24112022
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
24 — Vanguard, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2022<br />
By Ise-Oluwa Ige<br />
In this piece, Vanguard Law<br />
and Human Rights examines<br />
the background facts<br />
surrounding the on-going<br />
clamour for exclusion of<br />
serving judges from<br />
handling pre and post<br />
election matters, harvests<br />
views of lawyers and judges<br />
in the country on the issue<br />
and argues that logic is in<br />
favour of retaining the status<br />
quo.<br />
Background<br />
BETWEEN 2004 and 2006, the<br />
Supreme Court under the<br />
leadership of the second longest<br />
serving Chief Justice of Nigeria,<br />
Justice Muhammad Uwais grabbed<br />
the headlines but for the wrong<br />
reasons.<br />
Although allegations of corruption<br />
against judicial officers at the lower<br />
courts were rife before, during and<br />
after the period, such was rare at the<br />
apex level of the judicature.<br />
One of such rare occasions when<br />
the SC was tarred was in 1993 when<br />
a political case involving a business<br />
mogul and presidential candidate of<br />
the Social Democratic Party, SDP,<br />
Chief Moshood Abiola came before<br />
the court.<br />
The Saturday title of the Concord<br />
Press of Nigeria called Weekend<br />
Concord had published a report<br />
which alleged that the defunct<br />
government of the Military President<br />
of Nigeria, Gen Ibrahim Babangida<br />
bribed each Justice of the Supreme<br />
Court with Mercedez Benz E220 in<br />
order to influence them to give a<br />
legal imprimatur to the<br />
controversial annulment of the 1993<br />
presidential election believed to have<br />
been won by MKO Abiola.<br />
The serious allegation of<br />
corruption against the Supreme<br />
Court posed a challenge to its role<br />
as the guardian of the constitution,<br />
its image and legitimacy to<br />
pronounce on matters that come<br />
before it.<br />
The apex bench did not waste time<br />
as it sued the Concord Press at the<br />
Lagos High Court, during which<br />
available documentary evidence<br />
proved the allegation to the contrary<br />
while the Concord Press tendered an<br />
unreserved apology to the justices of<br />
the Supreme Court.<br />
Justice Uwais-led S’Court battles<br />
serious corruption allegation<br />
between 2004 and 2006<br />
But between 2004 and 2006,<br />
another attempt was made by some<br />
individuals to tar the image of the<br />
apex bench over an appeal in a<br />
political case involving a former<br />
Governor of Delta State, Chief James<br />
Ibori.<br />
The summary of the case was that<br />
two non-governmental<br />
organisations—the Derivation Front<br />
and Delta Elders Forum—had<br />
issued a press release in January<br />
2003 to allege that Ibori who was<br />
the serving governor was not<br />
qualified to have contested the 1999<br />
gubernatorial election in Delta State,<br />
having been allegedly convicted and<br />
sentenced to a one year jail term in a<br />
case of negligent conduct and<br />
criminal breach of trust on<br />
September 28, 1995, by an Upper<br />
Area Court, Bwari in FCT, Abuja.<br />
The two organisations had relied<br />
on the provision of section 182 (1)<br />
(e) of the 1999 Constitution which<br />
bars an ex-convict from seeking<br />
elective office in the country.<br />
The Section 182 (1) (e) specifically<br />
provides: “No person shall be<br />
qualified for election to the office of<br />
governor of a state if within a period<br />
EDITORIAL TEAM<br />
Ise-Oluwa Ige, PhD<br />
Innocent<br />
EDITORIAL<br />
Anaba<br />
Innocent<br />
Ikechukwu<br />
Anaba<br />
Nnochiri<br />
Henry Ojelu<br />
( Editor)<br />
Send<br />
Ikechukwu<br />
your mails<br />
Nnochiri<br />
and<br />
enquiries<br />
Henry<br />
to:<br />
Ojelu<br />
lawandhumanrights<br />
Onozure Dania<br />
@vanguardngr.com<br />
of less than 10 years before the date<br />
of election to the office of governor<br />
of a state, he has been convicted and<br />
sentenced for an offence involving<br />
dishonesty or he has been found<br />
guilty of the contravention of the<br />
Code of Conduct.”<br />
The promoters of the allegation<br />
were evidently out to stop Ibori from<br />
contesting the 2003 governorship<br />
election in the oil rich Delta State.<br />
But the governor had denied that<br />
he ever stood any trial at the Upper<br />
Area Court in Abuja in 1995 or at<br />
any other time.<br />
A lawsuit was, therefore, instituted<br />
by two Deltans, including Dr<br />
Goodnews Agbi at the High Court<br />
of the Federal Capital Territory<br />
based on the charge sheet they widely<br />
circulated to stop James Onanefe<br />
Ibori from contesting the 2003<br />
gubernatorial election In the state.<br />
