Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, has said that the judiciary is key to the existence of a stable society.
Ozekhome said this on Thursday in Abuja at the 2024 Conference of the National Association of Judiciary Correspondents (NAJUC).
According to him, Nigeria may collapse without a functional judiciary system.
He charged the judiciary to live up to expectations in ensuring that their judgements reflect justice and not based on technicalities.
Speaking on the role of courts in enforcement of judgements, the professor of law said court orders must be obeyed until set aside by a higher court.
He said the courts held the balance of scale between feuding parties, otherwise, there may be chaos in the country.
He also said that the court was critical in ensuring that judgements were enforced and complied with.
He advised judges to avoid attending occasions organised by politically exposed persons with cases before them, just as he enjoined them to eschew corruption under any guise.
“I still want to believe at this point that in spite of all the issues the judiciary may have, it still remains the best of the three arms of government.
“If you remove the judiciary, Nigeria will collapse like a pack of cards. The role of the courts is very sacred in the functioning of society and must be held with the highest esteem,” he said.
According to him, the time has now come for Judges to form an association to defend themselves against unfounded allegations.
He advocated the establishment of a National Association of Serving Judges so that judges could defend themselves.
He called on lawyers to resist the temptation of writing incessant petitions against judges, urging to instead appeal the cases.
Earlier, the chairman of NAJUC, Mr Kayode Lawal, said that the annual conference was part of efforts to keep judiciary correspondents up to date.
“After the last edition of this conference, we noted with great concern the ugly trend in the court-of-court jurisdictions, easily conflicting decisions and orders on virtually the same issues and parties.
”It is worrisome, sad, and regrettable that the ugly development has continued to exist in spite of warnings from here and there” Lawal said.
The theme of the 2024 conference is: “The Role of Courts in Enforcement of Judgments”.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome has supported the call to replace the current” Arise O Compatriots ” National Anthem with the ” Nigeria , We Hail Thee” , the country started with , in October 1960.
TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) reports Chief Ozekhome to have said Nigeria should return to the old National Anthem at a public hearing by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters in Abuja on Monday.
The public hearing by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters was on a bill seeking to revert the nation to the use of the old National Anthem, titled “Nigeria, We Hail Thee”.
Ozekhome said such a move was long overdue since the National Anthem adopted in 1978 does not have the required gravitas and not inspirational to fire the passion and zeal for nationhood among Nigerians.
Ozekhome expressed delight that the motion to return to the old National Anthem which he moved at the 2014 National Conference, was becoming a reality after a decade.
Speaking at the public hearing, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Malam Mohammed Idris recommended that the scope of the bill should be expanded to include a robust issue on national identity rather than limiting it to change of national anthem.
Idris, represented by the Director-General, National Orientation Agency (NOA), Mr Lanre Issa-Onilu, said that some lines in the old national anthem had no complete meaning.
“The issue of national anthem is just a sub-sect. What we should be looking at is the National Identity Act,” Idris said.
Meanwhile, Chairman of the Committee, Sen. Muhammad Monguno said the National Assembly (NASS) had gone on with its plans to pass the bill.
“The Bill has passed first and second reading at the Senate and the Public Hearing was advertised. Those who are not here have probably agreed with intendment of the proposed legislation,” he said.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed a fine of N40M on human rights activists and Constitutional lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome for filing frivolous motion before the court in respect of Imo Governorship tussle decided since 2019.
In a ruling by Justice Tijani Abubakar, he ordered the Senior lawyer to personally pay the N40M fine to the four respondents he dragged before the court.
Abubakar held in the ruling that the request was strange, frivolous, baseless, unwarranted, vexatious and irritating.
He further held that the motion was a calculated design to demonize the Supreme Court.
Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria SAN called to the Nigerian Bar over 42 years ago was fined the huge amount for bringing a motion before the Apex Court seeking to revalidate the suit that removed Emeka Ihedioha as Governor of Imo State in 2019.
Those to be paid are the Action People’s Party, APP, Uche Nnadi, Uche Nwosu and the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC.
In the motion considered to be frivolous by the court, Ozekhome had asked the Court for a consequential order to compel INEC to issue a fresh Certificate of Return to Ihedioha to enable him spend a four year tenure as Imo Governor.
His grouse was that the incumbent governor, Senator Hope Uzodinma unlawfully spent the four years which Ihedioha ought to spend.
