Tag:

Judges

‘We Have Lost the Judiciary’ — Sam Amadi Fumes, Alleges Corruption, Career Stagnation for Honest Judges

by Editor March 28, 2026

written by Editor

By Chibuike Nwabuko

ABUJA (PRECISE POST) – A legal scholar and public affairs commentator, Sam Amadi, has issued a scathing critique of Nigeria’s judicial system, declaring that integrity is increasingly becoming a liability rather than an asset within the nation’s courts.

In a strongly worded statement released on his X handle @SamAmadi on Saturday, he lamented what he described as the erosion of ethical standards in the judiciary, warning that honest judges are being sidelined and denied career advancement in favour of allegedly compromised counterparts.

Recounting a recent personal encounter, Amadi said a judge confronted him over his persistent criticism of the judiciary but went on to reveal troubling internal realities.

According to him, the judge confided that upright judicial officers are finding it difficult to thrive in the system, as merit and integrity are no longer the primary criteria for progression.

He disclosed that the judge claimed she was overlooked for elevation to the Court of Appeal due to her refusal to engage in corrupt practices. Amadi added that many other judges face similar setbacks, creating a climate where ethical conduct is discouraged.

“The honest judges cannot breathe,” Amadi stated, underscoring what he sees as a systemic suppression of integrity within the judiciary.

The former regulator further alleged that the leadership of the judicial arm has effectively ceded control of the institution to “criminal politicians,” thereby undermining its independence and credibility.

He described the situation as a crisis that transcends party lines, insisting that the problem is rooted in a “bipartisan caste” that dominates Nigeria’s political and judicial landscape.

Amadi warned that unless urgent action is taken to reform the system and restore accountability, the future of justice delivery in Nigeria remains at grave risk. He called for a collective uprising against entrenched interests, urging citizens and stakeholders to demand transparency and fairness within the judiciary.

Precise Post recalls that his remarks add to growing public concern over the integrity of Nigeria’s justice system, with analysts noting that allegations of corruption and undue political influence continue to cast a shadow over the judiciary’s role as the last hope of the common man.

March 28, 2026 0 comments

Opinion

On Whose Mandate Do Judges Stand? (OPINION)

by Editor November 23, 2025

written by Editor

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

“I had discovered since my appointment as a High Court judge that most of the politicians in Nigeria and, indeed, in other developing countries only pay lip-service to the independence of the judiciary…. It pays in the end for a judge, even at the risk of being a snob or of haughtiness, to be somewhat aloof, not only from members of the Executive, but also from political powerbrokers.”
Atanda Fatayi Williams, Faces, Cases and Places, pp. 77-78 (1983)

Atanda Fatayi Williams, the fourth Chief Justice of post-colonial Nigeria (CJN), has not always received the kind of credit that he probably should for a judicial career of impact. Few judicial careers in Nigerian history can compete with that of this grand-son of an Ijebu merchant in terms of both legacy and luminosity.

Sworn in as a judge a mere seven days after independence on 7 October 1960, Justice Fatayi Williams was the first person to be appointed a judge in post-independence Nigeria. 19 years later, he became Nigeria’s first Chief Justice of the presidential era. In this capacity, he was the first CJN to truly feel the pulse of the elected president as both head of state and head of government.

It was his good fortune that the president during his tenure as CJN was the emollient Alhaji Shehu Shagari but he saw enough to leave him a sceptic about judicial dalliance with politicians. “In Nigeria” he warned in his memoirs, “familiarity does not breed contempt. It breeds obligation…. people with whom you are friendly expect you to bend the rules to suit their requirements.”

As CJN, Fatayi Williams pioneered the All Nigeria Judges Conference in Ilorin, the capital of Kwara State, on 8 March 1982. That was one year after the current CJN became a lawyer. Shehu Shagari, then the president, traveled to Ilorin to address the conference. His presence and delivery bore the hallmarks of the polished modesty that defined Shagari’s long public service career.

The conference has grown since then to become a biennial tradition of the bench of Nigeria’s Superior Courts of Record. For many judges, the opportunity to mix, introspect, and learn together with colleagues from across the country, both serving and retired, is the highpoint of every judicial biennium. The conference is also an opportunity for judges as a collective to diagnose common problems that afflict the judicial branch, think together, and communicate with the other branches of government on policy matters adjacent or relevant to the judiciary.

