose of checks and balances that developers of democracy, from origin, enshrined the three concepts or layers into government. Without the three layers; Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, conceptualised by the founding fathers, practice of democracy would have been so frustrating.

    If the stages of designing policy into prosecution of same, to the point of interpretation were to be concentrated on one hand, the end result would have remained continuous creation of despotic and that would have enlarge the territorial infamy of anarchy.

    The role-play of the three layers, which is to ensure checkmating one another, has actually redefined the beauty of democracy and makes it more attractive. Upholding the inherent benefits of this system however remains, as long as each of the three layers appreciates its autonomous identity. This is not say that all democratic system of governments over the ages have paid strict allegiance to practice of separation of power.

    No, there have been different approaches from one clime to another. The difference however has more to do with individual political leaders’ greed in acquisition of absolutism in power.

    Dictatorship occurs when one of the three, in most cases the Executive, plays the role of “first among equals” and thereby subduing the remaining two – Legislature and the Judiciary. Whenever the theory of separation of power is compromised, the major losers of the game in such environment are the people – the citizenry.

    This is due to the fact that for the rights of citizens to be fully preserved as per the dictate of constitutional guarantee, there must be existence of the three organs; executive, legislative and judiciary – all subjective to constitutional authority. These three must only just be in existence, the vibrancy and resilience of the legislature and judiciary above the executive must be distinctly alive. Let us look at it this way.

    A weaker Legislature will soon become an annex or appendix to the Executive while a docile Judiciary will always be too intimidated to give accurate constitutional interpretation the way it should be. This stands the fact out that at the place of melodrama of enslavement’s absurdity, the Executive arrive the pinnacle of absolute power without hindrance. And, it is an acceptable idiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Nigeria, unfortunately, is at that stage already. We have in place a Judiciary that has been adequately cowed, thoroughly intimidated and resourcefully disgraced. The Judiciary long walk to opprobrium did not just start today. It came through a full process, with some judges [including a few justices of the Supreme Court]’s houses raided at midnight by members of the Directorate of State Security, without legal instrument, hoarded them [the judges] to “questioning chambers” [looking more of detentions places] before moving them to courts, on corruption charges.
    This was followed up with the removal from office the Chief Justice of Nigeria without due process. In removing the CJN from office, the powers and functionality, constitutionally invested on both the Nigeria Judicial Council [NJC] and the Nigerian Senate, as regarding appointment and removal of the CJN, were ousted by the President [Executive].
    Having concluded that phase without ado, the Executive turned to the Legislature for “decoration”. The broken, shattered and discarded legislative leadership of Asiwaju Ahmed Bola Tinubu, in 2015, was re-assembled from debris of ruins, and imposed same as leaders on the National Assembly, having secured all types of promissory notes of absolute [including blind] loyalty from them. At the Senate level, Senator Ahmad Lawan, would ensure “obedience into eternity”, while at the House of Representative, Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila “promised leading without raising objection forever”.

    The first person to declare the totality of loyalty without objection to the Executive is the Senate President. He made the “commitment” when Professor Itsy Sagay [SAN] paid him visit in his office at the National Assembly. Prof Sagay had requested the Senate President to ensure confirmation of the EFCC Chairmanship position. Listen to Senator Lawan’s response.

    ”This is a new Senate. Going by our rules and I believe that goes for the House of Reps too, any issue that was not concluded in the last National Assembly, will have to start all over again. So, as far as we are concerned, those bills will have to come again and start to go through the process from the very beginning. We are ready. In fact, we are in haste if those bills are ready for us to start working on them.”

