Connect with us

Opinion

The Oracle: Critiquing Judges and Judgements: The Dividing Line (Pt. 1)

Published

on

By Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

The Nigerian Judiciary has in recent times, been in the eye of the storm, as it faces a barrage of criticisms over some judgments by the courts, especially Supreme Court, which came under very close scrutiny. This has generated much ruckus, donnybrook, and rhubarb.

Some of these judgements have drawn the ire of all manners of critics, some genuine; some analytical; some pseudo; and some political. Some critics directed needless crude and caustic umbrage at the very persons of the revered learned Justices of the apex Court, over what they perceived as unfair, or overtly political verdicts. Regrettably, some of those attacks were caustic, bizarre, uncouth, derogatory and went too far. Many crossed the fine dividing line of decency between constructive and scholarly criticism (which is permissible after delivery of judgments); and direct personal attacks on the judexes who delivered the judgments(which is not permissible under any circumstance). The questions are: where, how or when do we draw this thin line between fair critiquing of judgements and going for the jugular of the the Judge? Does such a line even exist at all, either legally or otherwise? What remedies are available to judicial officers exposed to severe public censure, and even odium and ridicule on account of their judicial acts of deciding cases? Are they simply helpless and powerless? Do such sanctions include committing authors of such vile criticisms to prison for contempt, albeit ex facie curie (outside the court)? Are such authors liable to face disciplinary measures through the NBA Disciplinary Committee (where they are lawyers)? These are the issues this thesis attempts to provide answers to.

MY PERSONAL STAND

Let me state right from the onset and within the confines of this abstract, my own humble position in this rather lengthy dissertation. I believe judicial opinions and judgments can be scrutinised, criticised, and critiqued after delivery thereof. This is scholarship which opens up new jurisprudential vistas. Critiquing helps deepen and widen the democratic space because court decisions affect the entire society. I do not however subscribe to piercing the veil of the judgments themselves to attack the Judex who delivered the said judgments by questioning their motives, integrity, intellect, assumed political or other filial leanings, or backgrounds, for such judicial decisions. That goes beyond the bounds of decency and crosses lines of intellectual interrogation of such judgements. That also amounts to leaving the message for the messenger; deliberately hitting a player’s leg rather than the ball, in a football match. Such attitude- whether from lawyers or members of the larger society- must be deprecated, denounced and condemned in the strongest words possible. I so do, most respectfully.

REASONS FOR CRITIQUING AND INTERROGATING JUDGEMENTS

The greatest contribution of the judicial mind is usually deciphered, not from the final result of a case, but from the judicial opinion itself. It is the duty of every lawyer, academic, and even members of the society, to analyse, interrogate and critique judicial opinions embedded in judgements after they have been delivered. Learned journals, columns in newspapers, Ph.D thesis and dissertations; the print and electronic media; and lately, the social media, are employed in this. This is the very core of scholarship and legal education. Such literary criticisms are aimed at pointing out the “defects” and the “beauties” of such judgments.

Mr. Swift in his “A Tale of a Tub” tells us that a “true critique is a discoverer and collector of a writer’s fault”. He did not say “fault of the writer which has to do with his person and persona (and is thus not permitted); but the fault of his works” (which is permitted). Indeed such criticisms and interrogations help Judges to perform better. I will, anon, show numerous cases in which Judges have been attacked in their persons across the world, and even in Nigeria; but which I, as a person, lawyer, SAN, and social critic, do not agree with. There are many more reasons for allowing decent, genuine, and well-researched criticisms and interrogations of judgments after delivery.

The Judiciary, like the Legislature and Executive (as created in sections 6,4 and 5, respectively, of the 1999 Constitution, as amended), is subject to the tripartite doctrine of Separation of Powers- a doctrine most eloquently popularised in 1748 by Baron de Montesquieu, a great French philosopher. Their judgments are therefore subject to the same public criticisms as are legislative and executive acts. They must pass through the same crucible, rigour, and accountability as the other two arms. The Judiciary cannot be dressed in the cloak of infallibility. See Motors Ltd v Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 109) 250. The due administration of justice is a serious matter of public interest which involves members of the entire public as ultimate beneficiaries and consumers of the effects of such judgment. Law as the recurring decimal in our individual and collective lives is too serious a matter to be left alone in the hands of only Judges and lawyers (the Bench and the Bar). Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (“Part of the Law”), in a powerful speech delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1897, put it most poignantly when he said, “the prophecies of what the court will do and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law”. He did not stop there. He further argued that “the law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race. The practice of it in spite of popular jest, tends to make good citizens and good men”. Holmes (also called “The Great Dissenter”; are Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Legal historian, and Philospher of The School of Legal Realism), thus advocated judicial restraint. He, it was, who stated that the concept of “clear and present danger” is the only basis for limiting the right of freedom of speech. So, when members of the public critique court judgements fairly and decently, they are merely exercising their right to freedom of expression (section 39 of the 1999 constitution), to hold opinions, and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. That surely cannot be criminalised.

