Nganjiwa’s acquittal: Verdict tragic, self-serving, says Prof Sagay

He said judges do not have immunity from prosecution for corruption. Sagay described the judgment as “a negative step”, adding that it was self-serving and not back by the Constitution or any law. He disagreed with the appellate court’s position that NJC must first discipline a judge before anti-graft agencies can step in. The law professor said: “That is purely self interest, self protection. There’s nowhere in the Constitution where that is stated. Yes, there is provision for disciplinary measures by NJC over judges, but there’s nowhere in the Constitution that judges are given immunity from interrogation, arrest and prosecution. Only the President, governors, the Vice President and deputy governors are given immunity. “This is a creative judgment. In other words, the judges are making law, although they have no power to do that – taking over the power of the legislature in order to protect themselves from the consequences of their own misconduct. That’s what has happened. Judges are now a special breed of Nigerians. “If you have a civil servant who can be interdicted in the civil service, is there any law that says he cannot be prosecuted? There’s no difference between a judge and a civil servant in this regard. They have their own internal cleansing system. “The NJC and the civil service have in-house provisions for dealing with their members. That does not affect the overall authority of the state. It’s contained both in the Constitution and in our criminal law. So, what they have done is not in the law. It is a new law made by themselves. It is wrong because they have taken over the duties of the legislature. “It’s just to protect themselves from the consequences of misconduct and it’s a tragedy. And it’s an aspect of the underdevelopment of Nigeria and its rule of law process.” Sagay said. Sagay said the examples cited by the Court of Appeal about the Presidency setting up a panel to probe members of the executive before the EFCC stepped in, was inapplicable. The PACAC chief explained: “Those do not apply. The fact that the Presidency decided to set up a panel does not mean that EFCC could not have gone after them, at all. It doesn’t mean that. All the examples they have given are wrong. There’s no example that can suspend the application of the Constitution and our criminal laws. None. “There are many occasions in which NJC was reluctant to discipline its men who have committed crimes, who have been corrupt or engaged in misconduct. For instance, in the case of Justice (Adeniyi) Ademola, before he was arrested, he was cleared by the NJC. There are tens of such cases, which NJC turned down petitions in which there were concrete reasons to believe that they (the judges) did something wrong. “Are they saying the state should fold its arms and be looking on, because they’re reluctant to do the right thing? “I think the judgment is completely against the rule of law and it’s against our whole administration of criminal justice system, because it promotes a group of people above the law. And it’s a negative step.”]]>