    Senator Lawan told his guest there was no request before the Senate for the confirmation of the acting chairman of the EFCC, before dropping the bombshell.
    “I want to assure you that any request that comes from Mr. President is a request that will make Nigeria a better place in terms of appointments or legislation. When such request comes, the Senate will act expeditiously to ensure that we play our part in the confirmation or passing of legislation appropriately.”
    Did you hear that? Any [and every] request that comes from Mr President is a request that will make Nigeria a better place in terms of appointments or legislation.
    Let us listen to what Femi Gbajabiamila said on this same issue, though at different fora. He was talking to his constituent at Surulere in Lagos over the weekend when some members of the constituency wanted him to clarify the now popular held-opinion that the National Assembly is now a rubberstamp.
    “People, naysayers, critics, and people from other parties have said the 9th National Assembly is a rubber stamp to the executive. “You know my reply when they say that to you? Tell them that you would rather have a rubber-stamp National Assembly that will bring progress than the one that is fighting the executive without progress. “This is because when two elephants fight, the grass suffers. This is not a rubber stamp National Assembly; this is a National Assembly that represents the people and is committed to their interests. “The people of Surulere Federal Constituency 1 did not elect me to go and be fighting the executive; Is that what you asked me to go and do?”
    It is really time for Nigerians to cry big because they have lost out, big also, in this venture where their own elected representative have vowed to turn their [the elected] backs on them [the electors]. For now, the Executive can do whatever it likes, against the electorate because the electorate has no representative to defend their political interests.
    This translates to a situation where the Nigerian electorate will have no say on affairs of this country, at least for the next four years. There is nothing we can do, not even the harsh reality of mis-governance which has crowned our dearly beloved country poverty capital of the world, making all of us shareholders in Poverty Plc.
    We elected them to represent us and bring us dividends of democracy. They rejected us, denied us any benefit, but got for themselves instead, a befitting reward of Thirty Seven Billion Naira to renovate their Kingdom Headquarters.
    That’s just the way the Nigerian political leadership cookie crumbles!

    Godwin Etakibuebu; a veteran Journalist, wrote from Lagos.
    Contact:
    Twitter: @godwin_buebu
    Facebook: Godwin Etakibuebu
    Facebook Page: Veteran Column
    Phone: +234-906-887-0014 – short messages only.
    You can also listen to this author [Godwin Etakibuebu] every Monday; 9:30 – 11am on Lagos Talk 91.3 FM live, in a weekly review of topical issues, presented by The News Guru [TNG].

  • Judiciary in the Dock, By Sehinde Omoniyi

    By Sehinde Omoniyi

    “Somewhere along the way, the balance of power between the prosecution, the defense and the judiciary shifted. We have to readjust it. The stakes are so high – the well-being of so many communities and the trajectories of so many lives, public safety depends on our collective faith in fairness and our view of the law as legitimate” – Emily Bazelon

    Over the last few years, the Nigerian judiciary has been perceived as the weeping child of the three arms of government. Whether correctly or otherwise, the common truth is that the man on the street thinks something is fundamentally wrong with the judicial system in Nigeria. This perception places a huge moral burden on the judiciary in this dispensation, and in going forward.

    For the first time in the history of Nigeria, judges’ homes were invaded, many top judicial officers are facing trial, and at the height of it all, a sitting Chief Justice was made subject of a public ridicule and in the end, Justice Walter Onnoghen is recorded as the first Chief Justice of Nigeria to be forced out of office on allegations of corruption.

    To put it mildly, the integrity of the judiciary in Nigeria has never been this subjected to scrutiny and odium. To compound the problem of the judiciary, the narrow-minded verdict of the Supreme Court in the now celebrated case of the Osun State Governorship Election between Adeleke v Oyetola, seem to have further widened the gulf of trust between the people and the judiciary.

    However, the 2019 Presidential Election Tribunal presents another presents another opportunity to the judiciary, to rediscover itself.

    Since March, the Tribunal has been fed with tons of evidence on what happened and did not happen by both parties – People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its Presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar who is seeking the court’s confirmation of himself as the winner and (or) disqualify candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) President Muhammadu Buhari. Aside the APC and President Buhari, the other respondent is the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) whose conduct of that election has been severally lampooned.