However, such critiquing must be fair, reasonable, responsible and must pass through the acid test of bona fides, rigorous and intellectual interrogation. It must not be anchored on sheer vulgar, abusive, and offensive vituperations; rude expletives; or disrespectful name-calling. It must shun revilement and chastisement. There is, perhaps, a more serious reason why courts should be kept on their judicial toes to deliver justice-driven, rather than technicality-dependent judgments. Court decisions impact business, economy, and foreign direct investment. No responsible foreign investor will put his hard-earned money in a climate of unfair judgments or prolonged disputes. This was perhaps why Lord Atkins once told us that “Justice is not a cloistered virtue. She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken comments of the ordinary men” (Ambard vs AG of Trinidad and Tobago (1936) AC 322)

SITUATIONS IN WHICH NIGERIAN COURTS HAD CRITICISED THEMSELVES

There is a sense in which courts are, in the words of George Alger, “peculiarly the subject of criticism of experts.” These “experts” are no more than lawyers and fellow Judges. In the former case, according to him, “lawyers who appeal from a lower court to a higher court are engaged in criticizing a Judge who was responsible for an unsatisfactory decision. The appeal Judges are paid by the state to act as critics of their brethren in the courts below”.

WHEN NIGERIAN COURTS CRITICISE THEMSELVES

A graphic illustration of courts criticising themselves, using the internal mechanism of appeals, is the Supreme Court case of MENAKAYA vs. MENAKAYA (2001) 16 NWLR (pt 738) 203. In the lead judgment of the apex court (delivered by Mohammed, JSC, as he then was), it minced no words, when it held that: “it is a misdirection for a trial Judge to give judgment on an issue on which there is no evidence adduced whatsoever . . . It is plain, therefore, that judgment of Ononiba J, having been written without any evidence supporting the decision is void. Equally the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed a void decision is also a nullity.” The contributory judgment of Ogundare, JSC, was even more breathtaking. He moaned: “I find myself having painfully to observe that there are other portions and passages of the judgment which are clearly inappropriate in a judgment intended as a sober and sublime reflection. Admittedly, allowance must be made for the peculiar sense of narrative of individual Judges. Some make theirs rhapsodically on purpose, as was obviously demonstrated in the case in question. But even so, I think it will be of much profit if journeys in light-hearted digressions are not made a prominent feature in any judgment, particularly of a superior court, even to the extent that the real issues are missed or misunderstood. That was the position in the present case.”

SELF-CRITICISM BY THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF IN HOPE UZODINMA V EMEKA IHEDIOHA (2020) PELR 86967 (SC)

In March 2020, the Supreme Court refused the request of Chief Emeka Ihedioha, former Governor of Imo State, to set aside its earlier judgment which had declared Chief Hope Uzodinma of the APC Governor of Imo state. Ihedioha’s team of lawyers had argued that Uzodinma deceived the Supreme Court with his self-tabulated result from 388 polling units, which made the number of voters in Imo state outnumber the accredited voters for the election (which was 368).

The apex court led by the then CJN, Tanko Mohammed, held that it lacked powers to sit on appeal over its own judgment delivered on merit and in accordance with the dictates of the law.

THOUGHT FOR WEEK

 “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things”. (Winston Churchill).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Between J.I.C. Taylor and Contemporary Justice

Published

on

By

By Hon Femi Kehinde

There was an interesting anecdote about a group of failed business entrepreneurs who at a meeting to formally dissolve and disengage with their business as a result of the current economy tide, resolved to move into another line of business. One of them instantly suggested that they setup an High Court where they would be selling and granting injunctions through Ex-parte applications at an exorbitant fees. Perhaps to recoup their huge loss. Funny though as it may sound and naively too, it epitomizes a public perception of the Judiciary and perhaps our entire legal system.

It is certainly impossible for a private person to set up a Court, be it inferior or superior Courts of Record. Section 6 of the Nigerian Constitution, certainly abhors their cynical thoughts.

In 1962, Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola took the matter of his removal as Premier of the Western Region to the High Court under Justice Quarshee-Idun, a Ghanaian, then as the Chief Judge of the Western Region, who rather than listen to the matter and throw the Western Region into further crisis, sent it to the Federal Supreme court for the interpretation of Section 33 (10) of the Western Region Constitution. The Federal Supreme Court interpreted the Section in favor of Akintola and declared his removal null and void.

