THE marks left by women in our nation’s public life from pre-colonial period to today have become indelible in the minds of Nigerians at large, leaving them to believe that Nigeria’s salvation from its present quagmire will depend largely on injecting more women into the public place and commanding heights.

This was the sentiment that greeted the elevation of Justice Mariam Aloma-Mukhtar as the first female Chief Justice of Nigeria after 51 years of nationhood.  With her elevation in 2012, Hon. Aloma-Mukhtar came into a judiciary that was begging for deep sober reflection; a judiciary that need to turn the searchlight unto itself as both the Bench and the Bar have left Nigerians with diminished hope of its ability to clean the Augean stable of corruption, malfeasance and untrammeled injustice that have become the bane of our society.

Justice Aloma-Mukhtar is heading a judiciary that requires a comprehensive programme of institutional hygiene and cleansing that will espouse the highest standards of justice based on basic principles of equity, fairness and sound judgment, one of a system rather than one of inexplicable formless individualism and status arrogance.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria came into public limelight on November 5, 2012 when she refused to swear in a duly nominated Hon. Justice Jombo-Ofo as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.  The CJN’s decision was based on a frivolous petition that Jombo-Ofo was from Anambra but only married to an AbiaState indigene and therefore should not take the slot of Abia state not minding her nomination by AbiaState government, which she has served meritoriously all her life.             Unwittingly, this singular decision denied Jombo-Ofo her constitutional right, and assaulted the sensibility of Nigerians as well as impugned the constitutional right of Abia State Government.

Nigerians of all works of life rose up in unison to condemn the Chief Justice’s action.  Everybody, from the Executive to the National Assembly, Human Rights Activists, to Editorial writers all cried blue murder.  The deluge of protests  was so much that the National Judicial Council, obviously embarrassed, had to provide a face-saving platform by directing the Chief Justice of Nigeria to do the right thing by swearing-in Justice Jombo-Ofo, which she did.

Next public glare of the CJN came with her letter to the President recommending the immediate retirement of one Justice Charles Archibong of the Federal High Court, over his handling of the case against Erastus Akingbola, the erstwhile Managing Director of the now liquidated Intercontinental Bank and the PDP case in Ogun State.

The two cases were based on petitions written against Justice Archibong by some Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), among others.

The President, in due and commendable respect to the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution, acceded to the request of the CJN and immediately retired Justice Archibong.  As expected and as is usual, the retired Justice petitioned the President, asking the President to rescind his retirement, on grounds, among other reasons, that he was not granted rights of fair hearing and that he committed no judicial misconduct or any infraction of the law.

ALTHOUGH I had followed the Archibong/SANs saga, having watched on the Television, one of the SANs, Daudu, then NBA President, walk out of the court the day in question, I naturally did not bother to extend my attention on the issue.

However, three recent events compelled me to take another, albeit, hard look at the merits and demerits of Justice Archibong’s petition to the President on his retirement.

The first was, as reported in “The Nation” of Friday, March 15 on page 8, that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court (the actual boss of Archibong)- Hon Justice Ibrahim Auta, presiding in a function at the formal retirement of Justice Benedicta Molokwu, claimed, inter alia, “that some Senior lawyers were in the habit of going to any length to frustrate court proceedings once it suits the interest of their clients”.  Hon. Auta, further, as reported, “expressed fears that the frequency with which petitions were written against Judges and the way some are eased out of service was capable of eroding the dignity associated with the office of a Judge”.  Coming from Justice Archibong’s boss, his observation can be construed as an oblique reference to the way Archibong was retired.

Secondly, if Auta’s observation is oblique, the retiring Justice Benedicta Molokwu of the Federal High Court, in her valedictory speech made a point blank and unmistakable reference to Justice Archibong’s retirement.  When she, inter alia, expressed regret that “frivolous petitions were now being filed against Judges, who end up being compulsorily retired, without given right of fair hearing.”  She warned that “if the trend was not discouraged, it would place existing Judges in an unsafe position and make it impossible to employ the services of new Judges.”

The third thing that happened was the report in the Guardian of Friday, March 15, 2013, to the effect that “the Bill for an Act to repeal the Criminal Act Procedure of 2004 had scaled second reading.”  Among other things, the Bill seeks to limit adjournment of cases to five times with not more than 14 days interval between each adjournment.  This will limit allowable adjournment period to 70 days.  This will no doubt guarantee quick dispensation of justice.  The Bill under reference may be coincidental to Archibong’s complaint that the legal team of SANs who prosecuted Akingbola’s case in his court on behalf of EFCC, frustrated administration of justice with their incessant requests for amendment for close to three years.  This obviously was what was cited by Justice Archibong to direct the disbandment of the prosecution team of five SANs for a prosecution that was “lacking in diligence and competence.”  What I ask myself is, is three years period not long enough to finish a major case?  How long did it take the UK court to decide Ibori’s case?  Is the frustration experienced by Archibong for three years not enough justification for his action? Are the actions of the prosecuting team of SANs right, as of right, or because of their SANship and therefore not blamable?

Coming closer, the positions of Hon. Justices Auta and Molokwu are pointers that within the judiciary itself, particularly the Bench, there are simmering objections, unvoiced protests and unhappiness about the way the NJC is meting out justice to Judges.

Beyond these, in his petition to the President as published in some national dailies, Archibong denies vehemently of appearing before the three-man panel set up by the Chief Justice of Nigeria to look into petitions against him.   This is contrary to the claim in the CJN’s letter to the President in which she requested the retirement of Archibong, where she stated that Archibong “appeared and was heard.”

First, who is telling the truth?  CJN or Archibong?  I would prefer that it is CJN rather than Archibong, because of the obvious implications the contrary will have for the judiciary and our nation.

More critically, the issue of fundamental right of fair hearing above is at the heart of justice.  Fair hearing is an immutable element in good justice delivery.

If, as Archibong claimed, the three-man panel which was set up by the CJN to look into the petitions against him, even without calling him and allowing him face his accusers, recommended only reprimand, other questions that arise are, on what basis did the CJN upgrade it to compulsory retirement?  What principle of justice?

Did the CJN conclude a priori that Archibong is guilty and must be eased out even before setting up the panel?

Mr. CHRIS ALIGBE a public affairs analyst,wrote from Lagos.