    For those who may not have followed the proceedings athe Tribunal, it is important to note that the Petitioner has argued that:

    1. The 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari), was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the February 23, 2019 Presidential Election.
    2. The election of Muhammadu Buhari is invalid by reason of corrupt practices
    3. The election of Muhammadu Buhari is invalid by reason of non- compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
    4. Muhammadu Buhari was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the said election, and
    5. The 2nd Respondent (Muhammadu Buhari) submitted to INEC an affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the said election.

    Indeed, in the history of election petitions since Nigeria’s democracy, the amount of witnesses and documented evidence presented by the petitioner including expert witness, has not been recorded.

    In a matter of hours, the five-man Appeal Court Judges would be expected to deliver their verdict based on the evidences brought by them. Their task is one which stands to make or mare the judiciary.

    Political grandstanding notwithstanding, intimidations from the gladiators and their agents notwithstanding, upon the shoulders of these five judges stands the hope and future of the Nigerian judiciary.

    The options before these judges are clear. They either choose to stand by truth supported by evidences presented before them or they may adopt the new albatross of the Nigerian judiciary called technicality and pass over the burden of facing the facts as they are. Whichever way they choose t go, it is a deeper battle of them and their conscience, and the future of the country.

    And as stated above by journalist and legal researcher, Emily Bazelon, the judges as the Tribunal owe the legal profession, to Nigerians and humanity in general to display justice and fairness. The judiciary obviously needs a readjustment. “The well-being of so many communities and the trajectories of so many lives, public safety depends on our collective faith in fairness and our view of the law as legitimate”, Emily is not alone in this thought.

    The world attention in this coming days is riveted on the Nigerian judiciary, the decision or indecision of the five-man appeal tribunal is sacrosanct.

    Sehinde Omooniyi is a Socio-Political writer based in Abuja

  • LESSONS FROM KENYA: How the Judiciary can save Nigeria’s democracy, By Clem Aguiyi

    In a sharp contrast to 2015 when there was nationwide jubilation, there were no celebrations on the streets when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared President Muhammadu Buhari winner of the 2019 Presidential Election.

    Instead, of celebration there were gloom, sadness and uncertainty everywhere, as people wore long faces. Even the inauguration and swearing in ceremony was low keyed and without fanfare.

