The National Judicial Council (NJC)
rejected initial attempts by the Department of State Security Services,
DSS, Nigeria’s secret police, an appendage of the presidency, to
initiate a crackdown on the judiciary, citing separation of powers and
rule of law, a correspondence between the NJC and the DSS has revealed.
According to an exclusive report by Thisday, investigation into the judges started as far back as January or February this year.
The leaked correspondence however shows
that the NJC also informed the DSS that its investigations into the
cases of the accused judges showed that there was no evidence of
corruption as alleged by the SSS and as such, the judges were not guilty
of the allegations for which the DSS wanted to carry out a “sting
operation” on them.
The correspondence also revealed that
the NJC said it was not amenable to “invitations being extended to
judicial officers by departments and agencies of government for any
reason”.
The refusal by the NJC to co-operate with the DSS prompted the Buhari presidency to go ahead with the raid on the judges.
Preparatory to their arrests, the DSS on
October 5, 2016, had obtained search warrants from a magistrate’s court
in Abuja for Justices Nnamdi Dimgba, Sylvester Nwali Ngwuta, A.A.
Ademola and John Inyang Okoro.
In the search warrants, all the judges
were alleged to have engaged in corrupt practices, falsehood, and
under-declaration of assets.
The warrants granted the DSS the power
to search their residences for money in Nigerian and foreign currencies,
bank tellers, computers and other incriminating evidence.
However, after the crackdown, the DSS
late Sunday night released seven of the judges it arrested between
Friday and Saturday, ostensibly because it did not get the co-operation
of the NJC. A statement by the DSS said the judges were released on
self-recognition.
This was evident Monday, October 10,
2016, when the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed
appealed for calm over the unprecedented arrest of two of his colleagues
and other judges of lower cadre, and expressed deep regret over the
“distressing and unfortunate incident”.
The CJN, who broke his silence on the
issue during the valedictory session held in honour of a retired Supreme
Court judge, Justice Suleiman Galadima, also said he was saddened by
the event.
Mohammed’s stance was reinforced in a number of letters between the NJC and DSS, which were obtained exclusively by Thisday, showing that the investigation into the alleged corrupt practices by the judges started early this year.
The letters also showed the reluctance by the NJC to co-operate with the DSS in its investigation of the judges.
In one letter dated April 19, 2016, the
NJC through its secretary, Mr. Danladi Halilu, on behalf of the CJN,
wrote to the DSS, acknowledging its letter titled, Re: Corrupt Practices
of Justice Pindiga, which was dated February, 26, 2016.
In the said letter, the NJC wrote:
Reference your petition dated 26th February 2016, to the Hon. President
of the Court of Appeal and copied to the Honourable, the Chief Justice
of Nigeria and Chairman of the Nigerian Judicial Council, Hon. Justice
Mahmud Mohammed, GCON, against Hon. Justice M.A. Pindiga of the High
Court of Justice, Gombe State on the above subject matter.
“I have been directed to inform
you that your complaint has not complied with the extant Judicial
Discipline Regulation 2014 of the Council, as it was not accompanied
with a verifying affidavit deposed to by you before a court of record.
“In view of the forgoing, you may wish to comply, please.”
In yet another letter to the
director-general of the DSS, Lawal Daura, dated August 29, 2016 and
signed this time by the CJN, the NJC acknowledged receipt of a petition
dated August 5, 2016 on corrupt practices and professional misconduct by
Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court.
It further informed the DSS DG that action was being taken on the petition.
Then in a letter dated September 7,
2016, titled “Re: Corrupt Practices of Justice Pindiga”, which was
signed by the secretary of the NJC, the council adopted a more
dismissive tone saying that its investigation had not found Justice
Pindiga wanting that would warrant his sanction.
It stated: “Reference your
Petition No. DGSS.71/3161, dated February 26th 2016 to the Honourable,
the Chief Justice of Nigerian and Chairman of the National Judicial
Council, Hon. Justice Mahmud Mohammed, GCON, against the Hon. Justice
M.A. Pindiga of the High Court of Justice, Gombe State, on the above
subject matter.
“At its meeting of 1st and
2nd of June 2016, Council constituted a Fact Finding Committee
comprising its members under the chairmanship of Hon. B.A. Adejumo, OFR,
President of the National Industrial Court, to investigate the
allegations contained in your petition, among others.
