THE face-off between Chief Justice Aloysius Iyorgher Katsina-Alu and the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Isa Salami, took another twist yesterday as the latter approached the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, to challenge the panel set up by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate them over allegations of abuse of office and official corruption.
In an unprecedented face-off between the country's two leading judicial officers, Salami had claimed that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) asked him to compromise the then Sokoto State Governorship Election Appeal Panel and consequently pervert its decision in favour of a party.
But the NJC, vide an official statement made available to reporters in Abuja last week by its Deputy Director (Information), Barr. Soji Oye, cleared Katsina-Alu of wrongdoing, stating that he acted in good faith and in the best interest of justice when he decided to interfere with the proceeding by ordering that it be put on hold.
The NJC therefore found Salami guilty of false claims and thus in breach of Rule 1(1) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Consequently, the Council ordered Salami to issue an apology in writing to Katsina-Alu and NJC for false complaints, which brought the judiciary to disrepute.
However, it was not all bad news for the Court of Appeal's President as the NJC said there was no evidence of misconduct with regards to their handling of the Ekiti and Osun State gubernatorial election petition appeals.
Piqued by the findings of the NJC panel, which cited him for misconduct and ordered him to apologise within seven days from the release of the said report, Salami yesterday approached the court, seeking to void the composition of the panel and all activities arising from their "incompetent" sittings.
In the suit filed on Salami's behalf by three prominent legal practitioners - Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN), Rickey Tarfa (SAN) and Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), the President named the NJC and members of the two panels, which investigated the principal officers and other judicial officers who served on the Sokoto, Ekiti and Osun panels as defendants.
Other defendants include Justice Dahiru Musdapher, Justice Katsina-Alu, former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, Justice Emmanuel Ayoola, Justice Dominic Edozie and Justice Michael Akpiroroh.
Others are Mrs. Rakia Sarki Ibrahim, Justice Ibrahim Ndahi Auta, Justice Kate Abiri and Justice Peter Umeadi.
Specifically, Salami is seeking the following reliefs:
• A declaration that the setting up of the National Judicial Council Investigation Committee by the first defendant and its composition are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and the plaintiff's constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and is therefore unconstitutional, null and void.
• A declaration that the NJC investigation committee chaired by the fourth defendant, lacked the competence to investigate the petitions against the plaintiff having regard to its composition;
• A declaration that the proceedings of the NJC investigation committee were conducted in substantial breach of the principles of natural justice and fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the proceedings are therefore unconstitutional, null and void;
• A declaration that the findings of the NJC investigation committee chaired by the fourth defendant as contained in the 'Investigative Panel Report' dated July 6, 2011 submitted to the 1st Defendant and addressed to the second defendant are perverse, unreasonable, and violates the fundamental rights of the plaintiff to fair hearing, guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right;
• A declaration that the NJC investigation committee and the three-man panel set up by the first defendant and chaired by the ninth defendant (Auta panel) being administrative bodies, have no power to pronounce on the veracity of facts or statements contained in the statements on oath sworn to before the court of law or pronounce facts contained in statements on oath to be false as such power is exercisable only by a competent court of law;
• A declaration that the first defendant was improperly constituted on the 9th of August 2011 when it sat and received the report of the three-man panel chaired by the ninth defendant and that as such, all actions, steps and decisions reached on the said date are illegal, null and void;
• A declaration that the third defendant has no power under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to issue as administrative directive halting or purporting to halt the delivery of judgment by panel of the Court of Appeal in a Governorship Election Petition and that any exercise of such power by the third defendant is ultra vires and in breach of the combined effect inter alia of Sections 6, 232, 2333, 234, and 246 of the said Constitution;
• An order setting aside the proceedings and findings of the NJC investigation committee contained in its report dated 6th day of July, 2011;
• An order setting the recommendations of the three-man panel set up by the first defendant and chaired by the ninth defendant and all actions, decisions, proceedings and administrative directives arising from or based on such recommendations;
• An order setting aside all the steps or actions taken by the 1st-11th defendants based on connected with or relating to the NJC investigation committee and the three-man (Auta) panel;
• An order restraining the first, second and third defendants, their agents, servants and / or privies and all functionaries of the first defendant or otherwise howsoever from acting on, relying on, recommending or taking or further taking any action or decision whatsoever in respect of the findings of Abdullahi and the Auta Panels;
• An order setting aside the warning letter dated 9th August, 2011 Ref. No: NJC/f.2/CA1/1/273 written by the first defendant to the plaintiff;
• A perpetual injunction restraining the first, second and third defendants from taking any or further action, reaching any conclusions or issuing any directive(s) in any form whatsoever in respect of the various petitions written against the plaintiff in respect of which the 4th defendant's (Abdullahi) panel was set up by the 1st and 2nd defendants; and
• A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants from taking any or further action, reaching any conclusions or issuing any directive(s) in any form whatsoever in respect of the findings and recommendations of the NJC Investigation Committee chaired by the 4th defendant and the three-man (Auta) Panel chaired by the 9th defendant.
The Guardian