This piece is certainly dedicated to a Judicial Icon of that era – Justice J.I.C Taylor as a sweet memorabilia.

In Nigeria legal folklore, the name ‘J.I.C’ (John Idowu Conrad) Taylor will ever remain ever green like a constant star, in our juridical firmament.

J.I.C was the fourth child of Eusebius James Alexander Taylor, a famous and successful lawyer, a nationalist who was then referred to as the “Cock of the Bar”, and whose family house was at No. 5 Victoria Street, Lagos, very close to Tinubu Square, which in the Lagos of early days was referred to as the most important street in Lagos – “Ehin Igbeti” or the bulwark of Lagos, but now known as Nnamdi Azikiwe street.

J.I.C’s mother, was Remilekun Alice Taylor (Nee Williams) and was thus, a first cousin, through his mother, to the Late Chief F.R.A Williams, another legal titan and contemporary at the Bar.

J.I.C was born, on the 27th of August, 1917 and died on the 7th of November, 1973 at the age of 56 Years. Within this short span, J.I.C lived a worthy, glorious and exemplary life, that would still remain unmatched and unparalleled in Nigeria’s history of incorruptibility at the bench, judicial independence, strict interpretation of the law, restraint, courage, uncommon judicial boldness and untainted integrity.

J.I.C Taylor, had his early education at the Methodist Boys High School Lagos, before being sent to England by his father, to complete his Secondary School Education at the Culford School, Bury Saint Edmunds, at Suffolk. He thereafter, proceeded to King’s College England in 1936 to read Law, before transferring to Brasenose College, Oxford in 1937, where he made a Second-Class Degree in Jurisprudence. He was subsequently called to the Bar at the middle Temple on the 14th of January, 1941.

Within a space of 15 years, J.I.C Taylor had become one of the great Legal luminaries at the Nigerian Bar, and was prominent in the ranks of Bode Thomas, F.R.A Williams and Fani Kayode, who had formed a law partnership of Thomas, Williams, Fani Kayode & Co (Solicitors), S.L.A Akintola, Chief Chris Ogunbanjo, Michael Odesanya, who had also formed a partnership of Samuel, Chris & Michael (Solicitors) in 1952.
Obafemi Awolowo had also in Ibadan, around this period, formed a law Partnership with Chief Abiodun Akerele, then known as Awolowo, Akerele & Co (Solicitors) in Oke-Ado, Ibadan. In Law practice, Obafemi Awolowo was described then as a terrible cross-examiner.

J.I.C in law practice, was a very resourceful lawyer of impeccable integrity. He was extremely knowledgeable in law and was a delightful personality at the Nigerian Bar. He was blessed with a great command of English Language, which is the potent tool of the legal profession and very eloquent with a diction that was impeccable. He was not given to frivolities or undignified practice.

Like his father, Eusebius, he had a weakness. He was easily provoked and tended therefore to lose control in court whenever he was angry. The Late Chief F.R.A Williams in advocacy with Taylor was always happy to take advantage of this weakness. The Late Fani Kayode too, though a friend to J.I.C, had also taken advantage of this weakness, whilst appearing with J.I.C in some instances, but nevertheless, admitted that he was a meticulous and dogged advocate.

J.I.C Taylor as a seminal figure at the Nigerian Bar had appeared in many “causes celebres” – celebrated cases that have gone down in our legal jurisprudence, as hallmarks. These cases, includes the case of King’s College students, who had demonstrated during the Second World War against the colonial authorities on account of poor administration of their school and also appeared in the Sedition Trial of the Editors to the Daily Commet and the West African Pilot of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the Sedition Trial of Anthony Enahoro of 1947, the case of Prince Adeyinka Oyekan and Others and Oba Adeniyi Adele in 1952, in which the ownership and legal status of the “Iga Idunganran”, which was the traditional residence of the Oba of Lagos was in question.

He also appeared in the case of Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani and the African Press Ltd, (publishers of The Tribune Newspaper) In 1953, Zik Enterprises Ltd (Publishers of the West African Pilot) and Others V. The Hon. Obafemi Awolowo in 1955. By way of a little digress, Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani who was in 1960 made the Chairman, Nigerian Railway Corporation, had earlier been member, Board of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and Nigerian Coal Corporation, Enugu (NCC) and was also made Pro Chancellor and chairman of the Governing Council of the University of Ibadan. He was then, a close confidant to the Late Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and was resident in Ibadan. He had earlier been accused of unbridled nepotism in the appointment of people to the Nigerian Railway Corporation.
Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani, was a lover of cars and was noted to have had on his stable a car known as “Thunderbird”, perhaps the best of his time, on the streets of Ibadan. He admitted at the Adefarasin Panel, on the affairs of the Nigerian Railway Corporation, late in 1966, that – “I love cars”.