Among others, Ozekhome in the motion claimed that the All Progressives Congress APC had no candidate in the 2019 Imo Governorship election, hence, Uzodinmma ought not to have been made governor on the platform of APC.
However, the apex court dismissed the motion on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain such a motion.
A Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja, on Friday, convicted and sentenced two of the four defendants alleged to have kidnapped Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, to a 20-year jail term each.
Justice Binta Nyako, in a judgment, held that the prosecution had been able to establish the counts preferred against Kelvin Ezeigbe and Frank Azuekor, who were 1st and 2nd defendants, beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Nyako held that the sentence would run from the day of their arrest.
The judge, however, discharged and acquitted Michael Omonigho and Momoh Haruna, who were 3rd and 4th defendants, of the counts levelled against them in the terrorism charge.
She held that though some of the counts against Ezeigbe and Azuekor attracted punishment ranging from death sentence, life imprisonment to at least 10 years jail term, she said she had found that the accused had been remorseful of their criminal act.
She said she also found that they had been in custody for about 10 years from the day of their arrest.
According to reports, while Omonigho, who was said to be the chief priest was in court, Haruna was not.
When Nyako warned Omonigho to be careful as people worship in his shrine in the open court, the chief priest responded thus: “I have repented my lord.”
The judge, however, directed that Haruna, who was at large, should be brought to court to face the sin of his escape from lawful custody, even though he was discharged of the counts against him.
The judge commended the defence lawyer, Bala Dakum, and the prosecution counsel, Chioma Onuegbu, for their industrious input in the course of the trial.
The defendants; Kelvin Ezeigbe, Frank Azuekor, Michael Omonigho and Momoh Haruna were first arraigned before Justice Adeniyi Ademola of a FHC, on June 9, 2014, on a 13-count charge bordering on conspiracy, armed robbery, kidnapping and acts of terrorism.
While the three defendants were in court, Haruna was said to be missing after the attack on Kuje Correctional Centre by terrorists on July 5, 2022.
They were accused of committing acts of terrorism, contrary to Sections 1, 8 and 10 of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2011.
They were alleged to have, on Aug. 23, 2013, kidnapped Mr. Ozekhome at Iruekpen on his way to Iviukwe in Agenebode, Edo.
Ozekhome was held in captivity for about three weeks before his release allegedly following the payment of N28 million ransom.
They were also accused of kidnapping Delta State Commissioner for Higher Education, Prof Hope Eghagha; Attanasius Ugbme and his friend, Emmanuel Maka Omorogbe, and killing five policemen and two prison officials.
The defendants were also alleged to have compelled Eghagha to pay N7 million, Ugbome paid N20 million and Omorogbe paid N3.5 million.
The five police officers allegedly killed were Paul Ajaka, Sunday Ewanshiha, Michael Akpada, Bakary Ekong and Innocent Odoh.
They also allegedly killed Lawrence Edora and Oyibo Okoye who were prison officers and made away with their service rifles.
The four suspects were refused bail filed on their behalf by their lawyer, Bala Dakum.
While Ezeigbe and Azuekor had been held at the facility of the Department of State Service (DSS), Omonigho and Haruna were held at Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja.
The family of detained Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB has terminated the services of his two legal counsels.
The secessionist’s younger brother, Kanunta Kanu who made this known in a tweet on Thursday, said Kanu’s counsels, Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN and Bar. Ifeanyi Ejiofor has been sacked.
According to him, the development followed the inability of the lawyers to see their client who is being detained at the Department of State Services, DSS Headquarters Abuja.
Kanu also accused the lawyers of allegedly stopping medical doctors billed to attend to the secessionist at the DSS custody.
“After Nnamdi Kanu’s case on 11th May 2023, Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN has refused to see his client in DSS headquarters Abuja even after several messages from MNK to see him.
“Secondly, for stopping the medical doctors who were to examine MNK on 5th June even when he and Bar. Ifeanyi Ejiofor were duly informed on 2nd June and MNK told them to inform his family to arrange that.
“For those obvious reasons and many more, Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN and Bar. Ifeanyi Ejiofor are hereby sacked as Nnamdi Kanu’s Counsels.
“The Kanu family do appreciate your time and efforts so far, please hand over the legal documents ASAP”.
A constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Prof Mike Ozekhome, has explained that the Supreme Court only paused the implementation of the February 10 deadline given by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on naira notes, to listen to parties in the suit.
TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) reports that CBN had given February 10 ultimatum for the old N200, N500 and N1,000 banknotes to cease being legal tender in the country.
Explaining the Supreme Court’s judgement on Channels Television, Wednesday night, Ozekhome said the Supreme Court only paused the implementation of the deadline saying the apex court had not decided on the matter.
He further explained that the apex court gave the judgement so as to prevent the subject matter of the suit from being truncated.
Explaining the development, Ozekhome said, “The Supreme Court has not decided the matter. All it has done is to fall back to a decision like Kotoye vs CBN, that in matters of extreme urgency, you can grant an interim order, even if it be an ex-parte, to prevent the subject matter of the suit being truncated.
“If, for example, the Supreme Court, did not make that order, and the only order existing is that of the High Court, it means that the CBN, by 10th of this month, will stop the use of all old notes.
“But what the Supreme Court has said is, ‘Just wait, let us listen to you people,’ not that it has decided that Zamfara, Kogi and Kaduna states have any valid case that is actionable because the action is already being challenged with a preliminary objection.
“It is another way of saying, ‘Let us first drive away the fox before we blame the fowl for wandering too far into the forest,’” he said.
Recall that a seven-man panel of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, led by Justice John Okoro in a unanimous ruling granted an interim injunction restraining the Federal Government from implementing the CBN’s February 10 deadline for the swapping of the old naira notes with the new ones.
A judgement that followed a motion ex-parte on behalf of three northern states Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara , who on February 3rd filed a suit seeking to halt the implementation of the CBN’s policy.
TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) earlier reported that a Federal High Court in Abuja stopped the President, Major General Muhammadu Buahri (retd.) alongside the CBN and commercial banks from interfering, suspending or extending the terminal date of February 10 for the expiration of the old naira notes.
Again, Ozekhome explained that other lower courts could not interfere when decisions were being debated at the apex court.
“Notwithstanding the fact that a high court or Federal High Court had granted an order telling the CBN, ‘You can stop this naira swap policy on the 10th of February as you have decided to do’, the Supreme Court today said, ‘Hello? Don’t do that! Allow it to continue. Come back on the 15th of February and let us hear you people,’” he added.
He explained that the apex court’s judgement allows the old and new naira to be in the same position, adding that any decision arrived at by the Supreme Court, will not only affect the three state governments that dragged the FG to court, but all the states of the federation and their attorney-generals.
Ozekhome therefore submitted that, “this is the type of matter in which the Supreme Court should also suo motu, even if they did not apply to be joined, join all the attorneys-general of the federation, so that the matter could be decided once and for all.”
BY CHIEF MIKE OZEKHOME, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIARB, Ph.D, LL.D.
INTRODUCTION
News that the National Judicial Council ( NJC ) – the nation’s judicial regulatory agency – has 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, has elicited mostly positive – even if muted – responses from a large section of the society, particularly stakeholders in the justice – delivery sector.
So far, the apparent lone voice of dissent appears to be that of a Civil Society Organization ( CSO ) – the Access to Justice (or A2J for short). Let me clearly state here that A2J is one of the few credible CSOs still available in the country, many others having become nothing but mere merchantilistic money-guzzling and international donor- recipients, who merely look the other way even as the nation is being brazenly and rapaciously stripped bare by her minders, of what remains of her respect, dignity and claims to nationhood. Like the Egyptian Nero, the 5th Roman Emperor – (AD 54 – AD 68), a man who was notorious for his treachery and debauchery, they “fiddled while Rome burned”.
This is why I was surprised to read a press release, titled (rather most unkindly): “A brutal agonizing stab on the soul and body of Nigeria’s Judiciary”, made by A2J. The respected organization in the said statement frowned at NJC’s action in reinstating Justice Ajumogobia, a refreshingly welcome act, which it described as “unfortunate”; given what it called, “serious and damning accusations against Justice Ajumogobia”. In its opinion, NJC’s decision “will cast a long and dark shadow over the Judiciary for a long time to come and amplify questions whether the Nigerian Judiciary can continue to legitimately exercise judicial power”. The CSO therefore called on the NJC to immediately reverse its decision to reinstate Justice Ajumogobia. No. It is the other way round. The NJC should be commended and accorded plaudits and encomiums for this uncommon act of observance of due process and the rule of law.