“At its meeting which held
on the 14th and 15th of July 2015, Council considered and deliberated
extensively on the report and noted that the officer that represented
your office at the investigative committee, averred that your office
could not conduct full investigation of the petition to obtain hard
facts to support the preliminary report, as allegedly, your organisation
was directed by the Honourable, the Chief Justice of Nigeria and
Chairman of the National Judicial Council, to stay further action on the
matter to allow the National Judicial Council look into it.
“At the end of deliberation,
Council found that the claim by your organisation is not correct, as
the Honourable, the Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the
National Judicial Council, Hon. Mahmud Mohammed, GCON, did not stop your
office from conducting full investigation so as to obtain hard facts to
support preliminary findings and proof of allegations without inviting
Hon. Justice Pindiga to your office, having done so when he was serving
as the Chairman of the Election Petition Tribunal.
“Consequently, in the
absence of any patent evidence to substantiate the allegations contained
in your petition against the Judicial Officer, Council was unable to
find any act of misconduct to warrant His Lordship being sanctioned.
“Council further directed
that while it is appreciative of the wonderful working relationship
between the Judiciary and other Arms of Government, in fidelity with the
Principles of Separation of Powers and Rule of Law, it is not amenable
to invitations being extended to judicial officers by departments and
agencies of government for any reason.”
The council’s letter elicited a swift
and angry response on September 14, 2016 from the DSS, which first
reprimanded the NJC for having the temerity to address the DG of DSS,
Mr. Daura by his name, in its letter of September 7.
Signed by Mr. Ahmed Ahmad on behalf of
the DG, the SSS made it abundantly clear that the NJC’s letter should
have been addressed to the “Director-General, Department of State
Services, simpliciter”, and all correspondence should henceforth bear
the correct nomenclature and address of the DG, SSS.
After letting off steam over the correct
nomenclature to be used for the DG, SSS, the letter stated: “I am
further directed to note paragraph 5 of your letter in which it was
stated that the “Council is not amenable to invitations being extended
by Departments and Agencies of government for any reason” and to observe
that if this is strictly adhered to, it would constitute a serious
obstacle on the path of Agencies of Government saddled with the
responsibilities of carrying out or conducting investigation into any
criminal act by the Judicial Officers concerned.”
The letter went on to remind council
that under the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, “only the
president, vice-president and sitting governors and their deputies are
conferred with immunity”.
“Even then, this immunity does not exempt them from criminal or security investigation,” it noted.
It said: “In view of the foregoing, and
the fact that Council has concluded action on the Pindinga case, I
further directed to humbly request you to direct Justice Mu’azu Pindiga
to report to the National Headquarters of the Department of State
Service to see the Director Operations on 15th September, 2016 at 1100
hours unfailingly.
Responding on the day Pindiga was
supposed to appear at the SSS, the secretary of the NJC wrote to the SSS
reminding it that its manner of address in the letter of September 7 in
which it used Daura’s name and his designation was not disrespectful,
nor was it unusual and that the council had in the past written similar
official letters to “Mr. President, Senate President, Hon. Ministers,
State Governors and Heads of Government Departments, Agencies and
Institutions in similar manner by addressing same in their names and
designations as well”.
It stated, however, that the council had
noted the SSS’ observations and would henceforth address all
correspondence to the DG, SSS.
The NJC added: “I am further directed to
inform your office that what was communication to the office on the
above caption vide letter Reference No. NJC/HC.GM/5/1/134 of 7th
September 2016, was the decision taken by the council at its meeting
which was held on 15th July, 2016.
“Therefore, all the observations
contained in the letter aforesaid, will be presented before Council at
its next meeting scheduled for 28th and 29th September, 2016 and the
outcome of which will be communicated to your office, instant.
“In the meantime, the Honourable, the
Chief Justice of the Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial
Council, Hon. Justice Mahmud Mohammed, GCON, has directed the Hon. Chief
Judge of Gombe State to immediately contact the Subject Judge and to
ask him to appear in your office as requested; and the Judge has
complied.
Ostensibly, the DSS was believed to have
written another letter to the NJC requesting for the records of
proceedings of deliberations and or decision of the council, but this
was turned down by the council in a letter dated October 7, 2016, thus
prompting the DSS to move in to arrest the judges that they had
targeted.
In the said letter signed by Mr. Halilu
to DSS, NJC said: I have been directed to inform the Department of State
Security Services that by the precedents and practice of the Council
with respect to the subject matter, no Record of Proceedings or
deliberations and or decision of Council, including the Report of its
Investigation Committee are released to the Complainant or Petitioner or
Subject Judge or any Institution, save by an order of Court.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment