A judge at work

Through two judgments, Justice Adebukola Banjoko of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court has raised the bar in the anti-corruption battle. She jailed former Governors Jolly Nyame (Taraba) and Joshua Dariye (Plateau) for corruption on May 30 and June 12 without fine options. Since then, the public has been hailing her “uncommon courage”. Who is Justice Banjoko? ERIC IKHILAE profiles her and reviews her verdicts on the Nyame and Dariye cases. Thirteen days separated their convictions by the same judge whose profile is rising in judicial cycles. It marked the first time former governors would be jailed without fine. Former Governors Jolly Nyame (Taraba), a reverend, and Joshua Dariye (Plateau), a senator, were jailed by Justice Adebukola Banjoko of the Federal Capital Territory High Court on May 30 and June 12. Nyame was found guilty of corruption and was jailed for 28 years. Dariye got 16 years imprisonment for the same offence. Behind the scenes The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Gudu, Abuja, hardly attracts  attention and heavy human traffic. The two-storey court building shares a fence with the FCT Upper Area Court. Both structures are surrounded by mostly partially-developed properties and undeveloped plots on which artisans, mainly mechanics, ply their trades. The only major road to the area is tarred up to the court’s entrance. The other stretch of the road and others around the court are untarred. Human traffic in and around the court is usually low, perhaps, because of the rural nature of its location. The court drew the flak on January 28, 2013 when Justice Abubakar Talba gave what some described as a controversial judgment. Justice Talba convicted a former senior official in the Police Pension Office, John Yakubu Yusufu, who, following a plea bargain with the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal misappropriation. By his plea, Yusufu, who was charged under Section 309 of the Penal Code Act, admitted misappropriating about N24 billion from the Police Pension Fund. In exercising his discretion, Justice Talba sentenced Yusufu to two years’ imprisonment with a N250,000 fine option per count. The convict paid N750,000 after being convicted for diverting billions of pensioners’funds. The decision sparked comments that resonated outside the country. The public wondered how Justice Talba exercised his judicial discretion. Justice Talba’s decision was set aside by the Court of Appeal on March 21. About five years after that decision, Justice Banjoko is setting the court astir again, but in a different manner. Justice Banjoko shares the ground floor of the building with Justice Talba, their courts adjacent to each other. Her May 30 and June 12 verdicts on Nyame and Dariye portray her as a judge with zero tolerance for corruption. At the end of his trial that lasted about 11 years, Nyame was sentenced to 28 years imprisonment without option of fine. He was arraigned in July 2007 on a 41-count charge of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. He challenged the court’s jurisdiction up to the Supreme Court and lost. Justice Banjoko convicted Nyame on 27 counts and freed him on 14 counts, which she said the prosecution failed to prove. The breakdown of the sentence is: 14 years upon conviction for the offence of criminal breach of trust; seven years for receiving gratification; five years for obtaining valuable public properties without consideration, and two years for criminal misappropriation. The second judgment by Justice Banjoko came on June 12, in the case of Senator Dariye. Dariye’s case also started in 2007 with his arraignment on a charge of 23 counts. He was charged with misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. It suffered similar delays until Dariye lost his challenge to the court’s jurisdiction at the Supreme Court last year. In her June 12 judgment, Justice Banjoko convicted Dariye on 15 counts relating to the offences of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation, and freed him on eight counts. The judge sentenced him to two years imprisonment for misappropriation and 14 years for criminal breach of trust, without  fine option. Both are to run concurrently. Incidentally, the three cases were prosecuted by a team of lawyers led by Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), who remained steadfast till the end. Even when the team was not happy with the judgment in the Yusufu case, it did not give up. It pursued its position until the Court of Appeal set the judgment aside. Also, the prosecution remained undaunted for the 11 years it had to prosecute Nyame and Dariye. And, as was the case on January 28, 2013, the court witnessed enhanced human traffic and heavy deployment of armed security