• ‘Buhari govt blocked pay rise for judges, stalled appointment of more S/Court Justices’

• Says ex-AGF Malami had an axe to grind with the judiciary

• Speaks on why appointments of judicial officers are no longer on merit

• ‘How govs influence judges appointments based on personal interest’

By Ise-Oluwa Ige

In this interview, a   member of the inner bar and rights activist, Mr Kunle Adegoke, SAN, dissects Justice Dattijo Muhammad’s 31-page valedictory speech containing various corruption allegations which literally put the judiciary on trial  and declares that while some of the jurist’s observations were real and disturbing, many of the issues in the judiciary predate Justice Kayode Ariwoola’s assumption of office as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN). Excerpts:

Justice Dattijo, in his valedictory speech, observed that the public perceptions of the judiciary, over the years, have become witheringly scornful and monstrously critical owing to corruption. Are you worried that this kind of comment is coming from the immediate past most senior justice of the Supreme Court after the CJN?

The observations of His Lordship, The Honourable Justice Dattijo Muhammad, in the valedictory speech, are quite disturbing. This is not because such observations are new but because they once again reiterated similar allegations raised by His Lordship, The Honourable Justice Uwaifo (rtd.), when His Lordship was retiring from the same apex court in 2004. It is rather saddening and most disquieting that the apex court is embroiled in self-deprecating terms that are validating the general perception which has not been too flattering in recent times. That such allegations are being repeated in 2023 about the performances of the apex court are not too commending to popular satisfaction. The popular maxim is that justice must not only be done but must also be seen by every reasonable man to have been done. The standard of a reasonable man here is not that of people who believed that their non-existent mandate was stolen without readiness to identify their mandate or how they acquired it. Here, we are talking of reasonable men without any hallucination of victory or what is consistent with justice. In recent times, however, the perception of the public about our Supreme Court has not been quite encouraging. A case like that of the former Senate President, Senator Ahmed Lawan, is ruffling the feathers of public perception of the judiciary. In the same vein is the election petition leading to the declaration of Hope Uzodimma of Imo State as the winner of the governorship election that brought him into office which is still generating ripples.

We have quite a number of occasions like that when the apex court has not given a good credential of its constitutional mandate. While there has not been any evidence of corruption established against any of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is important to stress the fact that a situation where many members of the public feel that the outcome of a litigation may have more to do than legal consideration has much to attract criticism. The implication is that the status of the judiciary, the integrity of the institution is being dragged in the mud and it is disturbing to all conscious individuals who know the importance of the rule of law vis-à-vis socio-economic and political development of the country.

The jurist also raised the issue of enormous concentration of power in the hands of the CJN to appoint people into various judicial bodies and panels of the Supreme Court, alleging that the CJN abused the power to ensure that the South-East was not represented in the panel that heard Atiku/Peter Obi’s election appeals against Tinubu. How do you react to this?

I believe this particular allegation was quite below the conscience of His Lordship. How could the CJN have used his power to exclude the South-East when the South-West where the CJN hailed from was also not represented in the panel? That allegation is not salutary to the sagacity of His Lordship. Insinuating such political exclusion of the South-East is further capable of weakening the breaking links of the country. Was His Lordship trying to promote more division in the country? That is not commendable at this point when agitations are rife for secession from the South-East.

The provisions of the Constitution that established the various judicial bodies were well-thought out by the framers of the Constitution. His Lordship never saw anything wrong in the Constitution in its placement of such powers and responsibilities under the previous administrations of the former Chief Justices of Nigeria. The fact that His Lordship believed that the Number 2 man in the Supreme Court, which His Lordship was until retirement, ought to have been allowed to perform certain responsibilities, only points to the fact that it was a fight for personal ego and placement. We are aware that appointment of a Justice of the Supreme Court is not the sole responsibility of the Chief Justice of Nigeria. The National Judicial Council, no matter the fact that it is headed by the CJN, has a huge role to play in it. It was never suggested by His Lordship, The Honourable Justice Dattijo Muhammed, that His Lordship fought any battle to have such appointments carried out before now.

Why raising the issue at this critical moment when the court is having more than enough challenges to combat?

