Breaking News
Translate

NJC pushes for sanction on Buhari’s lawyer

By  Ise-Oluwa Ige
The National Judicial Council (NJC), has recommended Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN), the lead counsel to Maj-Gen Muhammadu Buhari, the presidential flag-bearer of ANPP, for disciplinary action.

The recommendation followed two petitions he did against six of the justices that sat on the petition maintained by his client against the election of President Umaru Yar’Adua, though none of the affected justices wrote any petition against Ahamba.

That was after the council had dismissed the two petitions by Ahamba against the six justices for allegedly lacking in merit.

NJC is the body statutorily empowered to hire and fire erring judicial officers in the country.

The council which refused to give reasons why the petitions were unmeritorious and dismissed them, said it was not under any obligation to disclose why it exonerated the affected justices against whom the petitions were maintained.

The affected justices are Justices Niki Tobi, James Ogebe and John A Fabiyi, all of the Supreme Court.

The three others are Justices Abubakar A Jega, Uwani Aba-Aji and Raphael Agbo, of the Court of Appeal.

Justice Niki Tobi sat on the appeal arising from the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on the case and delivered the lead judgment in the matter.In the petition against the five justices of the Court of Appeal that sat as Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, Ahamba argued that they breached Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and the rules of fair hearing; deceived him into not calling oral evidence and thereafter using the same situation or circumstance foisted on him to enter judgment against his client, among others.

Although NJC claimed it sat on the petitions and exonerated all the affected justices, it said it would not release the defence of the jurists to the petitions to Ahamba and would not also disclose how it came about its finds that the petitions were unmeritorious.


Disclaimer

Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.