personnel on May 30 and June 12. On both days, access to the court premises and, subsequently, to the courtroom was restricted. Every visitor was frisked. Armed security officials were around the court premises and in the courtroom. On both occasions, the majority of the audience comprised sympathisers of the defendants, who mostly made noise when pronouncements were made against the defendants. Who is Justice Banjoko? Unlike most judges of the FCT High Court whose profiles are published on the court’s website, Justice Banjoko’s and a few others, are not there. On its website, the court has about 36 judges, with the profiles of eight not there. Besides Justice Banjoko, others whose profiles are not there are Justices U. A. Musale, H. Y. Baba, F. A. Ojo, O. A. Adeniyi, O. A. Musa, V. V. M. Venda and M. E. Anenih. Justice Banjoko hails from Ogun State. She practised law for a while before her appointment as a Magistrate in Oyo State where she served between May 1997 and November 2003.  She left in 2003 as Chief Magistrate, Administration. In December 2003, she became a judge of the High Court of the FCT. She had her Bachelor of Law from the University of London, where she was between 1982 and 1985. She was at the Nigerian Law School between 1985 and 1986. The judge at work What is striking about Justice Banjoko, however, are her conduct and mannerism. She sounds soft and polite, friendly but strict. She also has this ability to remain involved in happenings in the courtroom and yet be detached at the same time. For instance, on entering into the court on June 12, she was slightly behind schedule. She sat at around 9.20 a.m. But, before settling down for business, she apologised to all for her “lateness” and took time to explain the delay. She smiled and beckoned on the defendant, who was standing in the dock, to sit down. Justice Banjoko ensures that proceedings in her court are recorded. This is not so in many courts. The most visible means is the smart digital audio recorder that is usually placed on the front desk close to the court clerk. She reads her decisions mostly from her laptop, placed on the desk, slightly to her right. Unlike most judges, who are often engrossed in the delivery of the court’s decisions, Justice Banjoko often appears relaxed. She smiles intermittently, interacts with lawyers sometimes and maintains a mobile gaze; shifting her attention from the computer to the lawyers, the court audience, the defendant, and then, back to what she is reading, and yet she is hardly distracted. Most instances where the audience reacts to a judge’ pronouncement, either by murmuring or gesticulation, judges are often distracted. Not Justice Banjoko. She carries on unperturbed and undistracted. However, on an occasion in Dariye’s case, she intervened. She did not rebuke the audience for distracting the court, but politely explained to the defendant and his sympathisers that the court and lawyers for the prosecution are not their enemies, but merely performing their professional responsibilities. “I have no personal animosity against anybody. I am just doing my job the way I know how,” she said. It was when Dariye’s supporters reacted angrily to Jacobs’ submission that the court should impose maximum sentence on the defendant in view of the negative effect of his conduct on the society, particularly his state. Dariye’s supporters, with some rising to their feet, insisted that Jacobs, who was not from Plateau State, could not have loved their state more than their son. This was shortly after the judge granted Dariye the opportunity to speak. Dariye, upon the judge’s permission, rose from his seat in the dock and, pointing at Jacobs, asked him (Jacobs) to temper justice with mercy and not to give the impression that he was not remorseful. An angry Dariye said: “How did you know what is in my mind? How can you say I am not remorseful? You are not God. Your name is Jacobs and so, as a Christian, you should temper justice with mercy. Let us not spoil tomorrow because of today.” As Dariye spoke, the mood in the courtroom suddenly became tense, with his supporters murmuring and pointing at the direction of the prosecution team. Justice Banjoko, who watched calmly and smiled while the exchanges lasted, intervened and calmed frayed nerves. Turning first to Dariye and then to the audience, she explained that the defendant was neither her enemy nor the prosecution’s, but that everyone was only carrying out his/her official responsibilities. On two occasions while delivering judgment in the case, she agreed to suspend proceedings following the defendant’s request to use the rest room. Many have also described her as ‘’cerebral’’ and ‘’analytical’’. Her decisions, they noted, are hardly upturned at the appellate court. In both decisions, she