How NJC Suspended Salami

[TGD]

 Agbakoba Calls For Democratization Of Judicial Institutions

FRESH facts have emerged on how the National Judicial Council (NJC) arrived at the decision to suspend the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, and recommend him for dismissal.

It was learnt yesterday that the decision was reached at a meeting attended by only seven of the 24 members of the Council, in which four members voted in favour and three against the controversial decision that is being called to legal questioning.

A competent source told The Guardian that the NJC meeting lasted barely five minutes, with only one decision: to forward the name of Justice Dahiru Musdapher, to President Goodluck Jonathan, as successor to the outgoing Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, who presided over the session.

Katsina-Alu reportedly left immediately the meeting ended, as did some other members of the NJC in attendance.

However, some members were said to have reconvened, to suspend Justice Salami.

A member of the NJC, who pleaded anonymity, said that those who voted against the suspension of Justice Salami argued that it was unconstitutional and would amount to a judicial coup, while four members, who voted in favour of the decision insisted that majority had carried the vote.

The member explained that the rumbling in the judiciary was being sponsored by politicians, who have vested interests and had succeeded in penetrating the Council, "thereby dividing the members down the line, depending on where one's interest lies."

"The genesis of the crisis rocking the judiciary is the victory of an opposition party in two states in the Southwest zone in the 2007 governorship election cases, which some members of the ruling party and sympathetic members of the NJC were not comfortable with," the member said.

"That brought about the untimely recommendation to elevate Justice Salami to the Supreme Court, which failed, but finally brought the crisis to public domain.

"It was the same forces that advised the ruling party-dominated National Assembly to insert in the 2010 Electoral Act that governorship cases should terminate at the Supreme Court without time limit, while it must have time limit at tribunal and appeal tribunals."

The member alleged that some state governors, especially those who have pending election cases against them from the last polls, are among the people fuelling the crisis, which he described as "dangerous, catastrophic and disturbing, if not arrested urgently."

Reacting to the NJC decision, Chief Chuks Muoma (SAN), told The Guardian that the action is an illegality, stressing that whether in the Bar or on the Bench, "lawyers must learn how to respect the rule of law, taking into consideration that there is a pending suit in the court between the Justice Salami and the Council."

"It is unfortunate, absurd and worrisome that the disrespect for the rule of law is coming from the Council that is supposed to be custodian of justice.

"I wonder the kind of example they want to show other Nigerians, especially lawyers in practice," he said.

On the insinuations that the Council did not form a quorum before arriving at its decision, Muoma advised Justice Salami to stay put in office, "because what the Council did is null and void."

"The NJC is trying to ridicule the system and it is very dangerous and threatening for our polity. The members of the Council, who took the decision and have brought ridicule to the Council should be punished and retired immediately for quick restoration of confidence in the system," he added.

Former NBA president, Chief Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), believes that notwithstanding what has happened, which he sees as bad enough, "it is important that the NJC exercises the constitutional power conferred on it by Section 294 of the 1999 Constitution, which is to direct judicial policies."

"It is not for us to say whether the allegations are true or not; the perception of the public of the judiciary is at a very low point today," he said.

Agbakoba, who is a member of the NJC and attended its first session, said: "It is our duty, as members of the NJC, to turn things around and restore public confidence in the judiciary. We can't allow things to continue to decline, because the judiciary is so vital to the survival of democracy in Nigeria.

"Nigerians are looking up to us, especially those of us representing the NBA, to resolve this crisis appropriately, and that can be done in diverse ways."

He called for the democratization of judicial institutions, to move them away from what obtained during the military era, when they were designed to be insulated from military interference.

This, he bemoaned, was carried over into democratic rule; meaning that judges continue to control their finances, appointments and discipline, which, he said, was no longer desirable.

"So, you have the CJN at the pinnacle of judicial institutions, overseeing appoints, promotions, disciplines, allocates resources, appointment of Senior Advocates and controlling virtually every aspect of the judiciary. The problem now is: what happens if the CJN is involved in a controversy, like this one?"

Agbakoba said the way out is for the function of adjudication, which is the primary duty of judges, to be administered by the CJN, while administration should be ceded to another body.

"So, I am suggesting a constitutional amendment that would make the CJN to cease to be head of judicial institutions, except the Supreme Court.

"The NJC should comprise current and retired CJNs, with the immediate past CJN as head, so that the current CJN would have nothing to do with the overall functions or control of the body.

"Going too far into administration and overseeing the entire Nigerian judiciary, that, I think, is too much for the CJN," Agbakoba said.



The Guardian