For the past decade and a half, the conference has acquired a permanent home on the premises of the National Judicial Institute (NJI) in Abuja. This year’s conference began on 17 November at the same venue. The Administrator of the NJI, Babatunde Adejumo, himself a former President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, ran the floor under the direction of the Chair of the Institute who is also the CJN.

As befits a conference with the president of Nigeria in attendance, the opening of the conference was supposed to be brisk. The Administrator of the NJI had to be persuaded from lingering on the microphone with prolix protocol. Thereafter, it was the turn of the CJN.

Her delivery made a case that appeared both respectable and heartfelt, inviting her colleagues to defend and deepen democracy in Nigeria “by ensuring that justice is not only done but manifestly seen to be done in every courtroom, across every jurisdiction, and in every case.” With deftness, she acknowledged widespread notions that judicial decisions in Nigeria are “sometimes vulnerable to external influences”, a euphemism for perceptions of both corruption and capture of the judiciary; and admitted “with candour that there are some within our ranks who have undermined the integrity of the Bench.” She hoped that “this must change” but stopped short of saying how or when.

The CJN ended her address by inviting President Bola Tinubu to address the judges and declare the conference open. As she unfurled this introduction and transition, the judges gathered in the Andrews Otutu Obaseki Auditorium of the NJI stood in unison both to applaud the delivery of the CJN and, presumably, as a mark of courtesy to their presidential patron.

In unison, the military band from the presidential Guards Brigade broke into an instrumental rendition of “On Your Madate We Shall Stand”, the president’s personal fealty anthem. When the president was done with the delivery of his 1,314 word-long address, the same band again played the same accompaniment as the judges stood to applaud his transition from the presidential podium back to his seat.

So, not once but twice in a period of less than 15 minutes, the presidential band played this partisan political rendition. From any other president, this may have been a mistake but this president is no political eunuch. If the first was an error, the second surely was comfort. Whatever the intention or design was, this guaranteed that no one remembers anything of what President Tinubu said. The only memory of his showing at this All Nigeria Judges Conference is that he sought to wheedle the judges with an instrumental symbolism of personal fealty.

For a conference with the timely theme of “Building a Confident Judiciary”, President Tinubu could hardly have done worse in undermining public confidence in the judges. To their credit, many of the judges inside the conference auditorium were schtum at the rendition(s). Unmistakably, however, there were people within the hall who also sang along.

President Tinubu’s own television station, TVC, later offered the spectacular apologia that the singing was done by “the people who came with the president…. The president’s staff, they were at the back”, adding: “if those ones were singing, can anyone question them for singing? This is a song they have been singing since they were in Lagos.” The claimed that President Obasanjo had such a song too. That was absurd.

To convince their audience of presumed presidential proselytes, they hyperventilated to the claim that the same tune had been played the previous week when the president opened the conference of the Guild of Editors. In their estimation, a gathering of Nigeria’s most senior judges is worth no more than the currency of a conference of the Guild of Editors.

One judicial participant at the event went further, privately dissimulating that there was no such rendition and that any sound other than the National Anthem associated with their gathering was deep fake from Artificial Intelligence!

The leadership of the judiciary appeared ambivalent. When eventually they responded, over 48 hours later, it was through a statement with mangled syntax signed by a middling officer described as the “Head, Information, Media and Public Relations” at the NJI. The only thing notable about this statement was what was missing on its face: no judicial principal was courageous enough to own the debacle. Its content was entirely forgettable.

In its text, the statement dutifully dismissed the optics as unfounded, exculpated all conferees from suggestions of partisan political animus, and righteously denounced “any attempt to distort the solemnity of the event”, without offering evidence or process. Instead, they trained ostentatious indignation at people to whom they owed both contrition and apology.

The authors of this statement apparently didn’t know that the horse of the distortion of the solemnity of the event had long bolted. The president accomplished that with hubris to spare.

It does considerable injustice to the current generation of judges in Nigeria to suggest, as that statement does, that they are incapable of running with efficiency and without partisan incident a conference in existence for over four decades. Its attempt to outsource responsibility for an incident that should never have occurred is beneath the dignity of judicial office. A confident judiciary should learn from this and promise itself that it shall never happen again.