In 1956, at the age of 39, J.I.C Taylor was appointed a Judge of the High Court of the Western Region. In 1960, he was elevated to the Supreme Court and he descended from the Court in 1964 to become the Chief Justice of the High Court of the Federal Territory of Lagos.

When Lagos state was created in 1967 and Brigadier Mobalaji Johnson became its Military Governor, J.I.C Taylor became its first Chief Justice. Whilst in office as the Chief Justice of Lagos State, an incident happened, which stood him out as a very bold, courageous and independent judge. J.I.C Taylor, then Chief Justice of Lagos State, had been invited to a State dinner by the Military Governor of the State- Brigadier Mobolaji Johnson and the invitation was brought by one of the Governor’s aides. Justice Taylor, after reading it, endorsed a brief note to the governor at the back of the invitation card, informing him that he would be unable to attend, because the Lagos State government had several cases pending before him and it would therefore, in the circumstances be most inappropriate for him to honour the invitation. That simple (unprecedented though) act of judicial boldness and courage, best captures the essence of the man- as a man among men, and a judicial icon and oracle.

Perhaps, in other climes, this feat could only have been surpassed, by the great Alfred Thompson Denning- commonly known as Lord Denning, who was an English Lawyer and Judge, with degrees in Mathematics (First Class) and Law in 1920 and 1922 respectively at the Oxford University. He had also, like J.I.C Taylor, descended from the House of Lords, to return to the Court of Appeal, as Master of the Rolls in 1962, a position he held for 20 years. In Denning’s 38 year career as a Judge, he was known as the people’s judge, a judicial activist and a man with a great penchant for justice. Denning in an instance had once said- “unlike my brother Judge here, who is concerned with the Law, I am concerned with Justice.” He died on the 5th of March, 1999, at the ripe old age of 100 years, at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Winchester, England.

Another true essence of J.I.C Taylor was displayed when he was made the Pro Chancellor of the University of Lagos, while still serving as the Chief Justice of Lagos State. J.I.C as the Chairman of the Governing Board of the University of Lagos was a hard nut to crack, with a huge principle and unsurpassed integrity. Other members of the Governing Council were Col. (now Maj. General Rtd) Olufemi Olutoye, and now Oba of Ido Ani, in Ondo State, (the Military Member), Mr. (now Chief) S. Ade John (Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education,) Mallam Nuhu Bayero, Professors- F.O Dosekun, O.J Fagbemi, C.O. Taiwo, A.B Aderibigbe, A. Akinsanya and Mrs. B. Olumide.

According to Professor Saburi Biobaku, then as Vice Chancellor of the University had said of J.I.C- “attending council meetings of those days before the resignation was like going into a battle field” but described him however, “as a brilliant lawyer, a forthright judge, a strict disciplinarian and a stickler for procedure.” As Vice Chancellor, he briefed the then Pro-Chancellor once every week, but would rather wait for him at the office of Mr. R.A Bakare, the then Registrar of the Lagos State High Court, for the briefings. Nobody visits him in chambers.
J.I.C Taylor at the Council meeting of the Governing Council of the University of Lagos, on the 20th of September 1970 tendered his resignation as the Chairman of the Council, due to some inappropriateness, bothering on the interpretation of procedure, with regards to the appointment of persons in the University and ruled that his resignation should not be discussed.
As a judicial conservative, J.I.C Taylor believed in the principle of “lex lata” i.e. what is the strict interpretation of the law, rather than “de lege ferenda”, i.e. what the law ought to be, with a view, to be future law.

Despite a stern and principled life that bordered on asceticism, J.I.C was a sociable, principled, highly urbane, unassuming and cultivated man. Even though reserved and would rather prefer the company of a few select friends, he was a great sportsman and was prominent in the game of cricket between 1947 and 1949. He was a motor racing enthusiast and had a high collection of motor racing cars, including an “Aston Maria”. He was a very skilled ball room dancer and a lover of Juju music of the Late Akanbi Wright, alias Akanbi Ege, I.K Dairo, Adeolu Akinsanya alias Baba Eto and latter day Juju exponents- Ebenezer Obey and King Sunny Ade. J.I.C so much loved the music of Akanbi Ege, that he in fact financially supported him.

In the late 1950s, his only son was struck down by Polio. He was so much affected by this, according to the Late Fatai Williams, a one time Chief Justice of Nigeria, that- “he visited the boy who was then, no more than a toddler, everyday at the University College Hospital in Ibadan. Eventually, he became a recluse and hardly went anywhere”. J.I.C breathed his last to join the saints triumphants on the 7th of November, 1973 at the age of 56 years, while still serving as the Chief Justice of Lagos State.

