By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

Remember that the judiciary as an arm of government does not have a garrison of soldiers or police to compel compliance with its orders, ruling and judgments. Rather, the judiciary relies and survives only on public confidence. This public confidence will be eroded by your actions and in-actions.”

Those were the exact words of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Mariam Aloma Muhktar, on November 19, 2012, while admonishing judges few months after she assumed leadership of the Nigerian Judiciary.

Speaking at a workshop organized by the National Judicial Institute, NJI, the CJN further maintained that “the centrality of the judiciary to the continued existence of any society can hardly be over stressed and once the public loses its confidence in the organ of government charged with adjudication and justice delivery, then that society is no doubt set for extinction.

”Let me add however that the Judicial Service Commissions of various jurisdictions will not hesitate to administer appropriate sanctions to any judge of the court found wanting,” she declared.

Many had thought she was merely towing the line of her male predecessors, dishing out sugar-coated words capable of elevating her prominence before the revered alter of public discourse.

However, her recent actions, vis-à-vis the decision of the National Judicial Council, NJC, which is the highest judicial organ in the country as it pertains to the sanitization of the Aegean’s stable, has left no one in doubt that there may be simmering rays of hope for the justice sector.

Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar and Justice, Mohammed Adoke, SAN

Prior to her assumption of office, Justice Muktar who never masked her aversion for ineptitude, vowed to expose and expel all the bad eggs incubating within the hallowed judicial temples, even as she urged all the judges to live above board.

That was in lieu with the fact that the judiciary was fast losing its status as the last hope of the common man sequel to sundry allegations of corruption that dogged decisions of judges perceived to be dancing to the dictates of paymasters.

Things became so bad that the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, which is the umbrella body of legal practitioners in the country, on February 17, last year alleged that the judiciary has turned into a market place where justice was sold to the highest bidder.

The legal body went ahead and constituted its own anti-corruption organ with a mandate to ferret out “practitioners of corruption in the legal profession and justice system.”

Thus, last July when the CJN appeared before the Nigerian Senate for screening, she expressed concern over the battered image of the Judiciary with a pledge to improve the situation.

According to her:  “On the perception of the Judiciary by the public, indeed, as it is as at now, it is very bad and I am saddened by it. But, then, as I said earlier on, I will try, I don’t want to sound like a broken record. I will try to make sure that the confidence reposed in the Judiciary, as it were before, will be returned.

I will try as much as possible to ensure that the bad eggs that are there are flushed out. That there will be a cleansing by the National Judicial Council (NJC) based on petition. It is sad that the ordinary man on the street thinks and feels that he cannot get justice. This is because of the situation we find ourselves. I will ensure that this perception changes.”

The essence of a just judicial system is to provide prompt qualitative justice for the people. Justice is meaningless when it is delayed, hurried or perverted.

Consequently, an allegation against any judge is an allegation against the course of justice, which if not properly handled, has the tendency of eroding confidence from the judicial system.

Nevertheless, no matter how grave a petition may seem, it is trite law that an accused is assumed innocent until otherwise proven. Thus, just as the burden of prove rests on the petitioner, the accused also bears the brunt of establishing his or her innocence beyond every reasonable doubt.

Opportunity to challenge evidence

Thus, every judge accused of perverting justice ought to have a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by the petitioners, summon own witnesses, present evidence, have counsel, if necessary at public expense, in order to make his or her case properly.

Undoubtedly, “Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom; Justice is what comes out of a courtroom .”

It was therefore not surprising when the National Judicial Council, NJC, at the end of an emergency meeting  held on February 20, recommended the immediate retirement of two Judges following their alleged complicity in acts of corruption.

Whereas the Council asked President Goodluck Jonathan to immediately retire Justice Charles Efanga Archibong who was hitherto with the Federal High Court Lagos Division, it further urged the Plateau State Governor, David Jonah Jang to sack Justice T.D Naron who was equally indicted.