Alexander Hamilton may have called the judiciary “the least dangerous” branch, having “neither force nor will but merely judgment”, but in taking his personal fealty anthem to the floor of the judges conference, President Tinubu sought to relocate the source of the judicial function from its constitutional foundation to personal loyalty to him. The question he raised is simple: On whose mandate do judges stand? The judges cannot duck the issue posed by the president’s symbolic choice of battleground.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

November 23, 2025 0 comments

News

Federal High Court begins annual vacation July 28

by Administrator June 5, 2025

written by Administrator

ABUJA – The Federal High Court (FHC) of Nigeria will on July 28 begin its annual vacation.

The Chief Judge (CJ) of FHC, Justice John Tsoho, made this known on Thursday in a statement by the court’s Director of Information, Dr Catherine Christopher, in Abuja.

The statement is titled “Notification of Federal High Court Annual Vacation for the Year 2025 and Roaster for Vacation Judges.”

Tsoho said the announcement was by virtue of the provisions of Order 46, Rule 4 (d) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.

“The vacation will commence from Monday, the 28th day of July 2025, to Tuesday, the 16th day of September, 2025.

“The court shall resume sitting on Wednesday, the 17th day of September, 2025.

“During the vacation period, the core Divisions; Abuja, Lagos and Port-Harcourt Judicial Divisions will remain functional for cases of extreme urgency.

“Consequently, the litigating public will be at liberty to approach ONLY the above listed Courts located nearest to them,” he said.

The CJ said the vacation judges are Justice Emeka Nwite and Justice Musa Liman for the Abuja division while Justices Deinde I. Dipeolu and Musa Kakaki would serve for the Lagos division.

The CJ said Justices P. M. Ayua and A. T. Mohammed will serve as vacation judges for the Port- Harcourt.(NAN)

June 5, 2025 0 comments

World News

How US Judge, Stephen Yekel Killed Himself Inside Courtroom On His Final Day In Office

by Edit January 2, 2025

written by Edit

In what will come across as a really tragic development in Effingham County, Georgia, USA, a Judge Stephen Yekel, 74, took his own life inside his courtroom.

His body was discovered on Tuesday morning, believed to have been shot dead late Monday night or early Tuesday.

This tragic incident occurred on what would have been his last day on the bench, following a recent loss in his re-election bid.

Yekel had attempted to resign from his position, which he held since his appointment in 2022, but Governor Brian Kemp prevented him from doing so.

The circumstances surrounding his resignation attempt are unclear, as the contents of a note sent to the Governor’s office remain undisclosed.

According to Mail Online, citing local media, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is currently probing the incident.

The Effingham County Sheriff, Jimmy McDuffie, expressed his shock and sadness, stating that the courtroom has been closed until January 2. The county has offered condolences to Yekel’s family and loved ones, describing his death as a tragic loss.

Father-of-four Yekel was a former assistant district attorney in Chatham County and practicing lawyer with more than 45 years of experience.

He previously held roles as a special agent with the state’s Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Unit and was an investigator at the Cobb County District Attorney’s Office.

Yekel’s resignation letter to Governor Kemp cites his disappointment with low turnout for the election he lost. In the event a judge resigns, a new one would be appointed by the Governor rather than voted in.

Yekel wrote the position is, “too important to be decided by only 6% of eligible voters”.

But Kemp rejected the resignation request, stating he wishes to maintain, “respect for the will of the people of Effingham County.”

In May, Yekel’s ex-wife Lisa Yekel shared a post on Facebook which outlined several issues reportedly plaguing his re-election campaign.

She dismissed rumors their divorce the year before was due to infidelity and denied that he had asked a police officer not to give him a citation following a car accident.

“His best friend who passed away recently had Steve’s car in his shop for repairs and loaned him a vehicle to use, which is the reason he was not driving his car when he was involved in the accident,” she wrote.

“He was on the way home after visiting our daughter who had just moved into her apartment in Pooler.

“The Steve Yekel I know never would have asked the police officer not to give him a citation. He has always taken responsibility for his actions.”

She also hinted at financial problems the couple had faced over a failed daycare business.

“He did everything he could to avoid bankruptcy,” she added. “Unfortunately, I had used his life savings to keep the daycare open.

“In my defense, I was too lenient on parents who couldn’t pay their bills and they eventually left owing thousands of dollars, again that’s my fault, not Steve’s.”

She concluded the post by stating her ex-husband was, “one of the most respectful, honest, and caring people I know” and urged people to re-elect him.

