The two embattled Justices of the Supreme Court – Inyang Okoro and Sylvester Ngwuta – have accused Minister of Transportation Rotimi Amaechi and his Science and Technology counterpart Ogbonnaya Onu of being behind their travails. They claim that they refused the ministers’attempt to induce them to pervert justice in some election petition appeal disputes. The ministers have since denied the allegations. The Justices and other judicial officers are having a running battle with the Department of State Service (DSS) over allegations of corruption. But is there any ethical loophole that makes such interactions possible? ROBERT EGBE looks at the code of conduct for judicial officers.
TO avoid being tainted, judicial officers live virtually an ascetic life. They keep to themselves and hardly make friends with people outside their circle. As arbiters, their words or conduct, in or outside the courtroom, are under the spotlight. Their lives are also regimented by a code of conduct that strengthens their integrity and shields them from scandal.
In recognition of their roles as interpreters of the law, the preamble to the code of conduct for judicial officers makes certain demands of them.
It states: “A judicial officer should actively participate in establishing, maintaining, enforcing, and himself observing a high standard of conduct so that the integrity and respect for the independence of the Judiciary may be preserved.”
The Code of conduct for judicial
officers
The code of conduct for judicial officers spells out rules that they must observe in the performance of their duties.
Rule 1 requires them to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” in all their activities, while Rule 3 regulates their extra-judicial activities.
The Oxford Dictionary of English, 2010 edition, defines impropriety as “Failure to observe standards of honesty or modesty; improper behaviour or character.”
The code states further:
“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.
“A judicial officer must avoid social relationship that are improper or give rise to an appearance of impropriety, that cast doubt on the judicial officer’s ability to decide cases impartially, or that bring disrepute to the Judiciary.
“A judicial officer should regulate his extra-Judicial activities to minimise the risk of conflict with his judicial duties.’’
However, Rule 3 recognises a judicial officers’ Constitutional rights of freedom of expression and association “provided, that in exercising such rights, he shall always conduct himself in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of his office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
Alleged bribery attempts
Justices of the Supreme Court Inyang Okoro and Sylvester Ngwuta have alleged to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mahmud Mohammed, that they were targeted by the Department of State Service (DSS) because they refused to do some politicians’bidding.
In an October 17 four-page letter, to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmud Mohammed, Justice Okoro accused the Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi of asking him to pervert justice by making sure that election appeal cases in Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Abia states favoured the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Justice Ngwuta, in his October 18 letter to the CJN, also accused the Transportation Minister, and his Science and Technology counterpart Ogbonnaya Onu of asking him to influence judgments in their favour.
Ngwuta alleged that Amaechi asked him to unconstitutionally remove Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State and Nyesom Wike of Rivers State as governors.
Both ministers have denied the allegations.
In a statement, Amaechi’s media office said: “We want to state categorically that Amaechi did not and has never tried to lobby, induce or make the Hon. Justice Ngwuta to influence the outcome of any matter before the Supreme Court or any other court.”
How should bribe attempt be handled?
Section 126 (2) of the Criminal Code Act C39 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004 states:
‘’Any person who attempts, in any way not specially defined in this code, to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat, the course of justice is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.’’
Clearly, any attempt by anyone to influence a judicial decision by offering a bribe is a crime. What should a judicial officer do in such circumstance?
Is it adequate, as the Justices did, to make a verbal report to the CJN and allow the head of the judiciary exercise his discretion in handling the matter?
Mr Seyi Sowemimo (SAN) and Dr. Paul Ananaba (SAN) expressed divergent views on the matter.
Sowemimo said judicial officers must show that they are averse to bribery by informing law enforcement agents, otherwise, they risked creating the impression “that they were complicit in some way.”
He said: “The proper thing would have been to report to the police. It doesn’t stop them from also reporting the matter to the National Judicial Council (NJC).
“It depends on how grave you consider the matter to be. If you value your integrity and anyone makes such an offer to you, you would consider it insulting, an affront and would show real disgust. You would react in a vigorous manner and, at the very least, warn such a person to never try that sort of thing again.
“In previous times, I am certain that people trying to make such proposal to a judge would find themselves behind bars.”
Sowemimo observed that the crisis was not likely to go away soon, saying it is obvious that a repeat is not likely “in the near future”.
“The embarrassment and damage it has caused is a lesson for the future. I don’t think it is a welcome development but it has had some beneficial effects in the sense that it’ll stem that sort of conduct on the part of our justices,’’ he said.
Ananaba reasoned that the justices appeared to have merely followed the established procedure.
“A judge at the height of the Supreme Court should report to the CJN who is the head of the NJC and the courts. The justice reported to the head of court to say, ‘this is what is going on’. He would have had question marks if he did not report to the CJN and one would have wondered if he had compromised.
“Besides, as a Justice, how would you proceed? Would you just call a police station or the Inspector-General of Police? A justice is not like the man on the street. The head of the court can report the matter to the security unit and then other things can follow. There is due process. We should not in the name of fighting corruption, throw caution to the wind.”
NJC’s solution
The CJN will tomorrow and on Thursday, preside over an emergency meeting of the NJC at its secretariat inside the Supreme Court complex in Abuja, to decide the fate of the seven judicial officers under investigation for alleged corruption.
The meeting follows the NJC’s refusal to suspend any of the judges arrested by the DSS, despite calls by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and rights activists.
On October 25, the NJC, which has been accused of not investigating petitions raised either by the public or security agencies, announced a new National Judicial Policy (NJP).
The policy attempts to strengthen the ethical rules guiding judicial officers’ conduct by prohibitting lobbying of other arms of government by the judiciary or any of its institutions, and barring judicial officers from accepting gifts from them.
But the NJP bars the media from reporting details of petitions against judicial officers until the council considers it right for such disclosures.
Part of the policy reads: “lt shall be the policy of the judiciary on complaints that allegations of misconduct against judicial officers or employees of the judiciary shall not be leaked or published in the media.
“Where complaints on allegations against judicial officers and court employees are submitted for investigation, the complainant or complainants shall be made to give an undertaking not to do anything to prejudice investigation or actions that may be taken.
“The institutions of the judiciary concerned with investigation and implementation of decisions taken on such complaints shall be obliged to cease further action where such complaints are leaked or discussed in the media.
“Where such a leakage is occasioned after the submission of a complaint then all investigations on the complaints shall be suspended, the leakage investigated and if such leakage is from the complainant on through other parties known to such a complainant, such a complaint should be discarded.
“Where such leakage is occasioned prior to the presentation of the complaint and the source of the leakage is found to be the complainant or through other parties known to and connected with the complainant then such complaint shall not be accepted, upon submission, by the appropriate disciplinary body.”
Falana kicks
Activist lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) criticised the council for ‘unconstitutionally’ trying to prohibit citizens from exercising their freedom.
He said: “Two weeks ago, the NJC claimed that it had treated all petitions alleging misconduct against judicial officers. The Civil Society Network Against Corruption (CSNAC) listed about 10 complaints that the NJC did not attend to. The new regulation is a reaction to the exposé.
“Does the NJC not know that every complainant has the fundamental right to freedom of expression which includes the right to impart knowledge and pass information to other people? Can the secretariat not leak information on a petition submitted to the NJC?”
Justifying the new policy direction, the NJC stated: “In recent times, there has been much concern by the public about the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the judicial system. In particular, there has been waning confidence in the performance of the superior courts in regard to justice delivery.
“Such concerns make it imperative to identify issues and problems militating against a credible justice delivery system that would command the confidence of the citizen.”
No comments:
Post a Comment