Specifically, NJC, said it was satisfied that Archibong violated his oath of office when he “dismissed grievous charges against an accused without taking his plea.”

His indictment followed an uncanny role he played in a criminal case involving the former Managing Director of Intercontinental Bank Plc, Mr. Erastus Akingbola who was charged to court over his alleged involvement in financial impropriety.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, had in a 26-count amended charge it entered before the court, maintained that it garnered sufficient evidence to prove that Akingbola pilfered the sum of N364 billion.

However, even without taking the plea of the accused person, Justice Archibong, on April 2, 2012, discharged Akingbola from the case, even as he dismissed the charge as grossly lacking in merit.

More so, Archibong barred the prosecuting team of the EFCC comprising of five Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, from appearing before the court or another judge of the Federal High on the same matter following what he termed “serious and professional incompetence.”

He further ordered the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Mohamemd Adoke, SAN, to disband the team of the five SANs that prosecuted the case, among whom included the former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Joseph B. Daudu, SAN.

While indicting him, NJC, maintained that he acted wrongly by refusing “to release the Certified True Copy of his Ruling to the Lawyers,” stressing that, he “issued a bench warrant on some officials of Peoples Democratic Party for contempt even when the counsel who was directed by the Court to serve them filed an affidavit that he had not been able to serve the contempt application.

“That he made unfounded and caustic remarks on professional competence of some Senior Advocates of Nigeria; That there were glaring procedural irregularities which showed that Hon. Justice Archibong did not have a full grasp of the Law and procedure of the Court.

Originating summons

“That he granted the leave sought for in the originating summons that had no written address of the parties and without hearing both parties in the originating summons after he had earlier on overruled the preliminary objection.”

On the other hand, NJC, sought Naron’s retirement after it was allegedly ascertained that there were constant regular voice calls and exchange of MMS and SMS (text) messages between him and a lead counsel for one of the parties to a suit in the Osun State Gubernatorial Election Tribunal.

His action was said to have contravened the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vide Section 292(1((b) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

To further accentuate the rising wave of allegations of corruption against the Bench, NJC, also commenced investigation into allegation that Justice Abubakar Thalba of an Abuja High Court at Gudu collected bribe and freed a self confessed pension thief, Mr John Yakubu Yusufu.

Though Justice Thalba is still presiding over other criminal cases pending before his court, the NJC directed that he should tender his defence to a fact-finding committee it empanelled to investigate the allegations leveled against him.

Justice Thalba had on January 28, handed a light sentence to the convicted pension thief, shortly after he admitted before the court that he actually connived with six other persons and stole over N23billion from the Police pension fund.

Placing reliance on section 309 of the Penal Code Act, Justice Thalba sentenced him to 2 years imprisonment with an option of N750, 000 fine, a sum the convict quickly paid and drove home.

Though the anti-graft agency subsequently re-arrested and arraigned Yusufu on another criminal charge involving N300m, civil society organizations petitioned both the NJC and the CJN, demanding that the matter be probed.

In an obvious gesture of despair, the CJN, on April 8, expressed concern over the quality of judgment emanating from various courts in the country, insisting that public confidence and trust in the judiciary has nosedived.

“Let us not deceive ourselves, the public confidence and trust in our work as judicial officers are beginning to nosedive. This is born out partly from judgement emanating from our courts which the public or some section of it feels is rather unconscionable.

Agreed, judges are not spirits, they are human beings. They are members of the society. What this portends is that the judgment we write and deliver must be a reflection of adequate considerations of the facts as presented by the parties, available evidence properly led to support the facts and the state of the law on the subject of adjudication.

“Again, I concede that as judges we are accorded some semblance of discretion particularly in criminal cases. I must however hasten to add that the exercise of any discretion in adjudication must be judicially, judiciously and reasonably exercised. A judge must not put himself in a position where the exercise of his discretion is deemed to be unreasonable in the estimation and assessment of a reasonable member of the society.