The couple share two children Sean and Ashleigh, who they raised alongside Yekel’s sons Blake and Brett.

“Throughout my service, I’ve upheld the principles of dignity, respect, and impartiality, treating all individuals, whether represented by legal counsel or not, with fairness and equality,” Yekel said in a post about his campaign.

Yekel ultimately lost his re-election bid to Judge Melissa M Calhoun.

The late judge was also facing a lawsuit from court employee Lisa Crawford who claims she was wrongfully terminated from her position by Yekel, WTOC reports.

Crawford was seeking $10,000 in damages amid claims Yekel fired her in order to bring in his own staff when he assumed office.

An email reportedly submitted as part of the lawsuit from Yekel to Crawford accused her of being part of a “conspiracy scheme” to help people charged with DUI reduce or dismiss their charges.

Source

January 2, 2025 0 comments

Opinion

In Defence of Defenceless Judges Who Are Doing Their Job According to Dictates of Conscience (Opinion)

by Edit October 27, 2024

written by Edit

By Achi. William-Wobodo

Being a judge, is a tough personal call to make. It is a highly demanding and ethical job to do, which makes a judge vulnerable and prone to bullying. A judge is trained to rise up in defence of the defenseless, yet he cannot defend himself. The rot in our society has made the job even more hazardous.

For every judgement that does not go in the way of public opinion and expectation, the judge is blamed and accused of corruption. This is unpatriotic. Judges are not employed to pander to public opinion. I am not in anyway suggesting that there are no corrupt judges in the system, but I honestly believe that the incorrupt ones are much more than the corrupt ones.

As we know it, Nigeria operates an adversarial legal system, which means that the parties are responsible for providing evidence upon which the court predicates its judgement. This is different from the inquisitorial system where the Court gets involved in the investigation of the facts of a case. Our legal system forbids a judge from applying extraneous facts in the determination of a case, except those brought before it by the parties in accordance with the law of evidence. In others words, even if a judge witnesses an event, he cannot apply his eye-witness account/evidence in his determination of the case. At best, he may recuse himself from such a case.

In the last few months, on account of THE POLITICAL CRISIS IN RIVERS STATE, Judges of the Federal High Court, especially, have come under serious public attacks and aspirations from some misinformed members of the public and MISCHIEVOUS LAWYERS, some of whom are either ignorant of courtroom practices and procedures or are indulging in clout chasing ventures. It is even more reprehensible and shameful when lawyers, who ought to have known better, are the ones indulging in such unethical and unprofessional conducts. These lawyers know that JUDGES HAVE NO RIGHT OF PUBLIC REPLY, yet they chose to castigate and cast aspersions on them; Most times, based on unsubstantiated allegations.

It is AN ACT OF COWARDICE TO CONTINUOUSLY ATTACK A DEFENSELESS PERSON.

LET ME EVEN CONSIDER TWO SCENARIOS FROM RIVERS STATE AS EXAMPLES.

In the wake of the crisis now rocking the Rivers State Government, between the Executive arm (the Governor) and Legislature arm; over the “alleged division” in the Rivers House of Assembly (RSHA) at the time. The Speaker of the RSHA (Rt. Hon. Martins Amaehwule) and the RSHA itself approached the Federal High Court for the determination of several questions, including: whether or not the “ALLEGED CRISIS/DIVISION IN RSHA” had crystallized to the point that the National Assembly (NASS) can takeover the functions of the RSHA pursuant to SECTION 11(4) of the 1999 Constitution, whether there was division in the RSHA, who was the authentic Speaker of the RSHA, etc.

Based upon which Rt.Hon. Amaehwule and the RSHA asked for declarations that Rt.Amehwule is the authentic Speaker of RSHA, that the crisis in RSHA did not warrant the NASS to takeover the functions of the RSHA, that the RSHA is entitled and empowered to make Appropriation Laws for Rivers State, including 2024 Appropriation Law, etc. Most of the Defendants in the case put up nominal appearance and defence in the matter, EXCEPT FOR the Governor of Rivers State and Rt. Hon. Edison Ehie (factional speaker at the time) who put up contest in the case.