    Domestic and international observers from Europe and USA now and again have expressed disappointments with the election which the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) claimed lacked transparency.
    In a recent report released by the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), the centre observed that INEC was less transparent in the conduct of 2019 election than it was in 2015 and 2011 respectively.
    The Centre described collation and tabulation of results from the polling unit to Ward Collation Centers as chaotic, open to manipulation and in some cases badly disrupted and opaque.
    Ward level tabulation and collation is a critical aspect of the election process. How it was handled can increase and decrease the credibility of election. Its disruptions and manipulations give opportunities for opportunistic political parties and individual candidates to dispute election results, hence the litany of cases before the various National and States Election Tribunals.
    CDD report also detailed how political thugs and security agencies threatened collation officers and party agents with violence thereby disrupting the collation process in several polling units.
    Section 138 of the Electoral Act as amended, provided grounds upon which an election may be questioned: that a person whose election was queried was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election; that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non compliance with the Act; that the person was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election; that the person whose election is questioned submitted to the Commission affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in and for his qualification for the election.
    Section 131 of the 1999 Constitution as amended provided that a person shall be qualified for an election to the Office of President if he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; if he has attended the age of 35 years; if he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by the political party and he has been educated up-to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.
    Each and every one of these laws requires proper interpretation. Every judge understands his duty to interpret the wordings of the law and to dispense justice in accordance with the letters of the law. Only a mystery will make the court to rule against the constitution. The Tribunals must allow the laws as stipulated to speak as the Judiciary also is on trial. How they interpret the extant laws in the face of national expectations will have far reaching effects, especially on the stability of democracy in Nigeria.
    Faced with similar situation like we do currently, the Kenya Supreme Court did not hesitate to apply the law and thus saved democracy in Kenya. In so doing the Supreme Court of Kenya created precedent for the entire Africa. The rulings of the Kenya Supreme Court could serve as a useful guide in our circumstances.
    For the avoidance of doubt, the Kenya Supreme Court didn’t hide under technicalities. The determined the petition on its merit and held as follows: ‘A decision is hereby issued that the elections held on August 8 were not conducted in accordance it the constitution and the applicable law. The results are therefore invalid, null and void. Election is not an event but a process. After considering the totality of the entire evidence, we are satisfied that the elections were not conducted in accordance to the dictates of the constitution and the applicable principles’
    The main reasons why the Supreme Court nullified the results were that the IEBC was not able to show that they had followed all procedures and that their servers were not hacked. The behavior of the IEBC has been suspicious and / or incompetent.
    They made claims that could not stand technical scrutiny of the expert panel appointed by the Supreme Court. For instance, IEBC declined to provide the internal configuration firewall to its server, arguing that it will affect the security of their system. The technical team was able to prove that the integrity of the system would not be affected at all by providing the firewall configuration. But IEBC did not do provide the firewall configuration anyway. That the IT boss in charge of the elections was tortured and murdered a week before elections does not give any comfort. The IEBC also made procedural lapses related to printing of ballot papers, having observers. They further refused to provide a trail of those who had accessed the system.
    All of this, in itself, made the court feel that something was amiss and they ordered a re-election.
    This is a great shot in the arm for independence of judiciary in Kenya. It is interesting to note that international observers declared the elections to be ‘fair’. They noticed some ‘discrepancies’ but then still declared the elections to be above board. But then the issue is that for international observers, elections are an event. In reality elections, as the Supreme Court observed, are a process.
    Winning elections is not about the Election Day, it is about planning and strategizing well in advance. It involves (1) ensuring that your people are in key positions, (2) your patronage extends to those who can make a difference (getting votes or raising money), (3) you convince people that you will win and that will be in their interests.
    The Supreme Court judges in Kenya come from the same society as the people. As proud members of the bench they did everything to stand firm on the provisions of the law. I would tend to go by their judgment and will expect our own judges in the Presidential Election Tribunal to deliver judgments without fear or favor.
    For some time now, the judiciary has come under intense criticisms and attacks, having also been accused of corruption and perversion of justice. Will the judges redeem the image of the judiciary? Will they deliver judgment based on facts or will they further capitulate and thus sink further the hope of the masses?
    The gravamen of the petition and cross petition before the Presidential Election Tribunal which must be determined by the panel of Judges bordered on the issues of qualification and corrupt practices that characterized the 2o19 presidential elections.
    Judges understands their duty to dispense justice and to interpret the letters of the laws as it applied to specific issues.
    As the fate of citizens wane and thin in the executive arm of government and the legislature, the judiciary despite all odds remains a source of confidence and fearlessness. And like they say the last hope of the masses. Can our Tribunals rise up to the occasion and like the Kenyan Supreme Court allow the law to speak and dispense justice without fear of favor?

  • Atiku urges judiciary assume role of picking INEC chairman

    Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who is fighting to reclaim a supposedly ‘lost’ mandate before the Presidential Election Tribunal has suggested a solution to having credible elections in Nigeria: It is simply by ensuring that the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission and the ‘board’ are appointed by the judiciary.
    Atiku said his suggestion is borne out of his ‘patriotic duty’.
    At present the incumbent president picks the chairman of the electoral body and Atiku obviously smarting from INEC decision not to call any witness to rebutt his case before the tribunal, wants the power to appoint the chairman taken away.
    However, the second leg of Atiku’s suggestion is strange. INEC does not have a board, as it is available in corporate organisations. INEC has a chairman and 12 national commissioners and a secretary. It goes by the name ‘The commission’, not the board. It also has state electoral commissioners and other administrative staff at the headquarters and the states.
    Atiku said he has made a suggestion on the need to change the mode of selecting the chairman and the commissioners based on the recommendation of Justice Lawal Uwais headed National Electoral Reform Committee.
    Uwais Committee also recommended the creation of Electoral Crimes Commission.
    “Obviously, the 2019 elections were several steps down from the 2015 elections in terms of credibility, and as a democrat, I am challenging that election in the right arena, the courts. However, leadership does not just entail getting justice for the past. A real leader knows that in terms of justice, prevention is better than cure”, Atiku wrote on Monday.
    “I have been pondering on the question, how can Nigeria have credible elections. Our electoral system needs not just to be brought up to date, by the acceptance of the amendments to the Electoral Act passed by the eight National Assembly, we also need to be up to tomorrow, by taking steps today to ensure that the lapses that made it possible for the 2019 elections to be manipulated or rigged are addressed.
    “One way of addressing these lapses is to implement the salient recommendations of the National Electoral Reform Committee (NERC) headed by former Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais. The second, is the creation of Electoral Crimes Commission.
    “One of such recommendations, which will enhance the independence of the supposedly Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), is the recommendation that the power to appoint the Chairman and board of the INEC be taken away from the President and given to the Judiciary.
    “Of all three arms of government, the Judiciary is the least affected by elections, meaning that it has the highest objectivity in matters relating to the INEC. It is therefore in the best position of the three arms, to appoint a Chairman and board members for the electoral body that are impartial, competent and patriotic.
    “This recommendation may seem like a small change, but my experience in life has taught me never to underestimate the big difference small changes can make.
    “Nigeria today faces a lot of challenges, chief of which are security and economic revival. To effectively tackle these problems, a government must have an honest and indisputable mandate.
    “Where you have an administration whose mandate is considered tainted, such a government will lack sufficient moral authority to tackle the myriad of problems this great nation currently faces.
    “I conclude by saying that I do not believe in blaming. Leadership must be solution-oriented, not blame focused. This is why I proffer this patriotic advice. Nigeria must be great again and all hands must be on deck to achieve that”.

  • Corruption not limited to Judiciary in Nigeria – Justice Tsoho

    The newly sworn-in Acting Chief Judge (CJ) of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, has expressed his views on how anti-graft war in the judiciary can be a success.
    Tsoho spoke with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)after he was sworn in as acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Muhammad, in Abuja.
    There have been reports about corruption allegation rocking the country’s judicial system.
    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Muhammad, had also, during his confirmation at the Senate, stated that corruption was prevalent in the lowest ebb of the judiciary.
    He said he won’t be surprised if some justices were corrupt since they were part of Nigerian society.
    According to him, that does not mean that such judges who are corrupt should not be identified and be treated under our laws.
    Corroborating the CJN’s statement, Justice Tsoho said ”the judiciary cannot be singled out when talking about corruption because corruption exists in every facet, and virtually every society.”
    ”So, it might be wrong to give the impression that maybe the corruption that exists in the judiciary is higher than elsewhere,” he said.
    Nevertheless, Tsoho stated that corruption should not be encouraged.
    According to him, open campaigning doesn’t really solve corruption problem.
    To fight corruption, the acting CJ said one must be ready to lead by example.

    ”First and foremost, you try to lead by example.
    ”If for instance, it shows that you are transparent, other people will be encouraged to be transparent too,” he explained.
    Tsoho added that he was aware of a government policy requesting one to set up an anti-corruption committee.
    ”So such committee, if it already exists on ground, can be strengthened by way of not openly propagating but genuinely monitoring and advising where necessary.
    ”So that way, corruption can be brought to the lowest minimum.
    ”So that is the way about it; may be subtle preaching and trying to lead by example,” he said.
    The acting CJ, who acknowledged that corruption cannot be eliminated completely, said It can be controlled.
    On the advice by the CJN Muhammad to carry everyone along in his new office, he said such attribute entailed being tolerance, open and giving attention to everyone.
    ”So we will show friendliness so that where we are even calling somebody to order, it’s done politely because as judges, we are basically colleagues.
    ”Anybody sup re ten dent , you are only first among equals.
    ”So that way, people will be encouraged to also cooperate because cooperation is reciprocal,” he said.
    He, however, called for the cooperation of his colleagues as he takes over as the head of the Federal High Court.
    ”This is so because I can’t stand alone and achieve very good results.
    ”So as I try to extend the hand of fellowship, they should reciprocate.
    ”If that is done, I believe we will go along way in making the court a pride of place,” Tsoho concluded.
    NAN reports that Justice Tsoho was on Friday, sworn in as the new Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court by CJN Muhammad in Abuja.
    His appointment was sequel to the retirement of Justice Adamu AbdulKafarati, who attained the retirement age of 65 years on July 25.
    Tsoho’s elevation as acting CJ of the Federal High Court was in line with the rules that enables the most senior judge to occupy the office of the CJ when the post is vacant pending the appointment of a substantive chief judge.
    Justice John Tsoho who hails from Benue, was born on June 24, 1959 and appointed a judge of the Federal High Court in Nov. 12, 1998.

