Having sufficiently dragged the integrity of the judiciary in the mud,  the retiring Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, and the  now suspended President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Isa Salami, the judicial system is itself reeling from the collateral damage that is trailing the scandal that is still unfolding.  This is a story of the yet to-be appreciated damage that the allegations of Justice Salami against Justice Katsina-Alu and NJC’s suspension of Justice Salami may do to the carriage of justice in the country.

By Jide Ajani & Ikechukwu Nnochiri

Wait!  Delay!  Stall!  The Justice of the Supreme Court did not mince words.

The Advice:  Employ delay tactics in presenting your case before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal; that way, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, the Chief Justice of Nigeria may have retired before the case is fully heard and determined.

Sunday Vanguard  was privileged to get an  information which tended to suggest that the leadership of Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, had its fears about the election petition it was about to pursue.

It was at one of the party’s leadership meetings, where its impending petition against the presidential election victory of President Goodluck Jonathan was being discussed.

Having sought the advise of a Justice of the Supreme Court, the party came to the painful conclusion that it may be difficult for it to get what it described as “justice so long as Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu remained Chief Justice of Nigeria.”

In fact, according to information at the disposal of Sunday Vanguard, it was a Justice of the Supreme Court that advised the party leaders while preparing their petition – which, interestingly, had elaborate input from the Justice – that they should delay the hearing of the petition, employing strategies that would frustrate a smooth and speedy hearing of the case.

The reason for this, as gathered, was based on the counsel of the Justice, with a view to ensuring that time is needlessly spent on technicalities in such a manner that the August 28, 2011, retirement date of Justice Katsina-Alu would have lapsed, thereby allowing for another Chief Justice to adjudicate on the matter in the event that it is pursued up to the Supreme Court.

It is that bad. Not just bad because of the fears of the CPC leaders – that may turn out to be unfounded – but worse because a Justice of the Supreme Court is providing such a counsel! But would any Nigerian witnessing what is going on between Katsina-Alu and Salami today not come to the ugly conclusion that all is rough in the judiciary?

The worst of all, should the National Judicial Council, NJC, which has  pronounced Justice Salami guilty of perjury by saying on oath that Chief Justice Katsina-Alu attempted to influence or influenced the judgment of the Sokoto State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal last year, go ahead to institute legal proceedings against Salami and should he be found guilty, would the judiciary be able to survive the shocks?

Salami Gets The Boot
Following his refusal to apologise to either Justice Katsina-Alu or the council for allegedly lying on oath, the council, last Thursday, wielded the big stick against the embattled Justice Salami, by handing him an indefinite suspension.  The council specifically ordered him to hand over the affairs of the appellate court to the next most senior justice of the court, adding that it has forwarded a recommendation to President Goodluck Jonathan for his immediate retirement from judicial service.

NJC which took the decision after its seventh emergency meeting, said it acted in line with the statutory powers conferred on it by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.

According to a statement by the council’s Director of Administration, Mr. E.I. Odukwu, “Pursuant to the powers conferred on the National Judicial Council in the Constitution of the Nigeria, 1999 as amended, Hon. Justice Isa Ayo Salami, OFR, President of the Court of Appeal, has been suspended from office with effect from today,  August 18, 2011.

“The decision was reached at the seventh emergency meeting of the council held on August 18, 2011.

“The decision which was reached at the National Judicial Council further directs that Hon. Justice Salami should hand over the affairs of the Court of Appeal to the next most senior justice of the court. Meanwhile, a recommendation has been forwarded to the President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, to retire him from service.”

Though the council had on Wednesday accepted the court processes filed against it by Justice Salami, it, however, declined to make any reference to the court action pending before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Meantime, Justice Salami has called the bluff of the council, describing his suspension as “the height of injustice and judicial recklessness.”

A source in his legal team, who spoke to Sunday Vanguard maintained that the action of the council amounted to contempt of court since the subject-matter of the NJC probe verdict that mandated the PCA to apologise to the CJN was already seized by a court of competent jurisdiction.

But what has brought the judiciary to this sorry pass?

Well, ranging from interference, to judgment leakage, to inducement of judges and so on, it is a potpourri of sorts.

How It All Began
Between “Salamigate” or “Alugate”, the bottom-line remains that the Nigerian judiciary is entangled in an uncanny cyclone of scandal that will go into the annals of this country as the worst of its kinds!