BACKGROUND FACTS
To enable us have a full grasp and understanding of the depth and breadth of the circumstances surrounding the NJC’s overdue decision, it is necessary to put forward and review Justice Ajumogobia’s painful and agonizing travails over the years. Her Lordship was first dragged before Hon. Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the High Court of Lagos State on 28th November, 2016, ( over six years ago),alongside a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Godwin Obla.
They were arraigned on 30 counts, in which the latter was accused of offering Justice Ajumogobia the sum of N5 million as gratification allegedly to influence her decision in a Suit marked FHC/L/C/482c/2010. Furthermore, Justice Ajumogibia was accused of receiving the sum of $793,800 in several tranches from different sources between 2012 and 2015 “so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.” That trial went nowhere and Justice Ajumogobia was reprieved after she was discharged.
Not satisfied, however, the EFCC re-arraigned her before Hon. Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court, who in a ruling delivered on the 19th day of November, 2021, brought her ordeal to an end, as the court accepted her counsel’s application and quashed all the 18 counts against her, which had alledged unlawful enrichment, bribery and money laundering. In the words of the court: “An order is hereby granted striking out or quashing the charge against the applicant in its entirety for being incompetent and this court lacks the jurisdiction to try same.” If the public thought that the ruling had far-reaching implications for the Judiciary in terms of obedience to court orders, more hair-splitting was to arise as to how the learned trial Judge arrived at his judgement.
The answer lies in a subsequent judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal on the 11th of December, 2017, in the case of FRN vs Hon. Justice Nganjiwa. The court in that case held that a serving Judge cannot be prosecuted by the EFCC or any prosecutorial agency unless the Judge had first been probed by the NJC, found guilty and dismissed. Justice Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, who delivered the lead judgement which was unanimously endorsed by other members of the panel, declared that “the NJC is the sole body empowered by the Constitution to determine allegations of misconduct against judicial officers even on criminal allegations of bribery and corruption made against them”.
Continuing, the intermediate court held that “NJC is created by the Constitution to solely regulate affairs of the appointed judicial officer without interference from any authority, and that it is only when the NJC has given a verdict and handed over such judicial officer (removing his toga of judicial powers) to the prosecuting authority that he may then be investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate security agencies”. This judgement was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court earlier this year on 27th May, 2022.
Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia
It was against this background that Hon. Justice Allagoa, upon being presented with the true and correct position of the law, discharged and acquitted Justice Ajumogobia, on the 21st day of November, 2021, as aforesaid. Pray, where is Ajumogobia’s fault in any of these? Is she to blame for seeking justice through the constitutionally – guaranteed medium, having her day in court and prevailing in hotly contested cases that dragged her name in the mud for over six years? Must she be persecuted for being successful and coming out triumphant against all odds – the serial attempts to truncate her illustrious judicial career, prematurely? Must NJC be unfairly lampooned for obeying court orders and refusing to appeal same after discovering its earlier error in hastily terminating her appointment? Is the NJC a court of law with supervisory jurisdiction over courts of law? The answers to these posers are too obvious to admit of any sophistry or Baba Sala’s Kerikeri histrionics. This conveniently takes us to the next question, which is:
IS ACCESS TO JUSTICE RIGHT IN ITS OPINION?
This question is legitimate because, even though opinion is free, it must, however, be expressed responsibly, with due regard to the facts of each case and the rights of other persons; and – in the peculiar circumstances of this case – the observance of the rule of law, equity, fairness, justice and respect for citizens’ fundamental rights. Yes, A2J has a right to its opinion on the re-instatement of Justice Ajumogobia; but is that opinion correct? Is Ajumogobia’s case of reinstatement to her duties unique, uncharted, or unusual? Is there anything to suggest that NJC’s decision was motivated by any untoward considerations? Was it actuated by inappropriate motives such as a desire “to protect one of its own”, seemingly at all cost? Was the decision, all things considered, in the public interest? Is it fair for Access to Justice to have jumped to the conclusion that it was not? Was Justice Ajumogobia’s case special? Is it unprecedented? Why should she – as the Organization suggests – remain suspended and traumatised indefinitely for over a year (since November, 19, 2021),even after the Federal High Court had quashed the charges for which she was indicted in the first place? Is law an instrument of oppression? Is it no longer an instrument of social engineering as Prof Dean Roscoe Pound once propounded?
