AGF, NJC bicker over status of recalled judges

The office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) are now bickering over the fate of judges being prosecuted and recalled from suspension.

Officials of the Federal Ministry of Justice on Monday kept sealed lips over the National Judicial Council (NJC) disclosure that some judges recommended for dismissal over proven malpractices are being retained by the Federal Government and some State governors.

Federal Ministry of Justice officials were also stiff frightened on Monday over revelations that the ministry of justice had messed up the appeal it claimed it filed against Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja after NJC insisted at the weekend that at the time six suspended Justices were recalled, there was no appeal against justice Ademola.

NJC had said contrary to the allegations by Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, that Judiciary took a hasty decision to recall the Judges, and that it is not on board with anti-graft war of the Federal Government, ” its action was proper.

The council also stated that it was “constrained to say that some of the Judicial Officers that have been recommended for dismissal or compulsory retirement from Office by the presidency or Governors, have not till date been removed from Office. But for suspension of the affected Judicial Officers from Office by National Judicial Council, they would have till date been performing their judicial duties. ”

Officials of the Federal Ministry of Justice on Monday declined to comment on the issue. A number of them that were approached for comment said they could not comment on such complicated matter without clearance from the minister who had travelled abroad on official engagement.

Sources at the National Judicial Council also declined to give details of judges that were dismissed but retained by the Federal Government and state governments. They claimed that they were not authorised to speak on the issue but that the council will publish the list.

However, The Daily Times findings showed that the National Judicial Council on Friday, September 29, 2016 recommended to President Muhammadu Buhari, the compulsory retirement of Justice Mohammed Tasmiya who was serving at the Ilorin Division of the Court of Appeal.

Justice Tasmiya was sanctioned by NJC over allegations that he met with a party to a case before him, Nnamdi Oji, three times and on each occasion, demanded the sum of N200m to influence the Court of Appeal panel in Owerri, which sat on election cases that arose from the 2015 general elections.

The NJC also recommended the Chief Judge of Enugu State, Justice I. A. Umezulike, for compulsory retirement and Justice Kabiru Auta of Kano State High Court for dismissal.

The council had then recommended to Governor Lawrence Ugwuanyi of Enugu State, the compulsory retirement of the Chief Judge of the state, Justice Umezulike, for delivering judgment in a case 126 days after final addresses were adopted by parties, and for other instances of abuse of office.

Justice Umezulike, during his book launch, allegedly received a donation of N10m from a businessman, Prince Arthur Eze, while two cases in which Eze was said to have had “vested interest”, were in the judge’s court.

The Daily Times confirmed on Monday from source at Enugu State government House that “Justice I. A. Umezulike was eventually retired compulsorily on the recommendation of NJC after it was confirmed by Enugu State Assembly”.

However, phone call put to Kano state government House to ascertain if Justice Auta was prosecuted by the federal government based on the NJC recommendation, was not through as they were no responses.

Justice Auta was found to have collected N197m from a man, Alhaji Kabiru, who wrote a petition to the NJC against him.

It also recommended to Governor Abdullahi Ganduje, of Kano State, the dismissal of Justice Kabiru Auta.

Kabiru was accused of collecting about N197m from a man, Alhaji Kabiru Yakassai, under the pretext that he had plans to use the money to help a then newly appointed Chief Justice of Nigeria to secure accommodation and for Yakassai to be later rewarded with a contract by the CJN.

The NJC recommended that Auta should be handed over to the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 1, Kano, for prosecution.

Justice Auta was said to have agreed to refund the sum of N95m to Yakassai, who had petitioned the NJC, but only for him to admit during his probe before the NJC panel that he only agreed to refund N35m.

However last night a statement signed by Okoi Obono- Obla, the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, said that the appeal against Justice Ademola is valid and on course.

The statement debunked some of the assertions contained in the statement issued by Soji Oye, Director of Information, National Judicial Council (NJC) which was widely reported in the media on Monday.

One of such false assertions is the claim “that the Office of Attorney General of the Federation had on two occasions April 18, 2017 and April 21, 2017 shunned invitations by the Federal Capital Territory High Court for settlement of records of appeal which if it had done would have elevated the notices of appeal to proper appeal’’.

The statement reads in part: “Undoubtedly, the statement of Soji Oye is a deliberate misrepresentation of the law and facts.

“On the contrary, the FCT High Court registry by a Notice dated 6 June, 2017 signed by one Paul A. Edili, Esquire (Head of Appeal) invited both parties to the appeal to attend Court on the 14 June, 2017 for the purpose reconciliation of records of appeal,” he claimed.

“It goes without saying that the assertion of Soji Oye that the Office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation had on two occasions viz, April 18, 2017 and April 21 2017, respectively shunned the invitation of the FCT High Court registry is not correct.

Obono- Obla challenged Soji Oye to furnish them with proof of service of these notice which the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation shunned.

“It is obvious that Soji Oye in his haste to defend the indefensible muddled up the law concerning the role of an Appellant and the registry of the Court where an appeal is emanating from.

“In the interest of the discerning public and the need to keep the record straight, I wish to state as follows:

“That by Order 8 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, the Registrar of the Court below has a duty to compile and transmit the Record of Appeal to the Appeal Court. This he has 60 days to do; commencing from the day the Notice of Appeal is filed. And it is immaterial that parties do not attend court for purpose of settlement of the said Record.

“That it is only where the Registrar fails or neglects to transmit the Record of Appeal in accordance with Order 8, Rules 1-3, that the Appellant may intervene upon the expiration of the initial 60 days, to compile and transmit the Record of Appeal. And the Appellant has additional 30 days to do so. See Order 8, Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.

He said he is unaware of any notice for settlement of Record of Appeal served on the Office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation apart from that issued on the 6th day of June, 2017 against the 14th day of June 2017, just after the filing of Additional Notice of Appeal. “And even that was issued at the instance of the office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation.

Continuing, the statement by Obono- Obla, reads: “But assuming there was any notice for settlement of Record of Appeal, the failure of the Appellant to attend court for settlement of the said record would not prevent the Registrar of the Lower Court from performing his duty in line with Order 8, Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.

“If the Notice of Appeal was filed on the 7th day of April, 2017, the Registrar of the Lower Court had 60 good days (under the Rules) expiring on 7th June, 2017 to settle and transmit the Record of Appeal. In fact, with the filing of Additional Notice of Appeal on 6th June 2017, the Registrar now has additional 60 days terminating on or about 6th August 2017 to settle and transmit the Record of Appeal. It is only if, and when, the Registrar fails to compile and transmit the Record within 60 days effective from 6th June 2017, that the Appellant may step in to so do within additional 30 days.

“The NJC cannot feign ignorance of the Rules of the Court it supervises. The assertion that it is a total of 45 days that is allowed for compilation of Record of Appeal in all circumstances is, with respect, utterly false.”

“We are therefore afraid (in the light of the foregoing), that the decision of the NJC to recall Hon. Justice Ademola against whom there is a valid and subsisting Notices of Appeal at this moment is, to say the least, premature, ill-timed and ill-fated.”

“Order 6 Rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 also stipulates that “an Appeal shall be deemed to have been brought when the Notice of Appeal has been filed in the Registry of the Court below”.

“Thus while it is the duty of the Appellant to bring an Appeal, the onus of entering the Appeal is primarily that of the Lower Court Registry. And it does that by compiling and transmitting the Record of Appeal to the Court of Appeal. And if it fails; it is trite in law that the sins or laxity of the Court registry cannot be visited on a litigant or appellant as in this case.”