24.11.2022 Views

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!