  • Buhari speaks on state, legislature, judiciary autonomy

    Buhari speaks on state, legislature, judiciary autonomy

    President Muhammadu Buhari has assured that his administration will ensure a strengthened and stabilised democratic system in Nigeria.

    He made this known when the Presidential Implementation Committee on Financial Autonomy of State Legislature and Judiciary submitted a report on Tuesday.

    According to a statement by Special Adviser on Media & Publicity, Femi Adesina, President Buhari added that this government is making efforts to ensure autonomy for state legislatures and judiciary so citizens can be guaranteed fairness.

    “I went through a terrible time getting here for the three times I contested elections. That’s why I want to stabilise the system so that others will not pass through the same experience.

    “Both young and ordinary Nigerians depend on leadership to ensure justice is always done.”

    He assured that the government will study the report and recommendations, and take an appropriate decision.

    “We must ensure that trust is not compromised. This administration will take the report seriously,’’ he added.

    Meanwhile, Chairman of the Committee, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, said that implementation of the recommendations will entrench constitutionalism, democratic principles, and separation of powers.

    “The recommendations clearly spell out that if uniform modules for implementation of financial autonomy for the state legislature and state judiciary are approved for implementation across 36 states, it will no doubt strengthen Nigeria’s democratic principles, practices, and public governance.”

    He said the committee consulted with state governors, Chief Judges of states, Speakers of State Houses of Assembly, Civil Society Organizations and relevant stakeholders, including members of the public to come up with the recommendations.

  • Executive arm more corrupt than legislature, judiciary combined – ICPC Chairman

    Executive arm more corrupt than legislature, judiciary combined – ICPC Chairman

    Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC), Bolaji Owasanoye, says the executive arm of government in Nigeria is more corrupt than the judicial and legislative arm.

    According to Rasheedat Okoduwa, ICPC spokesperson, Owasanoye made the comment while delivering a lecture at the induction for new legislators in Abuja titled “The legislature and fight against graft and corruption”.

    Owasanoye described corruption as the enemy of development and good governance.

    He stated that Nigeria has the highest paid legislators representing the poorest people in the world, he said the national assembly budget had increased, over the years, for the same number of legislators without defensible legal or moral justification.

    He added that the public perception of legislators as being corrupt will be sustained unless the assembly makes its yearly budget public.

    “Corruption in the executive is far more than the legislature and judiciary combined. This is because the executive spends a far bigger chunk of the money appropriated,” the statement said.

    “This gives room for allegations of abuse and misappropriation of the funds. It is believed that we have the highest paid legislators representing the poorest people in the world.

    “Since 1999, national assembly budget has increased without defensible legal or moral justification. Without increase in membership and addition of only one or two agencies, national assembly budget grew from N6.9 billion in 1999 to N139 billion in 2018.

    “The problem is that it is just a single line item; the public is hardly told the breakdown and how it is used. The criticisms will disappear if we are told how it is spent.

    “The Legislature must wake up to its role of oversight over Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to curb the menace.”

    Femi Gbajabiamila, majority leader of the house of representatives, responded and said he had canvassed for a complete disclosure of the budget of the national assembly to put an end to the numerous accusations of corruption against members.