The incontrovertible fact remains that the quagmire  bedeviling the judiciary has raised fundamental doubts about the creed of justice and its administration as well as exposed the dirty linen of men hitherto revered as the great custodians of the judicial “shrine” (though some may call it temple).

Both men have been unable to draw a distinct line between personal acrimony and official duty, vis-à-vis discerning the difference between public stare and public glare!

Though they were said to be classmates in the Law School, there is no love-lost between the duo who have attracted enormous public opprobrium to the hitherto revered judiciary.

What appeared to be the last stray that broke the camel’s back was the Sokoto State gubernatorial case involving the incumbent governor of the state, Aliyu Wamakko, who was a candidate of the Peoples’ Democratic Party, PDP, and the candidate of the Democratic Peoples Party, DPP, Alhaji Muhammadu Dingyadi.

Both candidates contested the April 14, 2007, governorship election in Sokoto State, after which DPP and its flag-bearer who was not satisfied with the result of the election filed a petition at the Governorship and National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal in Sokoto, questioning the election and the return of Gov. Wamakko.

The petitioner contended, among several things, that the governor was at the time of the election not qualified to contest, stressing that his nomination was ab-initio void considering that he (Wamakko) was sponsored for the election by the All Nigeria Peoples Party, ANPP, where he decamped from and joined PDP for the purpose of contesting the said election.

The Sokoto Gubernatorial Election Petition Tribunal heard the petition on the merit and dismissed it.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeal in Suit No. CA/K/EP/GOV/60/07. The appeal was heard at the Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna, as there was no appellate court in Sokoto at that time.

In a unanimous decision of the court delivered on April 11, 2008 and read by Belgore, JCA, the appeal was allowed. The judgment of the tribunal  was set aside and the election and return of Governor Wamakko was nullified.

The court ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to within 90 days, conduct fresh governorship election in Sokoto State, adding that only valid candidates involved in the annulled election should participate in the fresh poll.

The fresh election ordered by the Court of Appeal, Kaduna, was held on May 24, 2008, and the PDP and its candidate, Gov. Wamakko won again, a situation that warranted DPP and its candidate who lost, to proceed to the election tribunal in Sokoto for redress, contending that by virtue of the earlier judgment, Wamakko ought not to have participated in the re-run election as he was not qualified to contest the 2007 election in the first place.

The Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, Sokoto, again dismissed the petition without deciding the issue of the disqualification of Wamakko, hence the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, which was established after the decision of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna.

Tango Over Judgment Leakage, Arrest Of Judgment

However, before the appellate court could enter verdict in the matter, counsel to Wamakko and INEC, Mr. Alfred N. Agu and Mr A.B Mahmood, forwarded two petitions dated February 15, 2010, to the CJN, alleging judgment leakage.

Acting promptly, the CJN issued query to the PCA on February 18, 2010, and ordered an immediate disbandment of the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Election Appeal panel, a move that was considered legally absurd by the PCA, who saw it as an attempt to usurp his powers, considering that it was the appellate court that had total jurisdiction over governorship disputes.  But the CJN is the CJN and not the PCA.

Consequently, the PCA ordered the panel to go ahead and deliver its verdict since the contention of the petitioners was not that they were denied justice or fair- hearing.

However, before the panel could comply with the directive, the CJN ‘arrested’ its judgment and subsequently dismissed Dingyadi’s petition as grossly lacking in merit.

According to a report by the 13-man committee set up by  NBA to look into the feud, “It is the refusal of the PCA to accept the CJN’s said requests to disband the panel demands that finally erupted into the open face-off between the CJN and the PCA, a development which has greatly tarnished the image and reputation of the Nigerian judiciary and the legal profession as a whole.

“Having examined the contents of the two petitions attached to the CJN’s query to the PCA, the committee is satisfied that the CJN’s action in respect of the Sokoto Election Appeal amounts to interference.”

As if the relationship between these two legal eggheads was not frosty enough, the CJN, in another move, considered absurd by some, recommended that the PCA should be promoted to the Supreme Court bench, an action that further fanned the embers of disunity in judicial circles.

In his bid to resist the ‘unholy promotion’, Justice Salami dragged the CJN, NJC and Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, before a Federal High Court in Abuja, alleging subterranean plot by the CJN to “push” him to the Supreme Court, a move he termed “Greek gift.”  In fact, it became a market place talk then that the reason behind the move was to ensure that Salami does not sit over the final appeals of governorship petitions.