The matter travelled from the high<br />
court to the Supreme Court, where<br />
the apex bench held that by the<br />
charge sheet, there was indeed a<br />
conviction but that the litigants<br />
should go back to the high court for<br />
a fresh trial to establish whether or<br />
not the James Onanefe Ibori that<br />
was convicted on September 28,<br />
1995, by the Upper Area Court,<br />
Bwari was the same James Onanefe<br />
Ibori that was the sitting governor of<br />
Delta State.<br />
The case, for the second time,<br />
travelled from the high court to the<br />
Supreme Court where the apex<br />
bench decided that though one<br />
James Onanefe Ibori was convicted<br />
by the Bwari Upper Area Court, yet,<br />
the governor of Delta State, Chief<br />
James Onanefe Ibori was not<br />
sufficiently identified as the same<br />
James Onanefe Ibori of Delta State<br />
that was convicted in 1995.<br />
The aggrieved promoters of the<br />
lawsuit, however, alleged that the<br />
Supreme Court decision was bought<br />
by Ibori for N5billion.<br />
At another time, it was alleged that<br />
the then CJN, Justice Uwais<br />
travelled to London with Ibori during<br />
the pendency of the case with his wife<br />
during which a whopping sum of<br />
£3.5million exchanged hands to<br />
negotiate Ibori’s November 8, 2004,<br />
legal victory at the Abuja High<br />
Court.<br />
The allegations did an<br />
incalculable damage to the image<br />
of the judiciary at the time as<br />
stakeholders including former<br />
World Court judge, Prince Bola<br />
Ajibola, advised Justice Uwais to<br />
speak out or sue his accusers if the<br />
allegations were untrue.<br />
Uwais who rarely gave press<br />
interviews during his tenure as the<br />
head of the judiciary was pained by<br />
the allegation and decided to<br />
explain his side of the story in an<br />
interview with select media<br />
including the Vanguard.<br />
Justice Uwais weeps over<br />
allegation of corruption<br />
During the interview attended by<br />
this reporter, Uwais battled tears to<br />
deny the allegation thus: “It is a lie. I<br />
did not travel to London with Ibori.<br />
Neither did my wife nor the Chief<br />
Registrar travel with him for any<br />
reason. I have been on the bench for<br />
31 years. This is the first time ever in<br />
my career that I am being accused<br />
of taking bribe. It has been done<br />
twice in this Ibori case. Why? Why?<br />
Why should that be?”<br />
Not quite a month after the<br />
£3.5million bribery allegation in the<br />
Ibori case was made against Justice<br />
Uwais, an auto-firm, Globe Motors<br />
Holding Limited locked in a N20<br />
billion lawsuit with its rival, The<br />
Honda Place Limited, filed a motion<br />
at the Supreme Court in the same<br />
2005 asking the Justice Uwais to<br />
disqualify himself from the resumed<br />
hearing in the matter on the account<br />
of likelihood of bias.<br />
The lawyer of the Globe Motors<br />
Holding Limited, one Ephraim<br />
Duru, who moved the application to<br />
disqualify Justice Uwais in the open<br />
Court on June 20, 2005, said they<br />
would not want the Chief Justice to<br />
sit on the matter because of certain<br />
developments in the case, including<br />
the on-going allegation of bribery<br />
against him in the Ibori case.<br />
As soon as the allegation was<br />
made, there was a pin drop silence<br />
inside the courtroom. As if in a coven,<br />
the justices gathered their heads<br />
together to discuss in a hushed tone<br />
the next line of action.<br />
In less than 90 seconds, Justice Idris<br />
Kutigi now late asked Duru from the<br />
high bench if he knew the implication<br />
of what he just said, threatening that<br />
the court might direct him to remove<br />
his wig and gown and enter the dock<br />
to substantiate his allegation.<br />
Notwithstanding the threat, Duru<br />
refused to eat his words as he insisted<br />
that he stood by his position.<br />
The court had to rise for the day. It<br />
was that bad.<br />
Uwais accusers disbarred<br />
over failure to prove<br />
corruption allegation<br />
The matter was taken up by the<br />
Supreme Court and it is history today<br />
that not only Ephraim Duru but also<br />
the two lawyers, who were at the<br />
forefront of the campaign of<br />
calumny against the ex-CJN Uwais<br />
and the Supreme Court were<br />
disbarred over the matter having<br />
failed woefully to prove the<br />
damaging allegations against<br />
Justice Uwais.<br />
Why serving judges should<br />
be excluded from handling<br />
election-related cases—<br />
Justices Uwais, Kanyip<br />
It was, therefore, not surprising<br />
when Justice Uwais, before and after<br />
he retired from the bench canvassed<br />
for the use of retired justices to handle<br />
political cases particularly the<br />
