Rising from its two-day meeting, which held on December 14 and 15, the National Judicial Council (NJC) resolved that three jurists of courts of competent jurisdiction who granted conflicting ex-parte orders in matters with the same parties and subject matter be barred from promotion for a period of between two and five years.

Shedding light on the decision of the NJC in a statement, the Director of Information, Mr. Soji Oye, explained that the NJC concurred with the recommendations of the Investigative Committee set-up in September that Justice Okugbule Gbasam of the Rivers State High Court be barred from elevation to a higher bench whenever he was due for failure to exercise due diligence in granting the ex-parte order in Suit No. PHC /283/CS/2021 between Ibeabuchi Ernest Alex and 4 ORS and Prince Uche Secondus and ANOR. Mr Oye also pointed out that Justice Nusirat I. Umar of the High Court of Kebbi State was barred from promotion for two years when he would be due. He was found guilty of non-compliance with the law in granting the exparte order in Suit No. KB/GC M171/2021 between Yahaya Usman and two ors and Prince Uche Secondus and anr.

The third judge, Justice Edem Ita Kooffreh of the High Court of Cross River State would have to forfeit his elevation for five years when due. He is being punished for being a tool for forum-shopping and abuse of court processes in Suit No. HC/240/2021 between Mr. Enang Kanum Wani and Prince Uche Secondus. New Telegraph commends the NJC for its intervention. The decision taken by NJC in its meetings, chaired by the Deputy Chairman, Justice Mary Odili of the apex court, the Supreme Court clearly indicated to other judges that their actions are being closely monitored.

This is reinforced by the fact that the three erring judges, who would be forfeiting their elevations when they would be due, were reportedly investigated and sanctioned in the absence of petitions. This is encouraging and should be sustained for the continued improvement of judicial officers. While we rejoice at the disposition and capacity of the body to punish judges for their excesses, it should not be forgotten that NJC is a manmade entity and should not pride itself on absolute perfection. Depending on its members at a time, the NJC may be unable to properly evaluate the performances of some judicial officers. And even if the body was able to constantly detect a slide in the performances of some jurists and slam them with sanctions accordingly, poor judicial rulings, if not prevented, have the tendency of having far reaching impact on the populace.

Bad rulings have resulted in the wrongful arrest, detention and imprisonment of innocent persons as well as loss of livelihoods of nuclear and extended families. We advise the NJC to be increasingly interested in shopping for more persons of professional soundness and integrity to the bench. The body should help impress upon other stakeholders that the sanctioning of erring judges by her is not enough to completely repair the cracks in the judiciary. Brilliant and integrity-laden lawyers in universities and at the bar may not have intimidating social connections that may help open doors for them to be appointed to the bench.

It is the responsibility of NJC to prompt other stakeholders, including the Council of Legal Education, the Executive Branch of Government at the federal and state levels, the Body of Benchers and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), to beam their searchlight on such legal minds to help bring them to the bench.

In addition to the Continuous Mandatory Professional Development Programme (CMPDP), they should be given decent accommodation with befitting official cars and adequate security. They should also be beneficiaries of economically- realistic wages and allowances that will make them able to resist the temptation likely to come from persons willing to undermine the dispensation of justice. The Republic of South Africa has a model that could be adopted by Nigeria.

The Chief Justice of the country is classified as the single highest paid public officer in the country; while the other judges are among the highest paid salary earners in the public sector. They are also made to earn allowances to enable them conveniently take care of their dependents. Should the model of the Republic of South Africa be adopted in Nigeria, it will go a long way towards motivating the country’s judiciary to perform better.

But the expectation for a better performance may not be actualised in the absence of full financial autonomy for the judiciary. The judiciary should be allowed to draw its funds directly from the Federation Account just like the Executive Branch of Government.

This should be the case at the federal and state levels. The trend whereby the judiciary is made to rely on a go-between like the Executive Branch of Government for the receipt of its funds should be reviewed for enhanced independence of the bench. New Telegraph is hopeful that through the diligent implementation of the above suggestions the golden era of the nation’s judiciary will be re-enacted, as was epitomised by Justices Chukwudifu Oputa, Anthony Aniagolu, Kayode Esho and Adolpous Karibi-Whyte all of the blessed memory. The referred jurists were men of erudition, scholarship, courage and foresight.

They regarded law as a tool for societal engineering. They had a reputation for interpreting laws from the point of view of what the law ought to be instead of from the perspective of what the law is considered transforming and developmental. Such was adjudicative activism and that is the judiciary most suitable for Nigeria.

Update news