An Affidavit Laden With Allegations of Corruption

Salami then deposed to an affidavit at the High Court wherein he raised grave allegations of corruption against the CJN, an equally absurd move in the estimation of some. However, before hearing could commence on the case, the NJC mounted pressure on him to withdraw the suit, promising to investigate the matter, an exercise that took five months.

Remarkably, the same withdrawn affidavit formed the substratum upon which the NJC finally pronounced Salami guilty on the premise that all the depositions therein were false. While indicting the PCA of engaging in unethical conduct capable of eroding public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, the council exonerated the CJN of the alleged ‘judicial recklessness’, adding that he “acted in good faith and was motivated by the apparent urge to protect the administration of justice and avoid breach of peace when he directed that the judgment in the Sokoto Gubernatorial Appeal be ‘put on hold’ pending the investigation of the petitions he had received on the matter.

NJC To Salami: Apologise
NJC, in a statement it issued on August 10, maintained that, “the allegation made by the Hon. President, Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Isa Ayo Salami, OFR that the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, GCON, instructed him to direct the Sokoto Gubernatorial Appeal to dismiss the appeal by the Democratic Peoples Party of Nigeria is not true.

“Therefore, the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria was exonerated of the allegation of interference with court proceedings in the Sokoto State Gubernatorial Election Appeal.”

Likewise, the council said it discovered that “the Hon. Justices of Court of Appeal who served on the Sokoto State Governorship Appeal Panel namely; Hon.

Justices Musa Dattijo Mohammad, Paul A. Galinje, John Inyang Okoro, Mas’oud Oredola and Regina O. Nwodo, have no issue to answer.

“Having, therefore, established that the allegation/complaint by the President, Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Isa Ayo Salami, OFR, against the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, GCON regarding the Sokoto Gubernatorial Election Appeal was false, Council decided that it is misconduct contrary to Rule 1(1) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officer of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“Thus Council further decided as follows, that, (1) the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal should be warned for such unethical conduct which eroded the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary; and (2) apologise in writing to both the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of National Judicial Council, Hon. Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, and National Judicial Council within a week from the 10th day of August, 2011.”

Salami Seeks Protection From The Court
Thrown into a dilemma, Justice Salami had no option than to re-approach the High Court for redress, in view of the fact that apologizing would automatically nail him to a criminal offence of perjury punishable with imprisonment.

He equally joined the acting chairman of NJC, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, Justice Emmanuel Ayoola, Justice Dominic Edozie, Justice Michael Akpiroroh, Mrs. Rakia Sarki Ibrahim, Justice Ibrahim Ndahi Auta, Justice Kate Abiri and Justice Peter Umeadi as defendants in the suit.

Salami argued that NJC was improperly constituted on August 9, 2011 when it sat and received the report of the three-man panel chaired by the ninth defendant and that as such all actions, steps and decisions reached on the said date are illegal, null and void.

He contended that the NJC investigative panels that indicted him of lying of oath, “being administrative bodies, have no power to pronounce on the veracity of facts or statements contained in the statements on oath sworn to before the court of law or pronounce facts contained in statements on oath to be false as such power is exercisable only by a competent court of law”.

High Drama In NJC’s Office

It is only fitting  and egregiously so – that it is Justice Katsina-Alu and Justice Salami, are the ones who have brought the immense corruption in the judiciary to the fore.

Lawyers who had been victims dared not speak about it.

Citizens who had been at the receiving end only went home in despondent silence.

Today, it is at best a scandal and at worst any other thing perfidious that both men are engaged in acts capable of subverting the very essence of their calling:  Protection and delivery of justice.

Spirited efforts by the lead counsel to the plaintiff, Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, to serve the court processes on NJC and its members, was initially rebuffed as the council ordered its staff and security personnel to decline service.

The PCA had ordered his team of lawyers, led by Chief  Olujimi, SAN, to proceed to the headquarters of NJC at the Three Arms Zone in Abuja, with relevant copies of the court processes, immediately he got wind that the council was meeting with top officials of the Federal Judicial Service Commission, FJSC, on Tuesday, a day after the processes were earlier rejected.

Although the lawyers succeeded in gaining access into the NJC premises, however, they were prevented from proceeding to the meeting venue by stern- looking securitymen who mounted sentry at the main entrance to the building.