Before or on the day fixed for the hearing of the case, Mr. Governor through his Counsel withdrew his Counter Affidavit/Defence (for reasons best known to the Governor and of course he is entitled to) and his Defence to the case was accordingly struck out. In same vein, Rt. Hon. Edison Ehie not only withdrew his own Counter Affidavit/Defence to the case, he presented a letter indicating his resignation as a Member of the RSHA. In other words, he also affirmed to the Court that he has lost his right, if any, to the claim of Speakership of the RSHA.

Invariably, there was NO CONTENDING DEFENCE to the case of Rt. Hon. Amaehwule and the RSHA. Justice Omotosho reviewed the evidence before him, which were DEEMED UNCHALLENGED and then reached conclusions and entered judgement for Rt.Hon. Amaehwule and RSHA to the effect that THERE WAS (IS) NO DIVISION in the RSHA, that Rt.Hon Amaehwule is the AUTHENTIC SPEAKER of the RSHA, that the RSHA led by Rt.Hon. Amaehwule is the rightful RSHA to make Appropriation Laws for Rivers State, that the Governor should present the 2024 Appropriation Bill before the appropriate RSHA.

It is important to mention that one of the issues raised by the Governor in his withdrawn Defence/Preliminary Objection was the fact that no Pre-Action Notice was served on the NASS before the action was commenced. Yes, the issue was jurisdictional in nature, but it a PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION ISSUE, not a substantive jurisdiction issue. The law is settled that a procedural jurisdiction question touching on non-service of pre-action notice can only be raised by the person directly affected, in that case NASS. The reason is because, the party concerned has an option to waive the right and proceed to defend the case against him without objection. The NASS took part in defense of the case.

In any case, the Governor withdrew his objection.

I have asked all those who fault the decision of Hon. Justice Omotosho in the media to point a finger to a fault, either in procedure or decision, in the judgement and I am yet to see o finger. Assuming anyone still had doubts about that judgement, the Court of Appeal had cleared the doubt.

The Governor who submitted to judgement by withdrawing his defence refused to obey the same judgement.

Not surprisingly, the Governor who in law is DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE CASE of Rt. Hon Martins Amaehwule before the Federal High Court, went to the Court of Appeal to challenge a JUDGEMENT OF FHC DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED BY “HIS CONSENT”, WITHOUT THE LEAVE OF COURT to so do, contrary to SECTION 241(2)(c) of the 1999 CONSTITUTION and decided cases: See: ABDULKARIM VS. INCAR (NIG) LTD, (1992) LPELR-26(SC) (Pg.23-24, para D-A). The Governor also challenged the procedural jurisdiction of the Federal High Court predicated on non-service of pre-action notice on the NASS, a personal right of the NASS which was waived by the NASS by participating in the case without objection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit, and the Court is blamed; it is corrupt.

ANOTHER CASE: All People’s Party (APP) filed an action before the Federal High Court seeking a declaration that Rt. Hon. Amaehwule and 26 others have lost their seat. The APP commenced the action through an ORIGINATING SUMMONS, which is a procedure used for determination of non-contentious and non-hostile facts. Perhaps, the APP and its lawyers had expected an easy sail from Rt.Hon. Amaehwule and members of the RSHA. They are used to defection cases where the Defendants would say, “yes we defected because our party has dispute or division”: and then the court is called upon to interpret the admitted facts vis-a-vis the law.

They had expected Rt. Hon. Amaehwule and co to say we defected. Unfortunately, they met an unanticipated shocker, a brick wall; Rt.Hon. Amaehwule and co stated that they did not defect. A case which APP and it’s lawyers had thought would be heard based on non-contentious facts, had automatically become contentious and hostile by that singular denial.

The APP and it’s lawyers had three (3) options open to them by that material denial: (1) withdraw the case and file a fresh suit via Writ of Summons, (2) apply to the Court to order the parties to file pleadings, which would allow them to call oral evidence to prove the allegation of defection or (3) continue the case in its form with ruptured foundation and foreseeable pitfalls. They opted for number (3) and proceeded with their Originating Summons, then filed FURTHER AFFIDAVIT to which they ATTACHED A FLASH DRIVE that “allegedly” contained video clip of a certain defection.

The questions and challenges then arose: how and where does the court watch or see the content of the flash drive? ls it while in his chambers writing the judgement? If there is anything that needs clarification from the flash, who does he turn to in his chambers? Would he call the APP or its lawyers for explanation?