In this season of anomie, this period of judicial mudslinging and irreverence, where are the likes of Justice John Idowu Conrad Taylor, Justice Kayode Eso, Justice Andrew Otutu Obaseki, Justice Bolarinwa Oyegoke Babalakin, that was a stickler for time, Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, Justice Teslim Olawale Elias, Justice Namman Nasir, Justice Sir Darnley (Omowale ) Alexandra – the Jamaican born Nigerian Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Idigbe, Justice E.O Morgan, E.A Coker, Fatai Williams, Olumuyiwa Jibowu, J.A Kester, S.O Lambo, Louis Mbanefo, Adetokunbo Ademola, Udo Udoma, Quarshie- Idun- a Ghanaian Chief Justice of the Western Region and a host of other eminent jurists, who had contributed immensely to the development of Nigerian Case Law and jurisprudence, by adapting very admirably the principles of English common law to the Nigerian environment? Uniquely too, Justice Mamman Nasir, elevated to the Supreme Court in 1975, had also descended from the Court in 1978, to become the President of the Court of Appeal until 1992, when he retired.

J.I.C had set a very high ethical standard on the administration of Justice in Nigeria and greatly inspired many Nigerian Lawyers and Judges, who will not be found with the filthy lucre of unexplainable and ill-gotten wealth. The question had always been- where are these ethical standards of the olden days of J.I.C.?

As a parting epitaph on his passage, the then Head of State and Commander in Chief of the Armed forces of Nigeria- General Yakubu Gowon, in November, 1973, had described J.I.C in the following sweet terms- “In an age in which corruption, intrigues, backstabbing and the love of office and power are fast becoming virtues, Justice Taylor stood out from the crowd, with a detachment that has brought immense dignity to the high office of judge”

What a very apt epithet, to our contemporary Justice System and executive lawlessness, as was beautifully decried in the popular case of Ojukwu V. Lagos State Government.

J.I.C Taylor, may your soul continue to Rest in Peace.

Hon. (Barr.) Femi Kehinde. MHR
Legal practitioner and former member House of Representatives, National Assembly, Abuja 1999 – 2003, representing Ayedire/Iwo/Olaoluwa Federal Constituency of Osun State.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Onnoghen, Free at Last

Published

on

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN, CON, OFR, LL.D.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed” (Martin Luther King, Jnr). Justice Walter Onnoghen who was unfairly disgraced out of office presumably as a crook by former dictator President, General Muhammadu Buhari, has just demonstrated this apophthegum through three appeals, namely CA/A/375/2019; CA/A/37/SC/2019 and CA/373C/2019. He valiantly fought for his freedom through these three appeals against his April 18, 2019 outrageous conviction which was schemed by Buhari and his kitchen cabinet to humiliate Onnoghen out of the Bench so as to make CJN, his preferred candidate (Justice Tanko Mohammed), CJN (rtd.) on the eve of the 2019 presidential election. Buhari knew he had performed dismally and would be rejected at the polls by angry and hungry Nigerians. So he went Judge-shopping. The rest as they say is history. The legal saga of Justice Walter Onnoghen is not just the story of one man’s acquittal, but a larger commentary on the poor state of Nigeria’s judiciary and the ever-present tensions between political power wielders and judicial independence. It is a story fit for a Grammy Award movie. His acquittal on 4th November, 2024, by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, marked a significant chapter in Nigeria’s legal history, casting a powerful shadow of doubt and curious spotlight on the principles of separation of power, due process, the sanctity of judicial independence and the perils inherent in political intervention. The appeal that restored Justice Onnoghen’s hard-earned reputation and returned his assets to him is also a profound testament to the importance of procedural integrity and jurisdictional boundaries in any democratic society.

I had the opportunity in the nineties to appear before the brilliant Judex while he was a High Court Judge of the Cross River State Judiciary, Calabar. I know he was a man of integrity and character. During the infamous Onnoghen’s trial by ordeal, I made many interventions. In one, I said:

“A strong judiciary is one of the irreducible fundamental platforms for any meaningful constitutional democracy. If you terrorise, intimidate, harass and humiliate the judiciary, using strong hand and brute force, it is a stage set for bidding democracy farewell”- Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://dailytrust.com/ozekhome-charges-judiciary-to-shut-down-courts-over-onnoghen/). (13th January, 2019).

In a world where the judiciary stands as the final arbiter of justice, Justice Onnoghen’s story is one of a victim who faced unprecedented tribulations, endured a long agonising path to redemption. He ultimately emerged victorious. The appeal process that culminated in his acquittal is a reminder that justice may sometimes be delayed, but it can never be forever denied.