One of the security officers who initially volunteered to convey the process to the intended parties, subsequently rushed out with it, panting, just as he quickly dropped it on the ground with a “please, oga take this thing and leave this place immediately!”

Following his inability to serve NJC and its acting chairman, Justice Musdapher, with the processes, Justice Salami again went back to the Federal High Court, praying it to allow him to effect the service on them through substituted means.

He is praying the court to allow him to paste the notice of the pending suit at the entrance of NJC.
Meanwhile, a letter entitled, “Notification of Pendency of Court Action and Applications for Injunction” which was addressed to NJC by lead counsel to Justice Salami, reads in part:  “We act as counsel to Hon. Justice Isa Ayo Salami, the plaintiff in the above-headed suit. It is on his behalf that we write this letter.

“ We wish to bring to your attention the fact that our client has filed an action at the Federal High Court to challenge the decision of the National Judicial Council directing him to apologise to the council and the Chief Justice of Nigeria. The propriety of the directive and the reports of the panels set up by the council have now been turned over to the court for consideration. The plaintiff’s suit in court is backed up with applications for interim and interlocutory injunctions.

“The simple question that arises at the juncture is, what is the obligation of the council in the light of this present court action? The obligation of the council is to adopt and abide with the well-established principle of law as enunciated by Tobi J. C. in Ezegbu vs FATB (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.220) 699 at page 735 Para A-F, when he stated thus:

“Parties who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court are under a legal duty not to do anything to frustrate or make nonsense a possible court order. They must whether they like it or not, wait for court to take a decision one way or the order.

“The procedure at arriving at a decision may be slow, it may even be sluggish but the parties cannot jump the gun and do their own thing in their own way that will tantamount to undermining the integrity of the court.

“The personalities involved in the subject-matter of this suit are highly- placed judicial officers and we believe that, they are well conversant with the need to preserve and protect the sanctity of the institution of the court. In the premise, it is our firm believe that all actions will be suspended pending the resolution of the matter before the court.

“The Nigerian judiciary in recent time has unnecessarily exposed itself to public outcry by the conduct of its officials.

“The failure to stay all actions pending the resolution of the court action will send wrong signals to the public. Thus the interest of the judiciary will be better protected if actions are stayed in relation to the subject-matter of the plaintiff’s suit.

”Kindly bring to the notice of members of the council the fact of the pendency of our client’s case and this letter”.

Meanwhile, in a bid to exculpate itself from public criticisms, NJC, on Wednesday,  adduced reasons why it refused to accept the court processes filed against it by Justice Salami, stressing that the plaintiff attempted to deceive it by serving it with an undated suit.

In a statement in Abuja, NJC equally debunked reports that it declined to receive the said court processes, contending that, “in every democratic setting such as ours, the Rule of law must be strictly adhered to.”

According to the council, “the National Judicial Council, the apex body for the nation’s judiciary is a creation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended. It is mandatory for the National Judicial Council to obey and comply with all Court Orders and Processes.

“Therefore, the Secretariat of the Council has no right whatsoever to refuse or evade service of any Court Process.

“In the matter under reference, a Writ of Summons purportedly issued by the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, was brought to the Council by two lawyers – Messrs Oluwaseun Ben and Joshua U. Oghene, on August 15, 2011 from Chief Akinlolu Olujinmi, SAN Chambers.

“The Writ was taken to the Office of the Assistant Chief Confidential Secretary of the Council by the two lawyers. After perusing through the Writ, the Assistant Chief Confidential Secretary discovered that it was undated and unsigned.

“Consequently, the Assistant Chief Confidential Secretary sought for clearance on the matter from the Secretary of the Council.

“The Secretary of the Council directed the Assistant Chief Confidential Secretary to meet the undersigned to reconfirm if the Writ was actually undated and unsigned.

“After meticulously going through the purported Writ, I confirmed that it was unsigned and undated. Based on my findings, in the presence of the Assistant Chief Confidential Secretary, I told one of the lawyers, Oluwaseun Ben Esq., that the Writ was actually undated and unsigned and could not be accepted.

“In the presence of the Assistant Chief Confidential Secretary, the lawyer admitted that the non-signing and dating of the Writ was a mistake from the Court Registry of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division.

