By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA – The National Judicial Council, NJC, has convened an emergency meeting to determine the fate of judges currently under investigation over their alleged complicity in acts of corruption.

The meeting which will be presided by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, will hold between November 2 and 3 at the NJC Secretariat situated inside the Supreme Court complex in Abuja.

Sunday Vanguard learnt that among issues to be considered at the meeting include request by some of the Judges whose homes were raided between October 7 and 8, for leave of the Council to institute legal action against the Department of State Service, DSS.

A source at the NJC, who pleaded anonymity, equally disclosed that the meeting would afford the legal body the opportunity to further deliberate on whether or not the embattled Judges should temporarily step down from the Bench as requested by the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA.

“Besides, the Council will also consider at the meeting, request by a non governmental organisation, Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic Rights, CASER, for live broadcast of sensitive court cases”, the source added.

Ngwuta, Okoroand Ademola

The group had in a letter it forwarded to the CJN on February 26, sought the council’s approval for court proceedings to be relayed live to Nigerians.

It argued that such measure would enhance greater transparency in the justice delivery system in Nigeria, saying that request was necessitated by “rising public consciousness of the role of the courts in ensuring justice, public order and stability of Nigeria.”

As a follow up, the group also wrote the CJN on October 20, insisting that the recent clampdown on judges over allegations of corruption further underscored the importance and urgency of its request.

“CASER is convinced that live media broadcast of court proceedings will debunk corruption and help in sustaining the integrity of the judiciary in Nigeria.

“Live broadcast of court proceedings in Nigeria has its foundation in the constitutional provision of Section 36 (3) and (4)”, the group insisted.