On realizing the procedural error, the APP still had an option of applying to that Court to convert the case by filing pleadings and to call oral evidence in order to resolve the allegation of defection, they did not. Rather, they pushed on with yet another and graver procedural error. The APP decided to play the video in the flash drive in open court, WITHOUT ANY WITNESS TO DEMONSTRATE THE VIDEO, TO IDENTIFY THOSE IN THE VIDEO OR WHERE THE “MOVIE” WAS SHOT, OR TO IDENTIFY THE MAKER OF THE MOVIE (VIDEO) (the CONTENT CREATOR). They pushed the procedural comedy and errors to a finish and left.

The the Judge was expected to perform a miracle, regularize the errors and grant them judgement.

Anyways, based on settled position of the law as decided by the apex Court, the Federal High Court Judge had no difficulties trashing and discarding the flash and its content as a piece of document dumped on the court. With that trashy piece of evidence made worthless by the inadvertence of counsel off the way, the Court was left with reviewing any other means of proof of membership of the said RSHA members, which should include, either APC membership register, PDP membership register, letter of resignation, etc. Unfortunately, these evidence were not before the Federal High Court. The Court therefore had no difficulty in reaching a finding that the APP did not prove defection.

As we now know, a judge, based on our adversarial legal system, cannot apply his residual knowledge of or any extraneous facts, not duly presented before him in accordance with the Law of Evidence, in the determination of any case before him. So, it remains immaterial if the judge’s wife was a camera person who made the “alleged” video or that the judge himself was in the chambers of RSHA on such a day or that he read or saw on news media any of the facts in contention. The law is that such facts MUST NOT ONLY BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT, BUT ALSO IN LINE WITH THE EVIDENCE ACT, otherwise the judge cannot rely on them.

Sadly, we do not see the public blame lawyers, who either by inadvertence, overconfidence, indiscretion, desire for speedy trial, etc, destroy a hitherto actionable and legitimate cause of action and eventually their clients’ case. All we see are aspersions on Judges.

If non-lawyers feign ignorance of the workings of the Court, it may be justified and pardonable; but should same go for lawyers, who should haven better. Every lawyer knows when he has made a mistake in the prosecution of case, he is human who is prone to errors. If he is not courageous enough to own his mistakes, he should at least be honourable enough to keep quiet and not pass his blame by alleging corruption against the Judge.

It is a moral issue for both the lawyers and the litigants who cast aspersions on the courts. For instance, In 2023, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division and the Supreme Court of Nigeria affirmed the Governor of Rivers State as the duly elected governor of Rivers States, the Governor organized thanksgivings, where he eulogized the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Justices as men of honour and integrity. Those who lost took it in good faith and obeyed the orders of Courts.

At that time, no one heard the Governor make any insinuations of corruption against these courts. Few months afterwards, the Governor was ordered to present Rivers State Appropriation Bill to the RSHA recognized by the same Court that had recognized the Governor few months earlier, and what we now hear from SAME Governor who eulogized SAME Courts are insinuations of corruption against the courts. It seems hypocritical to me.

Litigants and lawyers must stop this act of casting aspersions on judges simply because the judges are not allowed by the ethics of their job to react. Should any one have proof of corruption against a judge, let him seek redress lawfully rather the public opprobrium. And for lawyers, whom I believe to be legal scholars in the college of continuing legal education, if anyone strongly feels that a decision of a court is wrong in law, and he cannot resort to appeal because he is not counsel in the matter, then such a lawyer can do a legal essay to query/critic decision based on acceptable legal review mechanisms, not by deploying blackmail and defamation.

Judges are human, they also have feelings and emotions which are bruised by these aspersions.

Please, SAY NO TO SOCIAL MEDIA BLACKMAIL, BULLYING, IRRITATION, ASPERSIONS on judges doing their legitimate jobs according to the dictates of their conscience. If they err or are corrupt, seek legitimate redress.

Achi. William-Wobodo
Lawyer writing from Port Harcourt

October 27, 2024 0 comments

News

Wike’s Accommodation to Judges Infraction on Independence of Judiciary – Omirhobo

by Edit October 23, 2024

written by Edit

By Chibuike Nwabuko

Chief Malcolm Omirhobo has criticised the proposed offering of accommodation to Judges by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Barrister Nyesom Wike, saying “it amounts to an infraction on the independence of the judiciary and a loss of public trust and confidence i n the judiciary”.