“The unsigned and undated Writ that was brought for service on the Council was photocopied, hereto attached. The lawyer, Messrs Oluwaseun Ben insisted that we should accept service of the other copies of the writ meant for the 2nd-11th defendants.

“In the light of the subsisting instruction by the Secretary of the Council to the Secretariat that unless there was an order for substituted service from a Court, we should not accept service of any Court Process on behalf of Members of the Council.

“Hence, I rejected the request by the lawyer. The lawyer, Oluwaseun Ben Esq. left the Council with both the undated and unsigned Writ that was meant for service on the Council and the other copies of the Writ that were meant for service on the other Defendants.

“On August 16, 2011, when the Secretary came to the office, he was informed that the lawyers that brought the Writ the previous day came back to the Council. In the presence of the two lawyers aforementioned, Director (Administration), Director(Planning Research and Statistics) and Assistant Chief Confidential Secretary, the Secretary asked them whether the Writ that was brought the previous day for service was duly signed and dated.

“The lawyers confirmed that it was now signed and dated. The Director (Planning, Research and Statistics) informed the lawyers that the Secretary had earlier directed that anytime they came back with a signed and dated Writ, it should be accepted.

“Having been certified by the Secretary that it was indeed duly signed and dated, the Writ was accepted on August 16, 2011. A copy of the signed Writ is hereto attached.

“Given the above facts, it is patent that the publications were a product of mischief aimed at soiling the image of the Council as well as maligning the Secretary and the Secretariat, as the authors of the publications failed to cross-check their facts,” read the statement signed by the council’s Director of Administration and Head of Secretariat, Mr. E. I. Odukwu.

But indications are that NJC may have resolved to neglect the court action and go ahead with taking a decisive action against Justice Salami following his refusal to either apologise to it or to the Chief Justice of Nigeria

NJC is further faced with the dilemma of choosing who should preside over the decisive session considering that its acting Chairman who is originally the Deputy National Chairman of the council, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, travelled out for the lesser Hajj.

Moves to foist the President of the Customary Court of Appeal, Justice M.A. Bello, to preside over the meeting against Salami is equally generating controversy among NJC members who are contending that by virtue of the fact that he is among the lowest ranking officers in the council, he is not qualified to preside over a meeting featuring more senior judicial officers.

Constitutionality of NJC’s Membership

Equally interesting was another development which unfolded in Lagos. On August 4, 2011, one Mohammed Kazeem instituted an action at the Federal High Court, Ikeja, Lagos, to challenge the constitutionality of the composition of the National Judicial Commission, NJC, and the constitutionality of the Umaru Abdullahi panel investigating the veracity of the claims by Salami, that Katsina-Alu, interfered with proceedings of the Sokoto gubernatorial appeal tribunal, as well as the Ibrahim Auta panel set up to give recommendations on the punishment to be meted at Salami.

The suit is Suit No. FHC/IKJ/CS/170/2011 between Mohammed Kazeem Vs NJC, Hon, Justice Dahiru Musdapher and Hon. Justice Ibrahim Auta.

No writ could and has been issued because judicial officers of the court insisted that only the Deputy Chief Registrar could endorse it – but he has not been available.  Even an attempt to get the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, to do it met resistance on the ground that since it is being filed at Ikeja, then Ikeja it is.

But what are the prayers?
“A declaration that by virtue of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, the current composition of the National Judicial Commission, NJC, by which 14 members out of a total of 25 were nominated by the Hon. Chief Justice of the Federation, is NOT a body properly composed as to guarantee its impartiality and independence to be able to receive  and act on the report of the Hon. Justice Umaru Abdullahi Committee;

“A declaration that Justice Dahiru Musdapher is not competent to preside over the meeting of the 1st defendant to deliberate and consider the report of the Justice Umaru Abdullahi Committee into allegations of misconduct against the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu and the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Isa Salami, by virtue of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended);

“A declaration that proceedings and decisions of the National Judicial Council taken at its meeting held at Abuja on July 25, 2011 whereat Justice Dahiru Musdapher presided after testifying at the Justice Umaru Abdullahi Committee are illegal and unconstitutional by virtue of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended);

“A declaration that the setting up of the Justice Ibrahim Auta Panel by the National Judicial Council to make recommendations on the Justice Umaru Abdullahi Panel is illegal and unconstitutional as it violates Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); and
“An order restraining the defendants from taking any decision in respect of the report of Hon. Justice Umaru Abdullahi Panel”.

