By DAYO BENSON Asst. Editor

THE lingering crises threatening to rip apart the top echelon of the nation’s judiciary may not be over soon if Justice Ibrahim Auta three-men panel recommendation is any thing to go by.

If care is not taken the crises may fester and eventually consume both Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Aloysiius Kastina -Alu and President Court of Appeal, PCA, Justice Ayo Salami. Sequel to the finding of National Judicial Council NJC panel which investigated the rift between Salami and Kastina-Alu, the Auta panel had expectedly affirmed the NJC report and returned a guilty as charge verdict on the PCA .

Justice Musdapher Dahiru-led NJC panel had in its report exonerated the CJN of any wrong doing contrary to Justice Salami’s allegation that Justice Kastina -Alu prevailed on him to pervert the course of Justice in the 2007 Sokoto State governorship election petition appeal. Consequently, the PCA was accused of perjury following NJC discovery that he (Salami) allegedly lied in the affidavit he deposed to.

Both parties testified and tendered document as proof of evidence before the panel. Instructively, Justice Auta’s three man panel which submitted it’s report which was expected to prescribe appropriate sanction against Justice Salami recommended that the PCA should tender an apology to the CJN within one week. The report is, however, silent on what will follow if he fails to apologise to the CJN.

Interestingly, this recommendation has raised fundamental questions: Will the PCA apologise to the CJN? If he does, what will be the legal implication? And if he refuses, what will be the consequence?

If Justice Salami decides to apologise, it is capable of being interpreted as an admission of guilt, that is, lying on oath.

The legal implication is grave considering the fact that perjury is a criminal offence as provided in S.117 of the Criminal Code, Laws of the Federation. S. 118 of the Criminal Code prescribes the punishment which is 14 years imprisonment.

According to S.117 “Any person who in any judicial proceeding or for the purpose of instituting any judicial proceeding knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then depending in that proceeding, or intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of an offence which is called perjury.

It is immaterial whether the testimony is given on oath or under any other section authorised by law.”

S.118 which prescribes the punishment says: “Any person who commits perjury is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.”

In the eyes of the law, legal practitioners and indeed the common man, can a mere apology vitiate an indictable offence of that nature? If the NJC accept Salami’s apology and allow the matter to rest, is it not possible for somebody to go to court pro hono and demand that the PCA be committed to prison for lying on oath?

If however Salami fails to tender an apology, can he escape the wrath of NJC which has constitutional power to sanction any erring judicial officer?

And if this happens, there is every likelihood that he will approach the court to seek redress. Indeed, the days ahead promise to unfurl more melodrama and intrigues in the judicial circles. This, no doubt, is a dilemma for the hallow temple of justice.