According to him, when a government provides accommodation for judges and makes a show out of it , it amounts to an infraction on the independence of the judiciary.

Omirhobo took a swoop on the federal government while reacting to the noise in public spaces over the promised provsion of accommodation to the Judges on his X account on Tuesday when he said:

“Accommodation for judges is something to be taken for granted in a democratic setting so when a government provides accommodation for judges and makes a show out of it , it amounts to an infraction on the independence of the judiciary and a loss of public trust and confidence i n the judiciary”

Precise Post recalls that the federal government recently approved the construction of 40 houses for judges in Abuja.

The FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike announced this decision following a Federal Executive Council’s (FEC) meeting at the Presidential Villa, which President Bola Tinubu presided over.

The initiative, part of the government’s Renewed Hope Agenda, aims to provide secure and convenient accommodation for judiciary members.

According to Wike, the 40 residences will be constructed in the Katampe district, with 20 allocated to the FCT High Court, 10 to the Federal High Court, and 10 to the Court of Appeal.

He said the project is slated for completion within 15 months.

He said, “Also, given the importance that the President attaches to the Judiciary, he finds it problematic that judges and Justices will live in rented houses and hotels. That is unsafe for our judicial officials and inconvenient for them to do their work. The president directed that the FCT, through the FCDA, immediately construct 40 numbered judges and Justices’ quarters in the Kantampe district.

In addition to the housing project, Wike said FEC approved several infrastructure developments to improve access to the judicial quarters.

There is “construction of an access road from Artillery Road N11 from Mabuchi to the judges’ quarters. Development of all internal roads within the judges’ quarters.”

"Accommodation for judges is something to be taken for granted in a democratic setting so when a government provides accommodation for judges and makes a show out of it , it amounts to an infraction on the independence of the judiciary and a loss of public trust and… pic.twitter.com/HDwL37xiUX
— malcolm omirhobo (@MalcolmInfiniti) October 22, 2024

October 23, 2024 0 comments

Opinion

Rule By Judges Is Not Rule Of Law (Opinion)

by Edit July 14, 2024

written by Edit

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

“The judiciary has immense power. In the nature of things, judges cannot be democratically accountable for their decisions. It therefore matters very much that their role should be regarded as legitimate by the public at large.”

Jonathan Sumption, Law in a Time of Crisis, 121 (2021)

        For a cumulative period of 17 years between 1885 and 1905, Hardinge Giffard – who was better known as Lord Halsbury – served three tenures as Lord Chancellor. In this capacity he earned a reputation for having “appointed many undistinguished men to the Bench because of their political services to the Conservative Party.” In 1897, Lord Salisbury, one of the Prime Ministers under whom Lord Halsbury served, advised him that “the judicial salad requires both legal oil and political vinegar; but disastrous effects will follow if due proportion is not observed.” For having so manifestly got the proportions out of kilter, Nigeria could be on course for a date Lord Salisbury’s predicted effects.

        Abuja, Nigeria’s federal capital, is a place where mutual intercourse between lawyers, politicians and judges is both natural and habitual. It is home to judges too numerous to count and host to the headquarters of many court systems, including the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT High Court) as well as of Nigeria’s Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The headquarters of the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court of Justice) is also in Abuja.

        The pace of production and reproduction in the courts in Abuja has been rather dizzying recently. On the penultimate day of the past working week, Nigeria’s Supreme Court in a case instituted by the Federal Government against the states issued a decision designed to make it mandatory for local government to be run only by elected officials. This judgment has unlocked a predictable scrum of both political ululation and lamentation but the risk remains that its full benefits are likely to be undermined by the well-established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in favour of bandit ballots which support the production of leaders at all levels who lack electoral legitimacy.

        The day before the Supreme Court judgment, on the approach to the fourth anniversary of Nigeria’s #EndSARs uprising of 2020, the ECOWAS Court of Justice ruled that the conduct of the Nigerian government and its security agencies in their response to the #EndSARS uprising violated the guarantees of “security of person, prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association, duty to investigate human rights violations, and right to effective remedy.” In effect, the Court said that the Nigerian government engaged in a cover-up of the violations that occurred during the #EndSARS protests, especially at the Lekki Tollgate in Lagos.

