In January 1983, a suspicious hearth incident did appreciable harm to NECOM Home, the high-rise constructing in Lagos that housed the headquarters of the nation’s telecommunications monopoly, then generally known as the Nigerian Telecommunications Restricted (NITEL). Alhaji Shehu Shagari was in energy as elected civilian president. The assumption was widespread that the fireplace was the handiwork of “senior officers within the constructing (who) had been beneath investigation for fraud and embezzlement that police estimated at greater than $100 million.”
The NECOM Home hearth was one other in a succession of high-profile incidents with a whiff of arson affecting public infrastructure within the nation. The earlier month, one other hearth had consumed the Ministry of Exterior Affairs, reportedly “set by accountants who had been beneath investigation.”
Casualty rely from the NECOM Home hearth incident was substantial however unsure. By some coincidence, the fireplace occurred the week after the fire-fighting workforce on the facility had been inexplicably withdrawn.
The response of the federal authorities was much more inexplicable. The 21 individuals whom they selected to prosecute in reference to the incident included Ray Ekpu, on the time a senior journalist and columnist, whose crime seemed to be that he revealed an article after the incident suggesting that it was arson.
Additionally charged had been Adamu Akokhia, Chief Hearth Officer of the Federation; and Saidu Garba, the Divisional Hearth Officer accountable for the constructing. Whereas they had been suspects in pending legal proceedings, the federal authorities additionally suspended Adamu Akokhia and Saidu Garba from work.
Saidu Garba sued on the Excessive Courtroom of Lagos State difficult his suspension. Whereas his case was nonetheless pending, the Everlasting Secretary within the Ministry of Inner Affairs, John Oyegun, issued a letter sacking him from the general public service.
Knowledgeable of this growth, the presiding decide, Yahaya Jinadu, summoned John Oyegun to look earlier than him and clarify why he shouldn’t be held in contempt of courtroom. The decide subsequently discovered Mr. Oyegun responsible of contempt, cautioned him and required him to withdraw the letter of termination issued to Saidu Garba whereas his case was pending.
Regardless of the forbearance of the courtroom, Mr. Oyegun did not comply. On August 3, 1984, the courtroom ordered his lawyer to safe compliance by his shopper with the order or stop participation within the proceedings till he complied. By this time, Main-Normal Muhammadu Buhari was in his eighth month in energy as army ruler, having overthrown Shagari.
5 days later, on August 8, then Chief Choose of Lagos State, Adetunji Adefarasin, summarily withdrew the case file from Yahaya Jinadu and reassigned it to himself, claiming that he did so on the request of the trial decide. Yahaya Jinadu denied ever having made such a request to the Chief Choose.
Whereas Yahaya Jinadu was on pilgrimage to Mecca, shortly thereafter, the Advisory Judicial Committee (AJC), then chaired by Chief Justice Sodeinde Sowemimo (the identical one who infamously convicted Obafemi Awolowo 20 years earlier), constituted a committee “that curiously condemned his actions and requested him to make written and verbal apologies” to, amongst others, the federal attorney-general, the President of the Courtroom of Attraction, and the Chief Choose of Lagos State.
Unwilling to abide by an order which he characterised as “humiliation and shame of the judiciary”, Yahaya Jinadu served the statutory sixty-day discover of his intention to resign as a decide. In response, the regime terminated his judicial profession summarily.
For being conscious about the responsibility to preserve the forex of judicial authority and being ready to defend that, Yahaya Jinadu paid a heavy worth along with his profession. Those that traduced him set in movement a lethal corrosion of judicial authority whose inter-generational penalties right this moment endanger the very foundations of each the establishment and the nation.
Two contemporaneous occasions this previous week dramatised how badly so. Addressing judges firstly of the week at a unbroken judicial schooling occasion in Abuja, the Federal Capital, Chief Justice of the Federation, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, complained about deepening public mistrust of the judiciary, reminding her colleagues that “it isn’t sufficient to be neutral; we should even be seen to be neutral. The notion of bias or impropriety could be as damaging as the truth itself.”
At about the identical time because the Chief Justice uttered them, these sentiments had been on trial at one other finish of city. The Federal Excessive Courtroom in Abuja was the venue of the now viral contretemps between Nnamdi Kanu, self-proclaimed chief of the Indigenous Individuals of Biafra (IPoB), on the one hand; and the presiding decide, the lead prosecutor, and even his personal workforce of attorneys, on the opposite. If something was extra troubling than the conduct of Mr. Kanu in that outing, it was the self-inflicted lack of judicial authority to firmly put a cease to it.
To make sure, there are ample provisions within the Administration of Felony Justice Act (ACJA) empowering courts to protect their authority or act towards the disruption of their proceedings. A decide for 1 / 4 of a century and a state attorney-general earlier than that, the one cost that can’t presumably be made towards the presiding decide on this case is inexperience. So, why was the courtroom, however, so craven?
On September 24, 2024, she had dominated in respect of the identical proceedings regarding Mr. Kanu that: “The foundation of adjudication is confidence. The defendant has no confidence on this courtroom. Consequently, I hereby recuse myself from this trial and hereby remit the case file to the Chief Choose for additional needed motion.” Three weeks later, it was reported that the Chief Choose determined administratively to overrule the trial decide’s recusal and return the case file to her.
There are, nonetheless, two issues with this choice. First, as a matter of legislation, the Chief Choose could also be a primary amongst his friends however he’s no paramount chief at giant. His powers don’t lengthen to administratively overruling a written choice of a decide sitting as such. Second, as a sensible matter, a decide who by her personal hand guidelines to recuse herself from proceedings after affirming cratered confidence in her dealing with of the proceedings can not permit herself to be bullied or inveigled into trying to ingest her judicial vomit.
The coincidence of those two developments nearly assuredly denied the courtroom of its constitutive authority, making it a passenger in that piece of execrable judicial theatre.
The usual beneath the 1999 structure is {that a} courtroom shall be constituted “in such a way as to safe its independence and impartiality.” A decide can not return to assert impartiality and independence after having gone on document to recuse herself for having misplaced the arrogance of the defendant. A discussion board in that setting hardly deserves the appellation of a courtroom.
Nigeria’s 1999 structure speaks loosely of “judicial energy.” The standard instruments of energy on this sense are coercive or transactional. As a reality, the judiciary lacks each. Its forex is neither arms nor cash. Slightly it’s motive and authority.
To the extent that it’s potential to salvage something from the wreckage of these proceedings in that Federal Excessive Courtroom final week, it’s the significance of holding the toes of the judiciary to fireplace when any decide – regardless of how excessive – acts in a way that casually endangers that authority. The prices of not doing so are incalculable.Odinkalu, a lawyer and trainer, could be reached at [email protected]Views expressed by contributors are strictly private and never of The Guardian.