referred to various authorities from the United Kingdom and Australia, among others. Also, Justice Banjoko exhibited her brilliance in both judgments, to the satisfaction of all. Dariye’s lawyer Paul Erokoro (SAN), who led the team that appeared for him on the last day, also testified to her attributes. Erokoro, in his plea for mitigation of sentence,  said if it were to be another judge, he would have asked his client not to worry, with the hope that the judgment would be easily set aside on appeal. He added that it was always difficult to succeed on appeal against the judge’s judgment. He said he had tried it twice and failed. A sense of humour Justice Banjoko, sometimes, adds humour to proceedings. This came to light when, midway into her judgment, with everyone anxiously waiting for her to bring the proceedings to a close, having sat for over six hours, she paused. Her next move was funny. In an attempt to portray the conduct of some Plateau State officials, she recalled an old elementary school rhyme and sang a little of it, to the admiration of all. She sang the rhyme, which goes thus: “Pussy cat, pussy cat, where have you been? I have been to London to see the Queen…” to illustrate what she saw as the ignorance displayed by some Plateau State officials, who wasted the state’s resources on a futile trip to the United Kingdom (UK), ostensibly to protest to the UK Government about the state of emergency declared in their state by then President Olusegun Obasanjo. She also observed that some officials, who visited the UK during the defendant’s impeachment, to submit a letter of protest to Tony Blair about the state of emergency, failed to tell the court about the outcome of their fruitless trip when some of them testified for the defence. Justice Banjoko noted that the delegation to the UK, which included 20 members of the Plateau State House of Assembly, and then Commissioner for Information, Patrick Dapong, in July 2004 forgot that Nigeria is a sovereign state, which is not under any form of colonial rule. The judge said the trip was “absolutely a purposeless visit and a reckless squandering of public funds and exhibiting ignorance of international laws and norms.” She added that their mission could better be likened to the scenario painted in the rhyme. Away from Nyame, Dariye Justice Banjoko is not all about the two recent judgments. Before now she had handled some other high profile cases in which she made convictions. On February 8, she convicted six top officials of the Rural Electricity Agency (REA) and sentenced them to various jail terms for their involvement in the diversion of N5.2 billion. The convicts include former Managing Director Samuel Ibi, former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Power Dr. Abdullahi Aliyu, an accountant in REA Simon Kirdi Nanle, Director of Projects Kayode Orekoya, Assistant Director Abdusamad Garba Hahun  and Head of Legal Department Kayode Oyedeji. They were charged with criminal breach of trust and fraudulently awarding contract for Grid Extension and Solar Electricity from the amended 2008 budget of the REA. On April  8, Justice Banjoko convicted popular oil-marketer Jubril Rowaye and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for fraud involving about N1.05 billion perpetrated under the Petroleum Subsidy Fund scheme. Convicted with Rowaye were his company, Brilla Energy Limited, and another firm, Alminnur Resources Limited, to which the permit to import 10,000 metric tons of Premium Motor Spirit (petrol) into Nigeria was issued in 2011. But, Justice Banjoko is not all about jailing people. She has acquitted those who deserved it. She has also willingly withdrawn from handling cases when her integrity was called to question. An example was on November 18, 2014 when she withdrew from the trial of former Chairman, House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime, Farouk Lawan, and the committee’s Secretary, Boniface Emenalo, after being accused of bias. The judge, while justifying her decision to withdraw from the case, noted: “Justice is rooted in confidence.” She said since Lawan has expressed his lack of confidence in her court, she could no longer proceed to try the case. “In my 17 years on the bench – six-and-a-half years as a magistrate and 11 years as a judge – I have never been confronted with a scandalous challenge of my integrity. “In the prevailing circumstance, I do find it difficult to continue with this case. This case is returned to the Honourable Chief Judge for re-assignment,” the judge said. For Nyame and Dariye, all hope is not lost. They have the constitutional right of appeal up to the Supreme Court. If they are lucky, they could also get post-conviction bail, pending the outcome of their appeals. Culled from Nation]]>