All these, by the penultimate week, it would seem, was an exercise in futility because Justice Auta had concluded its work, no writ served on him and the recommendation was that Salami apologise to Katsina-Alu.

Points To Ponder
Why would a justice of the Supreme Court be so concerned about the petition of a political party as to even suggest that delay tactics should be employed, just so Katsina-Alu’s time would have been up before the case likely gets to the apex court?

Why, for instance, would an appeal court order a gubernatorial election tribunal to retry a case based on a security report whose author never came before the court for cross-examination, only for that same report not to be presented in the retrial, leading to the award of victory to another party?

Why, again are Justices Katsina-Alu and Salami presenting themselves as judicial officers with a PDP and ACN mentality, respectively, in their approach to issues – at least, that is the unwritten testimonial about both men?

Why has it been so easy for PDP sympathisers to keep poking finger in the face of Salami because Ondo, Ekiti, Osun and Edo gubernatorial election petitions of the opposition parties were sustained by the appeal court?

If the Chief Justice of Nigeria has interfered in a case or should it be established that the President of the Court of Appeal has perjured, or both, of what value would judgments emanating from courts in Nigeria be?

Would any Nigerian be wrong to, by the time the Appeal Court is done with its hearing of the CPC petition and gives judgment, insist that something went down?
This is the quantum of damage that this shameful face-off has brought on the judiciary.

THE RULE SALAMI ALLEGEDLY BROKE

Rule 1(1) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers which states that “A judicial officer should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities.  A judicial officer should respect and comply with the laws of the land and should conduct himself at all time in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”.

Justice Salami’s Prayers

Salami sought among other things,  “a declaration that the setting up of the National Judicial Council’s (hereinafter referred to as “NJC”) Investigation Committee by the 1st Defendant and its composition are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and the Plaintiff’s constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and is therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

“A declaration that the NJC Investigation Committee, chaired by the fourth Defendant, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, lacked the competence to investigate the petitions against the Plaintiff having regard to its composition.

“A declaration that the proceedings of the NJC Investigation Committee were conducted in substantial breach of the principles of natural justice and fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) and the proceedings are therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

As well as “a declaration that the findings of the NJC Investigation Committee chaired by the fourth Defendant as contained in the ‘Investigative Panel Report’ dated July 6,  2011 submitted to the first Defendant and addressed to the 2nd Defendant, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, are perverse, unreasonable, and violates the fundamental rights of the Plaintiff to fair hearing, guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right.”

He is also praying the court to invoke its original jurisdiction and set aside the proceedings and findings of the NJC Investigation Committee contained in its report dated July 6, 2011, the recommendations of the Justice Ibrahim Auta led panel and all actions, decisions, proceedings and administrative directives arising from or based on such recommendations.

On the allegations of ‘judicial recklessness’ he earlier levelled against the CJN in relation to the Sokoto State gubernatorial election appeal in 2007, Justice Salami urged the trial court to issue “a declaration that the 3rd Defendant, CJN, has no power under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) to issue as administrative directive halting or purporting to halt the delivery of judgment by panel of the Court of Appeal in a Governorship Election Petition and that any exercise of such power by the 3rd Defendant is ultra vires and in breach of the combined effect inter alia  of Sections 6, 232, 233,234, and 246 of the said Constitution.”

He also urged the High Court to “restrain the NJC, its acting chairman, Justice Musdapher, and the CJN, their agents, servants and / or privies and all functionaries of the 1st Defendant or otherwise, howsoever, from acting on, relying on, recommending or taking or further taking any action or decision whatsoever in respect of the findings of Abdullahi and the Auta Panels.

Issue “an order setting aside the warning letter dated August 9, 2011 Ref. No: NJC/f.2/CA1/1/273 written by the NJC to the Plaintiff.

“A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants from taking any or further action, reaching any conclusions or issuing any directive(s) in any form whatsoever in respect of the various petitions written against the Plaintiff in respect of which the 4th Defendant’s (Abdullahi) Panel was set up by the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

Likewise “a perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants from taking any or further action, reaching any conclusions or issuing any directive(s) in any form whatsoever in respect of the findings and recommendations of the NJC Investigation Committee chaired by the fourth defendant and the three-man (Auta) Panel chaired by the ninth defendant.”