HOW THE APPEAL COURT ACQUITED ONNOGHEN
The verdict by the Court of Appeal represented a turning point in a legal drama that had captivated Nigerians and raised profound questions about the nature and quality of justice in the country. On the 4th of November, 2024, a three-member panel led by Justice Abba Mohammed ruled in favour of the ex-CJN, Walter Onnoghen, acquitting him of the charges initially levied in 2019 by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in 2019. This decision not only vacated the earlier conviction but also ordered the unfreezing of all his bank accounts, thus restoring his financial freedom that had been denied him since the controversial trial began.

I have been overwhelmingly vindicated in all my angst and ventilations against the victimhood suffered by Onnoghen. Hear me:

“The CJN can be removed from office either if he has been convicted or if under section 291 of the constitution, the Senate affirms a request by the President to remove him by two-third majority vote” – Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://www.pulse.ng/news/politics/mike-ozekhome-reacts-to-allegations-against-cjn-onnoghen/zdx9del). (12th January, 2019).

The acquittal judgement was predicated on a legal principle central to the Nigerian jurisprudence which articulates around jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal asserted that the CCT had no authority in the first instance to try and convict Justice Onnoghen having not passed through the National Judicial Council (NJC). This oversight, the appellate court argued, rendered the entire proceedings null and void. This requirement had been emphasized in Nigerian case law with decisions such as FRN v. NGANJIWA (2022) LPELR-58066(SC) and OPENE v. NJC & ORS (2011) LPELR-4795(CA), which clearly emphasise that judicial officers must first be vetted by the NJC before facing any criminal trial by a tribunal or court. This process is designed to protect the judiciary and its judexes from strong-hand politicians and political interference, thus ensuring that judges are treated with the respect, dignity and due process that their offices richly deserve. I had angrily queried:
“…Our system of justice being Anglo-Saxon based, which is accusatorial, meaning that the innocence of a person is presumed. It is different from the criminal justice system of the French model which is inquisitorial, wherein the guilt of an accused person is presumed. This doctrine has been encapsulated in section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, that the person’s innocence is presumed until he has been proven guilty. Assuming for example that Senator Bukola Saraki had been forced to resign his office when charges were brought against him before the same Code of Conduct Tribunal almost three years ago, what would have happened and what would have been his fate when the Supreme Court eventually discharged and acquitted him of the charge, following judgements and earlier order of the Court of Appeal and the Code of Conduct Tribunal itself? If you ask me, I sense serious political undertones oozing from this so-called imminent arraignment of the noble CJN. Question, when did they discover the alleged offence for which they now want to charge him on Monday? Was it just yesterday, was it last week, two weeks or six months ago? The CJN has been in office now for well over one year, how come that this misconduct or whatever offence that he is being alleged, was not seen up to now? How come, that it is just less than 40 days to the 2019 Presidential election, when the CJN is going to play the major role in constituting the Presidential election petition tribunal, that he is being moved against? Who is afraid of the Judiciary? Who is afraid of Justice Onnoghen and his impartiality and straightforwardness? How come we are reducing governance in Nigeria to one of impunity, one of despotism and one of absolutism. Don’t this people know that the world is laughing at us? Did we not see how Dino Melaye was yanked out from police hospital and taken to DSS quarters when he had no business or case with the DSS and DSS had no case against him. Did they not see Dino Melaye, a serving Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, sleeping in the open yesterday? Do they go on social media and do they watch international televisions? Do they know how the whole world is deriding us in this country? That governance has been reduced to mere witch-hunt, very opaque, very unaccountable, very un-transparent and very very fascist! Can’t they see that?”- Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://www.pulse.ng/news/politics/mike-ozekhome-reacts-to-allegations-against-cjn-onnoghen/zdx9del). (12th January, 2019).

My intervention as far back as 2019 served as a reality-check, pointing out that removing a Chief Justice can never be a whimsical decision; it is bound by the checks and balances that keep our justice system watered. My then reference to “impunity, despotism, and absolutism” hit like a huge hammer, evoking the imagery of a judiciary under siege of political transaintionists. By drawing parallels with then Senators Saraki and Dino Melaye’s own public tribulations, I attempted to paint a vivid picture of a prostrate justice system afflicted by power jackbootism.