AJUMOGOBIA NOT AN ISOLATED CASE
These questions are pertinent because not only was Justice Ajumogobia in ‘judicial limbo’ for well over six years (since November, 28, 2016, when she was first arraigned), hers was certainly not an isolated case. A host of judicial officers who were similarly indicted and charged to court for alleged corrupt practices and unjust enrichment by the EFCC, the Code of Conduct Bureau and the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, had since been reprieved, with some of them fully restored or reinstated to their various posts and positions in the judiciary.
Some of these Jurists include, but not limited to, late Hon Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, JSC,of the Supreme Court; and Hon. Justice Adeniyi Ademola( rtd) of the FHC; Hon. Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa ( FHC); and Hon.Justice Agbadu Fishim ( NICN). All the charges against them were quashed and dismissed for incompetence; and all of them were reinstated as judicial officers by the NJC. The only curious exceptions were Hon Justices Agbadun Fishin and Gladys Ololtu ( FHC ), whose secured victories from courts of competent jurisdictions were surprisingly appealed by the NJC, a judicial organ that ought ordinarily to protect the dignity of the courts and to bow to superior decisions of such courts of law that delivered judgements after full-blown trials and hearings duly witnessed by members of the public. Justice Ngwuta later resumed his duties fully at the Supreme Court.
I had the opportunity to appear before him in some cases before he transited.Not few Nigerians believe that his subsequent death not long after his reinstatement to the apex court was occasioned by the humiliation,mental trauma,agonizing ordeal and psychological depression that attended his state – sponsored persecution. Hon Justice Ademola honourably retired from judicial service after his reinstatement. Continuing in service to an apparently ungrateful and lynching country was no longer necessary.
Do you blame him? Former CJN, Walter Onoghen, was literally humiliated,intimidated, harassed, hunted, and finally hounded out of the apex court through a mere ex parte order instigated by an intemperate Executive that bayed for his juristic blood.So, why and how is Justice Ajumogobia’s case different,having won her case? Yet, some other Judges were merely investigated and never charged to court at all.
Why? That is the question that Access to Justice should seek answers to. For example, the unfair case of Hon.Justice Nnamdi Dimgba cries to high heavens here.The house of the cerebral and intellectually – grounded Scholar-Jurist was crudely attacked, broken into and ransacked by hooded SSS operatives who pulled down doors and windows. Nothing incriminating was ever found on him.
Did the government deem it fit,decent and noble to apologise to him; to balm his bruised ego ? No. Has this government ever realized what harm and mental torture are thereby inflicted and etched forever in the psyche of such innocent citizens whose houses were brutally invaded, viet armies, and with them and their families brazenly subjected to intimidation, coercion, fear and humiliation?
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 sections 6,153(1)(i),158,292(1) and Paragraph 21(b) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, which clearly spell out the plenitude and amplitude of 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 – infact, more deadly and cancerous. I once described corruption,on 12th September, 2013 ( after my release from my three week excruciating ordeal in the hands of kidnappers),as the 37th State of Nigeria,which I described as the wealthiest and most powerful. I had therefore theorized, and I still maintain my theory, that we must kill corruption before corruption kills us all. But, in fighting corruption, we must do so within the realm of decency, with respect to citizens’ rights and observance of the rule of law and due process.Fighting corruption with corrupt, unorthodox or unconscionable means is a worse form of corruption. Thus, to condemn a Ajumogobia’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 A2J appears to suggest– 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 where such conviction is by the court of public opinion that lacks all the necessary 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 ro 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.
Justice Ajumogobia has been tried in courts of law, discharged 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 has been enacted into section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.This is different from the inquisitorial French model which is inquisitorial; where a defendant is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence. Consequently, 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 amount 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. Please, let Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia, a brilliant and fecund quintessential Jurist,be.
Human Rights Activist, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN, has described as unwarranted, illegal and unconstitutional, the three days detention of Nigerian singer, Oladapo Daniel Oyebanji, aka D’banj, by the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission, ICPC.
The singer’s lawyer (Ozekhome) noted that the ICPC investigated and found nothing incriminating against him, hence released on administrative bail to him.
It would be recalled that the anti-graft agency detained D’Banj on Tuesday, 6th November 2022 after he surrendered himself at the ICPC’s headquarters in Abuja.
“D’Banj ‘s unnecessary detention for 3 whole days after cooperating with the ICPC by voluntarily cutting short his full engagements in South Africa, came to us as a big surprise. This is because he was neither a fugitive fleeing from justice nor a Defendant already undergoing a trial and jumping bail.
