At the Judicial Reforms Conference in Abuja on July 7, 2014, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, cautioned members of the Bar, especially the Senior Advocates of Nigeria, on the danger of collaborating with corrupt judges. She maintained that those who work in tandem with corrupt judges were also guilty of corruption. She argued that there had been an instance where as many six SANs accompanied a judge who was on trial at the National Judicial Council. She further noted that although many lawyers are quick to accuse the Bench of corruption, they often fail to report corrupt judges to the NJC. But in a response, Mr Yusuf Ali reminded the CJN that the principle of presumption of innocence entitles a person to defend himself or herself with everything at his or her disposal-including legal representation.
This differing perception between the Bar and the Bench over the issue of corruption in the judiciary has become a major issue. Sometime ago, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) alleged that court judgments were now given on cash-and-carry basis. Then, the NBA identified this situation as the root cause of the growing number of political assassinations, unresolved killings and terrorism in the country.
Rather than engage in blame game, we call on the Bar and the Bench to come together in concerted effort to combat corruption in the judiciary. The CJN has consistently taken the issue of corruption to the judges. Earlier in March 2014, while swearing in 25 new Court of Appeal judges, she urged the judges to maintain true allegiance to their judicial oaths and abide by the demands of the code of conduct for judicial officers. She warned that the “judiciary will not tolerate acts of misconduct and disloyalty from judges” and that there was “no middle ground and no room on the Bench for those found to be contemptible arbiters of truth.”
The NBA must follow suit in constantly reminding their members of the danger that corruption poses to the integrity of the judiciary and its consequences for social order and democratic sustenance.
Indeed, combating corruption in the judiciary may call for long term reform measures, requiring several amendments to the constitution and other laws regulating the judiciary. Certainly, it will be necessary to strengthen the role of the Independent Corrupt Practises and other related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in policing and investigating corruption in the judiciary. The powers, roles, effectiveness and efficiency of the key institutions of the judiciary must be reviewed and appropriate changes carried out. These institutions include the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) and the National Judicial Institute (NJI). These should be restructured and repositioned to improve on their capacities to meet the constitutional principles and values of the judiciary. This implies that the rule of law, not the rule of the judge, must prevail. It also implies that justice must not be available to the highest bidder.
In recent times, several measures have been taken by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to punish erring members of the Bench. However, such punitive measures have been limited to retirement. An example is the case involving Justice Lawal Hassan Gummi previously of the Federal High Court, Abuja. The NJC at its 63rd meeting held on July 17 and 18, 2013 accepted the findings and recommendations of its committee that investigated a petition against Gummi. The committee had established that Gummi interfered with the execution of the judgment delivered by Justice Jude Okeke in a suit between Nestello Gateway Group and Alhaji Abdul’aziz Abubakar Yari, a former National Assembly member who is the current governor of Zamfara State. The council found the interference by Gummi “most unethical and reprehensible” and proceeded to pronounce him guilty of gross misconduct on the grounds that he violated the code of conduct for judicial officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
However, after finding Gummi guilty of gross misconduct, the council decided not to recommend his removal from office because he had already voluntarily retired from service. It thereafter issued a warning that “henceforth, any similar misconduct by any judicial officer in the Federation will be visited with severe sanction.”
The argument that Gummi’s voluntary retirement prevented the NJC from recommending his removal from office is curious.
The council said it lacked the power to sanction him because he had voluntarily left the Bench to serve as the traditional ruler of his people. Where is the deterrence effect when a judicial officer, after an act of gross misconduct, can go scot-free? It has become the standard practice for judges to be summarily retired after grievous misdeeds. To simply ask a public officer who has abused public trust to ‘go and sin no more’ makes nonsense of the crusade against corruption. A pre-emptive voluntary retirement cannot obliterate an act of gross misconduct committed by an officer who has abused his office nor can relieving judges of their duties, if found culpable of corruption, and allowing them to thereafter enjoy their loot, be acceptable.
Reducing corruption in the justice sector would make it more likely that corrupt individuals in other sectors would be prosecuted and punished. This would raise the cost of corruption and discount the rewards derivable therefrom. Taking steps against corruption in the justice system is an essential step in dealing with corruption in the larger society. But the current practice of using mere retirement as punitive measure cannot help to clean the Augean stables in the judiciary. Judges found guilty of corruption must be made to face the full wrath of the law. They must be prosecuted and punished according to the prescribed laws if trust in the criminal justice system is to be regained. The consequences of an egregiously corrupt judicial system are better left to the imagination.