election petition matters to spare the<br />
judiciary of battling frivolous and<br />
unnecessary scandals.<br />
According to him, most of the<br />
scandals that shook the judiciary in<br />
the past emanated from politicians<br />
who lost their cases in court and felt<br />
that the judicial officers, who gave<br />
such judgment must suffer for doing<br />
their jobs.<br />
In 2013, the trial judge of a Lagos<br />
division of the National Industrial<br />
Court, Justice B. Kanyip, now<br />
President of the Industrial Court had<br />
also canvassed for a system barring<br />
serving judicial officers from<br />
08179614306/08152060944<br />
SANs disagree with Uwais, Babalola on<br />
use of retired judges for election cases<br />
*Former CJN, Justice Muhammad Uwais<br />
Justice Kanyip who<br />
argued that the<br />
country was blessed<br />
with plenty talented<br />
retired judges, who<br />
were not yet tired<br />
said that embracing<br />
his suggestion<br />
would also not only<br />
be economically<br />
wise, but afford the<br />
country to further<br />
benefit from the<br />
wisdom and<br />
experience of the<br />
retired judges<br />
*AareAfe Babalola, SAN<br />
entertaining election related cases in<br />
the country.<br />
The judge who advocated the use<br />
of retired judges for such political<br />
cases was of the view that taking<br />
away such responsibility from the<br />
serving judges would not only reduce<br />
the courts’ dockets but also insulate<br />
serving Judges and safeguard their<br />
integrity especially in the eyes of<br />
discerning public<br />
Justice Kanyip who argued that the<br />
country was blessed with plenty<br />
talented retired judges, who were not<br />
yet tired said that embracing his<br />
suggestion would also not only be<br />
economically wise, but afford the<br />
country to further benefit from the<br />
wisdom and experience of the retired<br />
judges.<br />
17 years after, Babalola,<br />
SAN, backs Uwais, Kanyip<br />
on exclusion of serving<br />
judges from election petition<br />
matters<br />
A foremost Senior Advocate of<br />
Nigeria, Aare Afe Babalola, had also<br />
recently argued in favour of using<br />
retired judges to handle election<br />
petition matters.<br />
According to him: “There have<br />
been accusations and counteraccusations<br />
from politicians<br />
regarding the integrity of some<br />
tribunals. Most of these accusations<br />
and allegations ranging from the<br />
plausible to the ludicrous have often<br />
been made or informed by no other<br />
factor than the side of the political<br />
divide on which the politician<br />
making the allegation has found<br />
himself on account of the judgment<br />
sought to be impugned.<br />
“Cases have been reported in<br />
which parties to election petitions<br />
already submitted to court for<br />
adjudication and in some cases even<br />
already adjourned for judgment,<br />
declared openly that the outcome or<br />
judgment of the petition would be<br />
favourable to them. Some have been<br />
reported to have distributed<br />
traditional wear or uniforms<br />
amongst their party members and<br />
supporters and made extensive<br />
elaborate preparations for<br />
celebrations, including<br />
engagements of musicians all before<br />
the actual judgement of the tribunal<br />
or appellate court is delivered.<br />
“At one time, there were allegations<br />
by a particular set of petitioners that<br />
the respondent, and also incumbent<br />
governor of the state at that time, was<br />
about to take steps to arrest by<br />
judicial means, the imminent<br />
delivery of the judgment of the<br />
appellate court. The respondent in<br />
reply, aside from a denial of the<br />
allegation, posed the question<br />
whether the petitioners had not by<br />
their allegation, inadvertently given<br />
away the fact that they were already<br />
privy to the contents of a judgment<br />
yet to be delivered.<br />
“He queried why they would be so<br />
bothered that anyone was trying to<br />
arrest a judgment if they had not been<br />
assured that it (the judgment) would<br />
be in their favour? He stated further<br />
that the petitioners had already<br />
distributed celebration uniforms to<br />
their supporters. The judgment, when<br />
it was eventually delivered, was in<br />
favour of the petitioners.<br />
“In yet another case, a newspaper<br />
reported soon after conclusions of<br />
arguments on a contentious<br />
application before a tribunal, that<br />
the application had been granted by<br />
the said tribunal. This was despite<br />
the fact that the tribunal was yet to<br />
deliver its ruling on the said<br />
application. It had as a matter of fact<br />
adjourned its ruling by over 48 hours<br />
Continues on page 25<br />
C<br />
M<br />
Y<br />
K