  • Buhari inaugurates Committee on Autonomy of State Legislature, Judiciary

    Buhari inaugurates Committee on Autonomy of State Legislature, Judiciary

    President Muhammadu Buhari on Friday inaugurated the Presidential Implementation Committee on Autonomy of the State Legislature and State Judiciary.

    Speaking at the inauguration which held at the Council Chamber of the Presidential Villa, Abuja, President Buhari and urged members of the Committee to be meticulous and diligent in the discharge of their duties.

    He explained that the setting up of the Committee was necessitated by the realization that Legislative and Judicial autonomy are necessary pre-conditions for nation’s democracy to endure.

    According to him, the Committee is expected to foster effective implementation of the autonomy constitutionally granted the State Legislature and Judiciary under the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    “It is my hope that when this is done, there will be proper checks and balances, and the State Legislature and Judiciary shall be genuinely empowered to carry out their respective Constitutional duties without fear of dominance and or marginalization.

    “The Legislature, being the closest arm of government to the people, and the Judiciary as the last hope of the common man, must both be seen to be sufficiently independent to perform their respective constitutional roles without any interference, let or hindrance.

    “In this regard, ensuring that these organs of government enjoy financial autonomy will further enhance their efficiency and independence,’’ he said.

    The president maintained that his administration was committed to “strengthening our democracy by ensuring separation of powers among the three arms of Nigerian Government, even at the State levels.’’

    He said his administration had identified the need to sustain the constitutionally guaranteed federal system of government by building capabilities not only at the federal level but at all the federating units.

    “This Committee has therefore been set-up, as a major reform of this administration, to ensure that the autonomy granted to the legislature and judiciary at the State levels is maintained, pursuant to Section 161 of the 4th Alteration to the 1999 Constitution (as Amended),’’ he added.

    President Buhari also enjoined members of the committee to cooperate with all relevant stakeholders to ensure compliance with the constitutional provisions granting autonomy to State Legislature and Judiciary, without deviating from its approved Terms of Reference which are as follows:

    1. a) To assess and review the level of compliance by all the 36 States of the Federation and the FCT with Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended);
    2. b) To monitor, ensure and cause the implementation of Financial Autonomy across the Judiciary and Legislature of the 36 States of the Federation and the FCT in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and other applicable Laws, Instruments, Regulations, and Conventions howsoever providing for financial autonomy for the Legislature and Judiciary at the State tier of Government;
    3. c) To consult and relate with the appropriate Federal and State MDAs, including but not limited to the Governors Forum, Accountant General of the Federation and those of the States, the National Economic Council and other institutions of State to ensure and where necessary, enforce the implementation of Constitutional provisions;
    4. d) To come up with appropriate modalities or model to be adopted by all the States of the Federation for implementation and/or compliance with Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended);
    5. e) To advice on other measures that are deemed necessary or incidental to the fulfillment of the aims of the Committee to attain the full purport of this assignment.

    President Buhari, therefore, who urged members of the committee to ensure compliance with their approved Terms of Reference, wished them success in the discharge of their responsibilities.

    The Committee, chaired by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, has the Senior Special Assistant to the President on National Assembly Matters, Sen. Ita Enang, as Secretary.

    Earlier in his remarks, Chairman of the committee, Abubakar Malami, described the inauguration of the committee as exceptional in the historical development of the country.

    He said: “This giant act of the President being the first in the historical evolution of Nigeria’s democracy has indeed yielded to the aspiration of greater number of Nigerians and as a result constitutes on of the major reasons for the President’s massive victory in the recently concluded Presidential election.’’

    He further observed that the committee was put in place in line with the constitutional status of the federal government as a trustee of the federating units of the country.

  • Nigerian Judiciary going through a trying time – Acting CJN

    Nigerian Judiciary going through a trying time – Acting CJN

    …Swears in members of the 2019 Election Petition Tribunals

    The newly inaugurated Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad on Saturday observed that the country’s Judiciary was currently going through a trying time.

    Muhammad urged all stakeholders, particularly members of the nation’s Judiciary to stand up against destructive forces and protect the honour and integrity of the judicial arm of government.

