When will the judges who cheated on their age be made to account, By Johnson Agwu

On 20 October, I used to be gloomy. It was 4 years since  the #EndSARS protests by Nigerian Youths towards police brutality and the bloody reprisals that adopted in its wake. I scrolled my telephone with intention of exiting the #EndSARS sorrows. As an alternative, I scrolled unto premium tears.

On Premium Instances, I chanced on an article headlined, “Theresa Chikeka: The retired decide who’s chief decide of Imo State? By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu”. I take something written by Professor Odinkalu severely as a result of he bears a torch at midnight instances we discover ourselves on this nation. By his flint we hope to seek out steering to the paths that would make life habitable for these coming after us. The opening phrases of the article learn as follows:

“The judicial profession of Francis Chukwuma Abosi was speculated to final solely seven years. Within the occasion, he did 12 and should properly have reached 20 years if occasions had not intervened. In his twelfth 12 months as a decide in April 2020, whereas serving because the Appearing President of the Customary Courtroom of Enchantment of Imo State in South-East Nigeria, the Nationwide Judicial Council (NJC) mercifully ended all of it.”

The story was not about Francis Abosi although. It was about Theresa Eberechukwu Chikeka who was appointed a decide of the Excessive Courtroom of Imo State on the identical day as Abosi in 2008. Theresa Chikeka schooled, did Youth Service, and labored on the idea that she was born on 27 October 1956 and will have retired at 65 in October 2021. As an alternative, she modified her 12 months of start from 1956 to 1958, thereby making her eligible to retire in 2023 as an alternative of 2021. On 28 June 2022, Imo State Home of Meeting confirmed her as Chief Choose, greater than eight months after she ought to have retired.

On 18 November, the Nationwide Judicial Council (NJC) advisable the sack of Chikeka for age falsification. Moreover, “the council discovered that Grand Khadi Mahdi of Yobe State had three completely different dates of start – December 10, January 28, and July, all in 1959, whereas his precise date of start is 1952. The council held that Babagana, the Grand Kadi of Yobe, dedicated an act of misconduct in violation of Rule 02908 (i) and (ii) of the Public Service Guidelines, 2021 and should have retired from service 12 years in the past.”

I’m scandalised to be taught that falsification of age by judicial officers is that this rampant. What number of extra retired judges stay in service of the judiciary? The judicial officer’s calling is to do justice and, in some situations, convict individuals who cheat the system, falsify paperwork, or depose falsehoods on oath. What’s the ethical justification for individuals like Abosi, Babagana, or Chikeka to purport to dispense justice on others?

I thank Odinkalu for amplifying the scenario, preserving it within the entrance burner and insisting that the proper factor is finished. It stays to be seen if the NJC’s suggestion directing obligatory retirement and refund of salaries by the variety of months that Babaganda and Chikeka respectively overstayed their judicial tenure will probably be applied.

Nevertheless, retirement and refund of salaries alone are, in my view, not proportionate punishment for the misconduct established. I feel that there ought to be further penalties for the misconduct by  Abosi, Babagana and Chikeka. They’ve every accomplished appreciable harm to the standing of the judiciary and to the careers of different individuals who might have been President of Customary Courtroom of Enchantment, Grand Khadi, or Chief Choose who would have stuffed the vacancies had they left the judicial service once they had been due. Their conduct additionally implicates a number of heads of crime, together with fraudulent misrepresentation, forgery, and perjury.

The Tough Query

The harder query is: what’s the destiny of judgments or proceedings delivered or performed by these judicial officers after the time that they should have retired?

The judiciary isn’t like the chief the place acts accomplished by an individual who isn’t the governor or duly appointed government member might nonetheless be saved by a number of theories, such because the doctrine of necessity. Neither is the judiciary just like the legislature the place the participation of individuals not certified to take action wouldn’t essentially invalidate legal guidelines made. In fact, taking part in parliamentary proceedings when unqualified is unconstitutional below part 57 of the Nigerian Structure of 1999.

Nevertheless, that didn’t deter individuals like Salisu Buhari from forging their age and {qualifications} to say eligibility to turn out to be elected to the place of the Speaker of the Home of Representatives from 3 June 1999 to 23 July 1999. Legal guidelines, resolutions or proceedings made whereas he was speaker didn’t turn out to be void. Salisu Buhari would later confess, resign, apologise, and be convicted of his crimes. President Olusegun Obasanjo prolonged a pardon to him after the courts sentenced him to 2 years in jail for these crimes.

Quite a few lawmakers had been within the nationwide or state assemblies making legal guidelines whereas not eligible to be in these locations. The structure in these situations supplies that the ineligibility of a lawmaker doesn’t make the legislation made invalid. Nobody has bothered to ask if with out these ineligibles, the legislature would have been quorate to start with.

The enquiry as as to whether the acts of Chikeka, Mahdi Babagana, or Abosi would stay legitimate is necessary due to its implications for the validity of their selections after they need to have retired. The case of former Abia State governor, Orji Uzor Kalu, is related right here.

The Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee (EFCC) prosecuted Orji Kalu for stealing the equal of about US$700m from the state’s coffers. The trial courtroom convicted and sentenced him to about 12 years in jail. Earlier than the conclusion of the proceedings, the trial decide (Muhammed Idris) was nominated a justice of the Courtroom of Enchantment. Orji Kalu utilized for Idris to proceed and full the trial. Part 396(7) of the Administration of Legal Justice Act (ACJA) allowed a decide of the Excessive Courtroom elevated to the Courtroom of Enchantment to proceed to sit down as a Excessive Courtroom decide for the aim of concluding partly heard felony issues which s/he was dealing with earlier than the elevation.

Idris granted Orji Kalu’s utility and concluded the trial regardless of his nomination to the Courtroom of Enchantment. On attraction, the Supreme Courtroom held that Idris was now not a decide of the Federal Excessive Courtroom on the day he convicted and sentenced Orji Kalu. It subsequently put aside the proceedings. On 2 June 2020, Justice Abdullahi Liman ordered the discharge of Orji Kalu from custody, claiming that the choice of the seven-person panel of the Supreme Courtroom meant that his conviction was wrongful and there was no foundation for him to stay in custody. Justice Inyang Ekwo on 21 September 2021 restrained EFCC from re-arraigning Orji Kalu, holding that to take action would breach the constitutional prohibition towards double jeopardy.

The precept on this resolution is obvious. So, what occurs to the choices rendered by Chikeka, Babagana, Abosi orany different unqualified decide rendered after they had been speculated to have retired? What about accused individuals convicted or acquitted by Chikeka et al? Will the Orji Kalu precedent be democratised and who will bear the price of wasted time and assets of the State and litigants? It’s not simply sufficient for Abosi, Babagana, Chikeka and others to disgorge salaries unlawfully earned. They deserve their day(s) in courtroom.

Johnson Agwu, a lawyer, writes from Lagos.