That no appointment has been made into the Supreme Court in the past two or three years is not due to the fault of the current CJN. It is agreed that such appointments are long overdue but how does the current CJN benefit from the failure of appointment of Justices from a particular region? It is on record that those that were appointed the last time have not been provided for in terms of their welfare, provisions of cars and housing which have been a source of serious agitation in the past few years.

Financial allocation to the judiciary has not met the required quantum by which such appointments can be adequately made and judiciously provided for. Failure of appointments into the Supreme Court from two regions out of six has no relevance to the determination of a presidential election petition. It is a suggestion steeped in undue political sentiment and capable of endangering the status of the court and unsettle the fragile state of the country.

Do you agree with Justice Dattijo that the law envisages that the presidential election appeal panel ought to include representatives from all parts of the country?

I do not believe My Noble Lord is honest on this point. There is no such provision in any law that all the six geo-political divisions of the nation must be represented in the panel of the Supreme Court Justices to determine an appeal from a presidential election petition. If that should be the case, it means that such rule must be applied to the Court of Appeal too more so that it is a most critical and only court to try a presidential election petition. The panel of the Court of Appeal was made of five Justices as constitutionally prescribed and that means that at least one region must be excluded and could not have been represented. Does that mean that the panel was not properly composed? The same reasoning goes to the composition of the Supreme Court panel that heard the presidential appeals. The South-West was not represented in the panel. Is that also suggestive of political bias on the part of the CJN? I believe that having all the six geo-political regions represented in the panel of the Supreme Court is not a prescription of any law although it may be desirable for mere representation and inclusivity’s sake. However, the timing of raising these issues is completely and grossly inappropriate. It is like wanting to bring the house down on the occupants simply because you are exiting.

Are you worried that with Dattijo’s retirement, the number of Justices at the Supreme Court is now 10 against the constitutional requirement of 21 justices?

We have, over the years, agitated stridently for urgent appointments of qualified Justices from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal is not in short supply of able, competent and upright men to occupy the vacant golden stools of the Supreme Court. The process has been on for a long time. The previous administration of President Muhammadu Buhari did not do well in this regard. No matter how much we clamored for the Supreme Court to be fully composed, the government under President Muhammadu Buhari just kept mute and remained unconcerned. A government that could even oppose a suit brought to have salaries and emoluments of judges improved upon, in line with Section 84 of the Constitution, definitely had no interest in welfare of judges. Yes, our good friend and leader of the Bar, the erudite Chief Sebastine Tar Hon, SAN, filed a suit at the National Industrial Court for the need to comply with the provisions of the Constitution to upgrade the salaries and emoluments of judges across the Federation. I represented the National Judicial Council in that case and I argued that failure to improve the salaries and emoluments of judges in accordance with the law was a violation of Section 84 (3) of the Constitution which prescribes that the remunerations, salaries the conditions of service of judges shall not be altered to their disadvantage after their appointments. The former Attorney General of the Federation (Abubakar Malami) must have had an axe to grind with the judiciary as we were surprised to see the AGF represented in court fighting vigorously to have the case reality in terms of interpretation of the law is the judiciary. Where such institution is going moribund under mundane influences has less to commend no matter how generous with diplomacy one intends to be.

What is your advice to the Supreme Court on its judgment in Ahmed Lawan and the Imo governorship appeals cited by Justice Dattijo to nail the judiciary?

The decisions of the apex court in those two cases cited by His Lordship have more to condemn than to commend. A situation where a person who did not participate in a primary election was declared winner of such an election is outside a meritorious consideration of the provisions of the law. The case of Imo State governorship leading to the declaration of Hope Uzodimma as governor has not been a precedent to any other case since it was decided. That only points to the fact that the correctness of that decision is also suspect to Their Lordships. The Supreme Court, being the final court in the land, has so much to do in establishing certainty in the law. Here is a court that has so many conflicting decisions on many issues where the facts are on all fours. There is hardly any case that you will cite a decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria now that you will not find another that supports the contrary. What kind of a situation is this! I am alarmed! It was not like this before and that is why it ought not to continue being like this. We must sanitize the system if we want the public to have confidence in our judiciary. 

Their Lordships are not devoid of legal knowledge. They are men and women of immense and elephantine possessions when it comes to legal knowledge. They only need to bring this more to bear on the decisions of the court.