D’Banj hereby emphatically denies and maintains his innocence in any involvement in the alleged diversion of the sum of N900m N-Power empowerment scheme
“One would have expected that having voluntarily submitted himself and answered the ICPC ‘s call from South Africa to enable him clear his good name and solid reputation, by helping in its investigation, Dbanj ought to have been immediately released on administrative bail.
“Unfortunately, we witnessed the usual, now infamous media trial for which the anti-corruption agencies are now known, through a clandestine release to the public, skewed details concerning his invitation, arrest and illegal detention, with no scintila of evidence found against him after three days of interrogation.
“The ICPC ought to have first carried out a thorough investigation before issuing a pre-emptive damaging press release which,by its very screaming heading, had literally pronounced Dbanj guilty and culpable of fanthom, unproven and unprovable allegations even before investigation had commenced,” Ozekhome said.
How not to fight corruption
He added: “This is how not to fight corruption-a sad and unworkable template of media trial and the “name-and-shame” mantra. This invariably delivers the innocent into the hands mob hysteria and internet space-lynching, thus painting even the innocent such as Dbanj, guilty of a false allegation, with the paintbrush of shame, odium and obloquy, even before the investigation has commenced and been concluded.
Let everyone learn to respect the presumption of innocence of all citizens, until proven guilty, as enshrined in section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution
“It amounts to works from the answer to the question. It amounts to first detaining an innocent citizen, painting him black, and then fishing for non-existent evidence to nail him.
“D’Banj hereby emphatically denies and maintains his innocence in any involvement in the alleged diversion of the sum of N900m N-Power empowerment scheme meant for beneficiaries or any amount for that matter. Nothing incriminating has been found against Dbanj by the ICPC after the whopping days of deep and uninterrupted investigation.”
Make public account details of D’Banj and minister involved in the arrest
“This is calling on the ICPC to thoroughly investigate this matter by inviting the minister who allegedly called in the ICPC, with all those alleged collaborators, and make public their account details, including Dbanj’s account details which are already in its possession.
“Where the ICPC finds the evident witch-hunting and name-dopping of Dbanj, the least expected of this distinguished agency is to tender a public apology to Dbanj. It is so cheap and very easy to hurriedly demonize and accuse an innocent person, especially where his accusers leverage on his celebrity status to attempt tearing him to pieces and fling him under a powerful government moving train.
“This attitude must stop. The 1946 immortal words of Martin Niemoller, a German theologian and Lutheran Pastor, which he uttered after World War 11, in which he had opposed Hitler’s despotic Nazi regime, are quite instructive here. Kindly read and digest them. Let everyone learn to respect the presumption of innocence of all citizens, until proven guilty, as enshrined in section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution,” Ozekhome asserted.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has declared Cross River State Governor, Prof Ben Ayade, as the All Progressives Congress (APC) rightful Senatorial candidate to the Cross River North Senatorial District in the 2023 General elections.
The trial judge, Justice Nkeonye Evelyn Maha, dismissed Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1232/2022, instituted by Cecilia Omonya Adams, who had claimed to be the rightful Senatorial candidate.
Ayade had through his counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, argued that MRS CECILIA OMONYA ADAMS who had participated in the May 28 primaries of the APC, but did not participate in the APC primaries of 14th July, 2022, for the Cross River North Senatorial District towards the 2023 General Elections, has no locus standi to approach the court to challenge the candidacy of Governor Ben Ayade who was duly nominated by his APC party during the July 14, 2022 primaries.
The Plaintiff had through an Originating Summons filed on 26th July, 2022, approached the Federal High Court, Abuja, praying amongst others, for “AN ORDER directing the INEC to recognize, accept and publish her name as the candidate of the APC for the Cross River North Senatorial District.
She had also asked, in the ALTERNATIVE, for “AN ORDER directing the APC to conduct another primaries where only those who had bought forms to contest the primaries of 28th May, 2022, will participate; or that the Plaintiff be confirmed and returned as the candidate of the APC for the said election.
Also joined as Co-defendants with Ayade in the suit challenging the APC primaries were the APC, INEC and Martin Orin, who had earlier won the May 28 Senatorial primaries, but had resigned to enable a fresh primaries be conducted by INEC. It was from this fresh primaries that Ayade emerged as the sole contestant and winner on 14th July, 2022.