Justice Onnoghen’s acquittal is a clear victory for judicial integrity, independence and an affirmation that the judiciary cannot be used as a pawn on political chessboards. The ruling also reinforces the fact that procedural lapses, especially in matters bordering on citizens right and high-ranking judicial officers, are unacceptable and grossly violate the principle of fair trial. As the Bible counsels in Proverbs 31:9, “Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” This verse captures the essence of due process, emphasizing that justice must be dispensed with fairness and respect for established procedures. I did not mince words then in condemning the executive lawlessness unleashed on Onnoghen:
“It must be pointed out that this latest step by the CCT… appears to be teleguided by the dictatorial Executive, especially the presidency” – Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://dailypost.ng/2019/02/13/ozekhome-gives-nine-reasons-cct-arrest-order-onnoghen-cannot-stand/). (14th February, 2019).

The ugly circumstances surrounding Justice Onnoghen’s initial trial and conviction by the CCT underscore the potential dangers when procedural norms are bypassed. My passionate critique of the dastardly role played by the Buhari-led administration from 2015 to 2023 as regards Onnoghen’s trial by ordeal revealed the high stakes which were at play. By overstepping the NJC, I had warned then that unchecked executive power could encroach upon the independence of the judiciary which will ultimately undermine the very foundation of democracy.

THE PRECEDENT OF JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Justice Walter Onnoghen’s acquittal by the Court of Appeal is not just a victory for one individual, but a landmark affirmation of a fundamental principle of law, that jurisdiction is the bedrock of any valid legal proceeding. Without proper jurisdiction, any judgement rendered is, as many legal scholars have agreed on, will merely be an exercise in futility. This principle is enshrined in our legal jurisprudence to protect the sanctity of judicial offices and prevent arbitrary persecution. The Court of Appeal’s decision to vacate Justice Walter Onnoghen’s conviction reaffirmed this core legal tenet, sending a clear message that the judiciary is not a toothless bulldog and tool to be wielded by the executive or any other arm of government.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” – Martin Luther King Jr. The Nigerian legal framework, supported by landmark cases such as FRN v. NGANJIWA (Supra) and OPENE v. NJC & ORS (Supra), outlines that the NJC must first investigate and make recommendations regarding any allegations against judicial officers before any trial can commence at the CCT. This process serves as a bulwark against arbitrary trials, ensuring that judges are not subjected to undue pressure or political intimidation. I had also then warned about the dangers posed whenever these procedural safeguards are disregarded: “The CCT was unrelenting: it discarded its earlier precedents; ignored court rulings barring it from trying Onnoghen. It was the case of the falcon not hearing the falconer”- Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://www.thecable.ng/ozekhome-onnoghen-resigned-because-the-cabal-had-sealed-his-fate/). (6th April, 2019).

Thus, five years ago (2019), I was nothing short of prophetic. I had foreseen the critical blunders and overreaches that would compromise the integrity of the judiciary in the Onnoghen saga. My warnings were very clear then about the dangerous precedent that was being set in bypassing due process and using the judiciary as a tool for political manoeuvring. As events have now unfolded, my observations then have proven me to be a visionary critic who critiques (not criticises) a justice system that was then on the brink. I had cautioned against the erosion of judicial independence in the face of executive influence. I had given nine reasons why the CCT’s arrest order on and trial of Justice Onnoghen could not stand. See:
(https://dailypost.ng/2019/02/13/ozekhome-gives-nine-reasons-cct-arrest-order-onnoghen-cannot-stand/).

My list was not just a check-list of procedural irregularities; it was also an indictment of a system seemingly hijacked by political buccaneers. Each point landed like a blow, revealing layers of oversight that were by-passed; up to the requirement for humane treatment under the ACJA that was ignored. I meticulously built my case, demonstrating that Onnoghen’s trials were not just about one man, but about the sanctity of the judicial process itself. It was persecution, not prosecution.

My vivid metaphor of the then CJN being “mob-lynched,” painted a grotesque picture of a judiciary cornered by hidoues forces intent on humiliation rather than achieving justice.

Justice Onnoghen’s acquittal by the Court of Appeal thus serves as a reaffirmation of judicial independence, reminding all branches of government that the rule of law cannot be compromised for political expediency. As the Bible says in Psalm 82:3, “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.” These words resonate deeply in the context of Onnoghen’s trial, encapsulating the judiciary’s duty to protect the innocent from unwarranted persecution and uphold the principles of justice.

