By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA—In what it termed ‘operation set the records straight’, the National Judicial Council, NJC, yesterday, adduced reasons why President Goodluck Jonathan, should forthwith, retire the suspended President of the Court of Appeal, PCA, Justice Isa Ayo Salami, insisting that he violated the Code of Conduct for judicial officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The NJC maintained that, “without prejudice to the suits filed by Hon. Justice Salami, the council is constrained to state its position on the issue, so as to put the records straight”.

It equally stressed its determination towards ensuring that the sanction it meted on the embattled PCA on August 18th, is enforced to the letter.

Briefing newsmen in Abuja yesterday, the Director of Administration at the NJC, Mr E.I Odukwu, in a statement entitled “National Judicial Council and its powers under the 1999 constitution: setting the records straight”, dismissed allegations of judicial witch-hunt against Justice Salami, arguing that all the parties in the matter were accorded fair hearing by the investigative panels that looked into allegations of judicial malpractices levelled against the suspended PCA and the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu.

Odukwu contended that the suspension slammed against the embattled PCA would remain legally valid considering that “the NJC is the highest statutory judicial administrative body created among others, under section 153 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended.”

Meanwhile, acknowledging the unprecedented controversy, comments and concerns, so far expressed by a cross-section of Nigerians over the issue, the legal body yesterday alleged that it was pro-Salami groups and some biased lawyers that deliberately misrepresented facts of the case with a view to misinforming the public about the constitutional powers of the council on the discipline of erring judges.

Falana, other pro-Salami groups

“Some eminent jurists, particularly some Senior Advocates of Nigeria and Senior Lawyers such as Olufemi Falana have told the whole world that the NJC has no power to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against any judicial officer in the federation. Council wishes to refer the gentlemen of the Press and the General Public to Paragraph 21 of Part one of the Third Schedule of the 1999 constitution as amended.

“However, this group in this case has deliberately misinterpreted the above provision of the 1999 constitution and also misrepresented facts so as to misinform the public about the constitutional powers of the council to discipline judges.

“As to why the NBA members would suddenly withdraw from the activities of the council at this particular time that Hon. Justice Salami has come up, council views it as ‘a welcome’ development. The council has no power to exclude any member from its meeting. The council members including NBA nominees are products of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

“Council is therefore delighted to read in the newspapers that NBA leadership would seek for amendment of the 1999 Constitution to allow them sit in council, to consider not only matters on appointments of judges to superior courts of record, but discipline as well.

“Until the proposed amendment is effected, the current position of the council is to comply with the provision (Paragraph 20 of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to the letter; subject to the decision in Senlong’s case on appeal before the Supreme Court.

“Council wishes to appeal to all stakeholders in the judiciary, particularly some SAN and the court of public opinion, to while commenting or interpreting the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, on the powers of the NJC, or making reference to the Justice Abdullahi and Justice Auta committee reports, to please do so rationally and objectively, devoid of emotions and sentiments and based on precedents, facts and official records before the council that could be cross-checked, more so that the matter is in court”, it added.

NJC equally dismissed agitation in some quarters that the number of its members that met on August 18 and took decision on the suspension and retirement of Justice Salami was not enough to form a quorum, as well as contention that the President of the Customary Court of Appeal, FCT, Justice Moses Bello, was not qualified to preside over the two emergency meetings that considered the Justice Abdullahi Umaru and Justice Ibrahim Auta committee reports that culminated to the decision, as frivolous and baseless.

It would be recalled that despite that there were 28 members on the council, only 7 of them reportedly met on August 18 and took decision on the suspension and retirement of Justice Salami.

In its reaction however, the NJC yesterday maintained that, “by the provision of section 159 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, (1) the quorum for a meeting of any of the bodies established by

section 153 of this constitution shall not be less than one-third of the total number of members of that body at the date of the meeting.

(2) A member of such a body shall be entitled to one vote, and a decision of a meeting may be taken and any act or thing may be done in the name of that body by a majority of the members present at the meeting.

(3) Whenever such body is assembled for a meting, the chairman or other [person presiding} shall, in all matters in which a decision is taken by vote (by whatever name such vote may be called have a casting as well as a deliberative vote.

(4) Subject to its rules of procedure, any such body may act or take part in any decision notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership of the absence of any member. Note! NJC is one of the bodies created by section 153 of the 1999 constitution.

“As to what number of the members of council shall form a quorum (one-third) in any of the council meetings with or without NBA council members, the court will determine.

“The question therefore is, in the Hon. Justice Salami, matter, where did the critics get their information and facts from, that at the 7h Emergency Meeting of the council that led to the suspension of Justice Salami and recommendation for his retirement, the decision was taken by only 7 members of council (contrary to section 159 and 160 of the 1999 constitution, as amended?) the attendance register of the council will determine that at the appropriate time.

“The Nigerian public should not be misinformed about the status of the NJC in the 1999 constitution. It is a statutory judicial administrative body and not a law court. The serving heads of court serving on the council as members can only earn their seniority on the bench based on the hierarchy of court outside the council.

“All the judicial officers including Justice Salami that have been sanctioned was based on misconduct and not on criminal offences allegedly committed by the judicial officers. This may perhaps clear the minds of some members of the public on the reasons why Justice Salami was sanctioned by the council on August 9, 2011, when he was warned in writing by council and directed him to apologize to it and the former CJN.

“From the records of the council, by the 18th of August, 2011, Justice Salami did not apologise to both the former CJN and the council. Council therefore reconsidered the entire matter, given its earlier decision in the meeting of 9TH august, 2011, that Justice Salami had committed misconduct contrary to Rule 1(1) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“Given the above facts and imperial records that have been made public (Freedom of Information Act) by council, the court will decide on “the breach of the Rule of Law, illegality and unconstitutionality” and or otherwise perpetrated by the council.”

Meantime, a Federal High Court in Abuja will tomorrow, commence hearing on the suit that was filed before it by Justice Salami, seeking to nullify his suspension by the NJC.