Justice Maha in her judgment delivered Wednesday, 30th November, 2022, while dismissing the Suit, agreed with the submissions of Chief Ozekhome, SAN, that MRS ADAMS lacked the locus standi to have instituted the suit against Governor Ayade having not participated in the APC primaries of 14th July, 2022, from which Governor Ayade duly emerged as the APC candidate for the Cross River North Senatorial District.
The court held that Mrs ADAMS failed to establish or prove that Ayade was not properly nominated by his party; or that any of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act, INEC Guidelines, or the Constitution of APC, had in any way been breached by the APC or Ayade in his emergence as the APC Senatorial candidate.
Justice Maha further declined to accept the argument of the plaintiff that the fresh primaries thus held were re-run elections, rather than by-elections.
The court also held that even on the issue of “place holder” which the plaintiff harped on, the Electoral Act was silent on it as it has no provision pertaining to place holder.
The court equally held that there was ample documentary evidence of the conduct of valid primaries in which Ayade who was the duly nominated candidate of the APC, solely participated and won, without evidence of the plaintiff participating in them.
There was equally documentary evidence that the APC duly notified INEC of the primaries conducted on the 14th of July, 2022; and that the requirement of giving notice as contemplated under the Electoral Act is not to notify the plaintiff (Cecilia), but INEC.
Ayade who had earlier in the year won his defection case from PDP to APC against the PDP before Justice Taiwo Obayomi Taiwo in a suit also argued by Ozekhome now has his coast cleared as the APC Senatorial candidate for the 2023 Cross River North Senatorial District.
The Court of Appeal, on Tuesday, reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, challenging the terrorism charge filed against him by the Federal Government.
The appellate court announced that its date for judgment will be communicated to parties in the suit.
Kanu, had faulted the order of Justice Binta Nyako of a Federal High Court, Abuja, which said he should respond to seven out of the 15 count terrorism charge against him and had approached the court to set aside the order.
However, after listening to the arguments, presiding Justice Hanatu Sankey said “judgment has been reserved to a date that will be communicated to parties”.
In arguing the appeal, Kanu’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, told the three-member panel that Kanu was first arraigned on Dec. 23,2015, and granted bail on April 25, 2017.
He explained further that agents of federal government (the respondent) had launched a military operation, code named “Operation Python Dance” at the appellant’s home town in September 2017, which forced him to escape out of the country, to Isreal, then London.
He recalled that on June 27 2021, the federal government forcefully arrested Kanu in Kenya and renditioned him back to Nigeria in most cruel and inhuman manner”.
“On 29 June, 2021, the appellant was taken to court by the federal government, where he was rearraigned.
“Following the appellant’s preliminary objection to the 15-count charge preferred against him by the federal government , the trial judge, Justice Nyako of the Federal Hight Court Abuja, on April 8, 2022, struck out eight counts.
“Our humble submission is that the remaining seven counts ought not to be retained by the trial court because, before the time Kanu was renditioned to Nigeria from Kenya, he was facing five-count charge”.
Ozekhome submitted that, going by Section 15 of the Extradition Act, “Kanu is not supposed to be charged without the approval of Kenyan government.
“The remaining seven counts, cannot stand, being filed illegally without following due process under the rule of specialty as envisaged under Section 15 of the Extradition Act.
“Counts one, two, three, four, five and eight which were retained by the Federal High Court, were offences allegedly committed by the appellant (Kanu) before his forceful rendition to Nigeria.
“These allegations of rendition were never denied by the federal government and you cannot sustain the charge when you extradited the appellant without the approval of Kenyan authority.
In addition, Ozekhome argued that when charging for an offence, “you must mention the particulars and location where the office was committed.
“But in this case, the appellant was charged without stating where the offence was allegedly committed .
Kanu’s lawyer contended that by section 45 (a) of the Federal High Court Act, with regards to criminal charge, the trial court does not have “global jurisdiction”.
More so, “Section 195 and 196 of Administrattion of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), state that a charge must have date, time, location etc.
He insisted that there was no need for the FHC to retain the remaining 7 counts, and therefore urged the panel to take over the charges and strike them out.
The senior lawyer also asked the appellate panel to hold that the respondent has not furnished the court with any prima facie case against the appellant for which he is being charged.
Reacting, the Federal Government’s lawyer, Mr David Kaswe urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