    He spoke in Abuja while administering oath of office on the 250 members of the 2019 Election Petition Tribunals.

    The members were sworn-in in one of the courtrooms of the Supreme Court. The event was Muhammad’s first official assignment since he was sworn-in on Friday by President Muhammadu Buhari, who had earlier suspended the CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Onnoghen and about 13 other Justices of the court, except Justice Dauda Sidi Bage, stayed away from the event.

    Muhammad said: “The Judiciary is in a trying time. We must. And, I repeat, we must stand to protect and uphold the integrity of this arm of government.

    If any other person is trying to destroy it, we should try to protect it. If we don’t protect it ourselves, no one else will protect it for us.

    “So therefore, it is our bounding duty to see that we protect the Judiciary wherever you find yourself,” he said.

    To the newly inaugurated chairmen and members of the election tribunals, Muhammad said: “I congratulate you on this appointment. And I urge you to see this assignment as a call to duty and service to our nation.

    “As you have all known, you have taken the oath of office as chairmen and members of election petition tribunals.

    “Permit me to remind you that this oath taking is a solemn appeal to the Almighty God. Therefore, it is to God the Almighty, that you will, ultimately be responsible.

    “It is from this oath the your duties and responsibilities as members and chairmen of the election petition tribunals, in your various places of assignment, spring forth and have a binding effect on each and everyone of you.

    “This is an ethical undertaking, just as we should uphold the rule of law in our various courts and tribunals.

    “As such, I implore you to discharge your onerous duties diligently and with the fear of the Almighty God.

    “I implore you to uphold and enhance the honour and dignity of the Judiciary,” Muhammad said.

    As against the usual practice of the court, only Muhammad and Justice Dauda Sidi Bage, serving Justices of the Supreme Court, were at the event that held for about 30 minutes.

    Other Justices of the court, about 13 of them stayed away. No reason was given for their absence.

    The President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa and President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Justice Babatunde Adjumo were also in attendance.

    The event commenced slightly after 2pm and ended before 3pm.

     

     

  • Reps to Buhari: Order your finance minister to release outstanding funds for Judiciary

    Jonas Ezieke, Abuja

    The House of Representatives has urged President Muhammadu Buhari to prevail on the Minister of Finance Mrs Zainab Ahmed to release to the National Judicial Council (NJC) all outstanding funds to the credit of the judiciary.

    House further mandated its Committee on Federal Judiciary to ensure compliance and report back to the house within one week for further legislative action.

    The resolution was sequel to the adoption of a motion sponsored by Hon Aminu Shehu Shagari (Sokoto,PDP) on the matter on the floor of the House.

    Shagari said that the judiciary is on the First Line Charge as stipulatedbin Sect 81 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) which provides that “Any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be paid and disbursed directly to the National Judicial Council for disbursement to heads of Courts established for the Federation and the States under section 6 of this constitution.

    He also said that the essence of the above constitutional provision is to guarantee financial and administrative independence of the judiciary thereby insulating it from interference and control by any other drafter of the constitution and also to promote and protect the doctrine of seperation of powers.

    The lawmaker stated that a total sum of 110 billion was approved for judiciary in the year 2018 and added that the sum of 100 billion was proposed by the Executive.

    He further hinted that the House Committee on Federal Judiciary in exercise of its oversight powers visited courts and judicial bodies on 7th and 8th November 2018 in an attempt to ascertain the extent of implementation of the 2018 budget.

    He also told the House that reports available to the Committee the Minister of Finance who is a functionary of the Executive arm of government has been withholding funds standing to the credit of the judiciary as at when due in contravention of Sec 81(3) of the constitution as amended.

    He added that the withholding of the funds to the judiciary may disrupt the efficiency of the judicial arm of government as well as place in jeopardy its financial obligations to contractual agreements.

    The House presided by the Speaker Rt Hon. Yakubu Dogara thereafter put the matter to voice vote and it was voted for overwhelming.

    Dogara later referred the matter the House Committee on Judiciary for further legislative actions.
    End.