POLITICAL UNDERTONES AND THE QUEST FOR JUDICIAL AUTONOMY
Justice Walter Onnoghen’s journey from indictment to acquittal reflects a deeper narrative about the political undertones that permeated his trial. His suspension by then President Muhammadu Buhari which took place only weeks before the 2019 presidential election, had raised significant concerns about the timing and motivations behind the charges. Many saw it as an attempt to influence the judiciary ahead of a critical election, a sentiment I shared and eloquently captured in “Onnoghen… knew that his fate had been pre-determined by the cabal, signed, sealed and delivered”- Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://www.thecable.ng/ozekhome-onnoghen-resigned-because-the-cabal-had-sealed-his-fate/). (6th April, 2019)

The timing of the charges, as well as the swiftness with which Onnoghen was brought to trial, laid validation to public perception that Justice Onnoghen was merely targeted for his position and influence within the judiciary. Like I put it then, “Many facts bear this simple deduction out. The petitioner, an NGO, actually committed the Freudian slip by anchoring its petition on ‘bearing in mind the imminence of the 2019 general elections’” – Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://dailytrust.com/ozekhome-charges-judiciary-to-shut-down-courts-over-onnoghen/). (13th January, 2019).

The Bible, in Proverbs 21:15, declares, “When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.” The acquittal of Justice Onnoghen, in this light, is therefore not just a personal victory but a broader triumph for all who value justice and integrity.

Like I noted then, “Justice Onnoghen’s removal was also an attempt by the executive arm of government to have a firm control of the nation’s judiciary”- Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN (https://dailypost.ng/2019/02/13/ozekhome-gives-nine-reasons-cct-arrest-order-onnoghen-cannot-stand/). (13th February, 2019).

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, Justice Walter Onnoghen’s acquittal is a landmark victory for judicial independence and a testament to the enduring principles of justice and due process. His journey from indictment to acquittal serves as a potent reminder that the rule of law must remain inviolable, even in the face of political pressures.
Onnoghen’s case will remain a watershed moment in Nigeria’s legal history, a vivid reminder that the judiciary’s role is to safeguard the rule of law, protect citizens’ rights and ensure that democracy even when faced with formidable forces of political influence, triumphs. It should be able to skillfully navigate through the ever present interplay of centripetal and centrifugal forces.

As Nigeria continues to evolve as a work-in-progress, Justice Onnoghen’s exoneration stands as a powerful reminder to us all that, in the words of Proverbs 21:3, “To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” Congratulations, Milord. Enjoy your hard won-back integrity, honour and dignity.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Masquerade of Excellence: Celebrating Prof Mike Ozekhome’s Remarkable Journey @ 67

Published

on

By

By CDS Omon-Irabor Esq

Chief Prof. Dr. Mike A.A. Ozekhome SAN,
the only masquerade that dances in the farm without cutting a single reed of the yam tendrils.

The Gadfly is climbing the 67th rung on the ladder. From the hills of Agenebode down to the plains of the Iviukwe, the celestials, the principalities and the gods of Weppa and Wano Kingdoms are celebrating this colossus, who came in disguise as a little rough village boy; but very comely and handsome, his divine intelligence surpasses those of his peers.

Taking a sudden flight through primary and secondary schools casaded him into the land of Oduduwa. He anchored his life voyage at the ancestral home of the Yorubas, Ile-ife. Here his projenitors believed to have a temporary abode before sending the last born of the Ogisos Ile-ife (I ran and I became rich, Benin translation). Omonoyan (wrongly called Oromiyan) was sent to go to the land of Igodomigodo where today Chief Mike Ozekhome holds the title of Enobakhare of Benin Kingdom.

This great man had all his trappings, equipped himself and became a lawyer, taking abode in the Delphic Oracle (that is what we called the Chambers of Chief Gani Fawehim). There he became the Aristostle, tampering with the Apologia left at the eye of euroba.

He journeyed on, for no destiny, no chance, no faith, nor circumstance could hinder, control or circumvent the firm resolve of a determined soul in Chief Mike Agbedor Abu Ozekhome as epitomised or postulated.

The great learned Senior Advocate of the masses grudges on, defending the most vulnerable and giving voice to the voiceless and muscle to the powerless.

The Okporokpo of Oleh kingdom, Delta State; the Aimotekpe of Okpeland, the Agbamofin of Ijanikinland, Lagos; the Ohamadike1 of Obibi Ochasi, Imo State; the Ada Idaha of Efik land and the great Akpakpa Vighi Vighi of Edo Land, the land of my ancestors, I salute you for it is morning yet.

There is no space here,for my ink is running dry; but before I drop, I remember your words to me while I was in the dock of the Warri High Court on the 12th day of July, 2013, “Omon, you look worried; mind you, those who think that they can cover the shinning sun with their palms will soon find the heat unbearable”.

Those who stopped you from becoming our Governor in 2003 indirectly made you Governor of all Governors.

In all these odyssey you traversed, behind the dìm unknown standeth God, watching over you, His own.

Obokhian, amonghon, iyare iyare, mooooooh.

CDS Omon-Irabor Esq writes from the hill and the cave of Ebudinland

Continue Reading

Trending