        Weighty as they were, both of these otherwise seminal outcomes were relative non-events in the political and judicial registers of Abuja this past week. On the same day that the ECOWAS Court delivered its judgment in the #EndSARS case to a near empty gallery and the day before the Supreme Court held forth on the destination of local government funds, all roads led to the Supreme Court where the outgoing Chief Justice of Nigeria, Olukayode Ariwoola, presided over the inauguration of 22 new Justices of the Court of Appeal and 12 new judges of the FCT High Court.

Many people may have missed the number of Justices of Appeal inaugurated, however. Anyone who followed the reportage would have been forgiven for supposing that there were just two Justices of Appeal sworn in: “Wike’s wife and 21 others”, a reference to the wife of political bruiser and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. Also among the new Justices of Appeal is Abdullahi Liman, Kano’s self-appointed federal King-maker. The excess political vinegar in some of these most recent elevations to the Court of Appeal sadly detracts from the tasteful salad among some others. For the sake of their own professional and career advancement in a cynical system, it is best at this time to preserve the anonymity of those deserving ones.

Among the 12 new judges of the FCT High Court, at least seven were family members of serving or living judicial figures and three were family members of persons directly involved in the appointment process. Among these, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who presided over the appointment, had his daughter-in-law made a judge; the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court made his daughter a judge; and the President of the Court of Appeal got her daughter appointed a high court judge for the second time in three years. In 2021, Governor Simon Lalong of Plateau State had made the same daughter a judge of the Plateau State High Court.

Responding to these appointments, Access to Justice, a group that monitors judicial independence and accountability in Nigeria pointedly said that “three candidates were ineligible to be considered for such appointments in the first place at the time the vacancies were announced.” This was in reference to the daughter of the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court; the daughter of the President of the Court of Appeal; and the daughter-in-law of the outgoing Chief Justice of Nigeria. According to the group, these three appointments were a composite transaction between the CJN, President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court best described “in local parlance as: ‘you scratch my back, I scratch your back.’”

To say that these three appointments clearly violate the judicial code of conduct as well as the regulations governing judicial appointments is to be kind to the lack of scruples at the helm of the current judicial appointments process in the country. It makes a joke of the judicial appointment process that someone in Nigeria can be appointed a High Court judge while holding a subsisting appointment as a High Court Judge.

In the days when the Nigerian judiciary was under credible leadership, these judicial inaugurations would passed almost as a non-event, attended only by select staff of the affected courts and by some members of the families of the new appointees. Reflecting the mood and mores of the times and consistent with the current tyranny of perverse incentives in judicial appointments, however, this swearing in was a carnival taken over by cavalcades of dubious politicians and insider dealers in perverse political influence. Following the formal swearing in of the new judges, Abuja was littered with “receptions” convoked by politicians and senior lawyers for many of the new judges.

There was good reason for the politicians to make an obligation of their noisy presence at the swearing in of the new judges. Section 14(2) of Nigeria’s Constitution loudly proclaims that “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria” but under colour of “rule of law” and judicial independence, the judges have toppled the people and installed themselves as the ones who alone can elect politicians to positions of power and influence in Nigeria. Access to political office now, therefore, is a transaction that begins and rests with political access to judges. Having thus murdered the rule of law, what we now have is rule by judges under which both political power and judicial office have become bereft of legitimacy. The victim is the public good.

The week ended with a report which said that “[J]udges top [the] list of bribe recipients in Nigeria.” 15 years ago, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ rights warned that “the courts need the trust of the people in order to maintain their authority and legitimacy. The credibility of the courts must not be weakened by the perception that courts can be influenced by any external pressure.” In Nigeria, this is now a vain hope.

A lawyer and teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

July 14, 2024 0 comments

Judges

‘We Have Lost the Judiciary’ — Sam Amadi Fumes, Alleges Corruption, Career Stagnation for Honest Judges

On Whose Mandate Do Judges Stand? (OPINION)

Federal High Court begins annual vacation July 28

How US Judge, Stephen Yekel Killed Himself Inside Courtroom On His Final Day In Office

In Defence of Defenceless Judges Who Are Doing Their Job According to Dictates of Conscience (Opinion)

Wike’s Accommodation to Judges Infraction on Independence of Judiciary – Omirhobo

Rule By Judges Is Not Rule Of Law (Opinion)

Opinion

Letters

Precise Post Online Media Ltd (RC 7570339)

Opinion

Letters

Precise Post Online Media Ltd (RC 7570339)