Prosecution of Justice Onnoghen and Politics of the Law

By Folarin Ademosu

The Federal Government has gone for broke by putting the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Mr. Walter Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT, for false assets declaration. Though government’s cause is justified, its actions are clumsy and has thrown up a cacophony of noises from supporters and opponents of the move.

The most contentious issue is the decision of the federal government to take Justice Onnoghen straight before the CCT rather than reporting him first to the National Judicial Council, NJC, as stipulated by law. It is noteworthy that the NJC is the only body constitutionally empowered to deal with matters relating to appointments, promotion and discipline of judicial officers. The exercise of such powers are also not without checks, as the body is compelled to make recommendations to the executive arm whether at the federal or state levels based on the outcomes of its disciplinary procedures. Hence, the NJC’s responsibilities are unambiguous.

Unarguably, the framers of the Constitution must have considered the NJC’s powers as part of ways of ensuring independence of the judiciary and providing it a safeguard against unnecessary capricious and absolute behaviours from sister arms of government. The eminence of the NJC’s role in cases of misconduct involving judicial officers was recently reinforced by, now, famous Appeal Court ruling in Nganjiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2017). This is the current position of the law and until an alternative ruling is given, it remains the law!

However, the Federal Government, for obvious reasons, has continued to demonstrate willful obstinacy to fulfilling this constitutional dictate. No doubt, the current administration views the judiciary’s commitment to the fight against corruption as a half-hearted one. Sadly, there is nothing the executive arm can do other than offering moral persuasions to other arms of government to support its anti-corruption preoccupation.

By sidestepping the NJC to file charges against the CJN before the CCT, the federal government has itself demonstrated impunity and moral corruption. It is an action that shows little or no fidelity with the Constitution and the Rule of Law – which are vital ingredients of constitutional democracy.

Definitely, the federal government must believe it was expedient for it to take the action it took forgetting that doing such only convicts it as a bully against others within its three-member family (Executive, Legislative, Judiciary).

Understandably, the NJC is characteristically slow in determining petitions filed before it. Perhaps this must have posed a concern to the government. As stated in the NJC Guidelines, a petition bordering a judge’s misconduct will first be examined by a Preliminary Complaint Assessment Committee, which members are chosen by the NJC. Also, the Committee can dismiss a petition, if it believes it is unmeritorious, taken over by events, or a remedial action had been taken by the defendant to redress the purported infraction.

It cannot be gainsaid that the government knows the principalities it is dealing with. The hunter perceptibly knows the rabbit has taken a strange item with it into its hole. And the hunter will stop at nothing at burning down the farm just to smoke out the rabbit and expose its action.

The CJN currently carries a moral burden, and his admission presents a prima facie in the case. Mr. Onnoghen said: “My asset declaration form numbers SCN 00014 and SCN 00005 were declared on the same day, 14/12/2016 because I forgot to make a declaration of my assets after the expiration of my 2005 declaration in 2009. Following my appointment as acting CJN in November, 2016, the need to declare my assets anew made me to realize the mistake. I then did the declaration to cover the period in default. I did not include my standard charted bank account in SCN 000014 because I believed they were not opened.” Justice Mr. Onnoghen’s statement reduces Nigerian judiciary to a joke. It is laughable that the custodian of the courts of the land and indeed the country’s Constitution claims ignorance of the law. This certainly falls short of the standards of behaviour expected of judicial officers, as stated in Rule 1:3 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers. For clarity, Rule 1:3 states: “A judicial officer should respect and comply with the laws of the land and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

It is worrisome to continue to have Justice Onnoghen as the head of the Judiciary, while he faces prosecution. Should the federal government retrace its step and decides to file a petition, it is to the same Justice Onnoghen it would address such given his official capacity as the Chairman of the NJC. Again, it is the same Justice Onnoghen who will select members of the committees to hear the case against him. A situation as this definitely cannot guarantee fairness and non-interference with the investigation.

Certainly, Nemo judex in causa sua (No one should be a judge in his own case). This, among others, is what the principle of natural justice demands.

The CJN must demonstrate honour and integrity both in himself and for the institution he leads by recusing himself during the pendency of the case. On its part, the Federal Government must tow the path of constitutionalism rather than behaving like a bull in the China shop.

*Folarin Ademosu, a journalist writes from Lagos.