A LOT of comments have been made about the bickering between the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami and the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu.

Interestingly, it all started when Justice Katsina-Alu in conjunction with the National Judicial Commission (NJC) and the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) offered Justice Salami a seat in the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.

However, the promotion did not go down well with the Court of Appeal President. He saw it as a move by the CJN to remove him from his current position in order to install his lackey.

Justice Salami further claimed that he was being eased out of the Court of Appeal because he had failed to compromise on the Sokoto gubernatorial election case as Katsina-Alu had told him to do. Due to his displeasure over the Greek gift the CJN had dangled in his face, Justice Salami even filed a suit against Katsina-Alu at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Although Salami has since dropped the case against Katsina-Alu in the interest of peace in the judiciary, this episode has no doubt shaken the confidence reposed in the judiciary by the Nigerian public. In order to restore some of this lost confidence, the cause of the rift between the two Justices must be closely examined and adequate action must be taken against both or either of the two justices found to be guilty.

As was earlier said, all was well until Katsina-Alu nominated Salami to the Supreme Court. This led Salami to allege that Katsina-Alu tried to influence the judgement of the Sokoto gubernatorial election case.

If indeed this was the case, why did it take Salami so long to cry wolf? What did he think he would gain by resurrecting the Sokoto case which has long been buried?

Salami has left us with no doubt that he only decided to “talk” because his interests in the Court of Appeal were threatened. However, one wonders why he did not quietly and privately reject the Greek gift in which case he would remain the President of the Court of Appeal.

Instead he preferred to talk dirty, dragging his office and that of the CJN into the mud. For his tactlessness and for looking out for himself alone, Salami should be relieved of his job.

As for Katsina-Alu, we must carefully examine the evidence levelled against him. Luckily, the Sokoto Justice Initiative has given us some insight into the Sokoto gubernatorial election litigations which is the bone of contention between the two senior justices.

The body has made known to us that the election case was essentially between two candidates for the office of governor in Sokoto, Muhammadu Dingyadi and Magatakarda Wamakko.

Dingyadi, after losing the election for governor of the state, headed to the election tribunal in Sokoto to lay his grievances. After losing this case, he went to the Court of Appeal Kaduna, which proclaimed that a fresh gubernatorial election should be held.

Apparently not satisfied with the verdict of the Appeal Court, Dingyadi further approached the Federal High Court, Abuja to get Wamakko disqualified as a candidate for the election.

After losing this case and with the re-run election proclaiming Wamakko as governor, Dingyadi filed another suit at the Sokoto second election tribunal.  When he lost this, he appealed to the Courts of Appeal in both Abuja and Sokoto.

After jumping from one court to another, Dingyadi’s final move in appealing to both Abuja and Sokoto divisions of the Court of Appeal proved to be his downfall. This was because both appeals were on the same subject matter and between the same parties.

In what clearly appeared to be a lack of confidence in the judicial system or a ploy to delay justice, Dingyadi and his men abused the court process by filing the same suit in two different courts. Due to the games played by Dingyadi, the Supreme Court had to interfere in the matter discarding his case and ruling in Wamakko’s favour.

So Katsina-Alu and the court which he heads seem to have come clean. If the CJN compromised on the elections, it did not show in the Supreme Court judgement which was quite sound.

Contrary to popular opinion calling for the CJN’s head due to the allegations levelled against him by Salami, he should be commended for not coming out in the open to join issues with Salami. His continued silence shows that he indeed has some respect for the exalted office which he holds. Hence, he should be allowed to continue as CJN.

Finally, it is worth noting that this is not the first time that an individual being promoted from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court is complaining.
Not too long ago an Appeal Court judge from Benue promoted to the apex court was furious that his junior in the Court had been promoted to the Supreme Court before him.

The current trend of promoting mostly Court of Appeal justices to the Supreme Court has only helped to fuel such conflicts. It has also dulled the once vibrant Supreme Court since most of those who sit on it bring the same experience from the Appeal Court.

In order to stem this tide, the FJSC and the NJC must go back to abiding by the words of the constitution which stipulate that any lawyer who has been practicing for 15 years or more can be appointed to the Supreme Court.

This will help to bring back diversity and vibrancy to the court as in the days of Elias, Oputa and Uwaifo who brought the experiences of their former positions to bear during their tenures in the Supreme Court.  It would also help to save the warring senior justices from themselves!

Mr. Aihie, a student , writes from Buffalo, USA..