Angry judges endure tough governmental challenges

FOR some time to come, Nigerians will remember the Muhammadu Buhari presidency for, among other things, its uneasy relationship with the judiciary. The times are unusual, and to remedy the damage done to the country by those who have exploited loopholes to destroy the country’s financial system, the government and its law enforcement and anti-graft agencies have felt impelled to enact and execute desperate remedies. In its response to these desperate remedies, the judiciary perches on the horns of a dilemma.

They are aware of the popularity of the government’s desperate measures, but they are also sworn to dispense justice in accordance with the law, whether that law is weak or not, adequate or not. The government is not similarly discomfited. As this column noted many months back, its leading lights know how popular their measures are and have remained. More keenly, they also recognise that many provisions of the law, which they privately scorn, are unable to accommodate the strong-arm tactics needed to compel suspects to disgorge the loot they have ferried away with freakish, cartoonish delight.

How the judiciary and the Buhari presidency resolve this irritating dilemma will determine how successful the campaigns against financial malfeasance are, and what lasting impact they would leave on the future of Nigeria in terms of social, financial and political stability. So far, if signals are not misread, there is little to indicate that the impact would be lasting or salutary. Both arms of government would therefore need to find common grounds anchored on the constitution and the law to develop and fine-tune approaches that would have such salutary impact. If they do not find that common ground, the conflict between the two arms will continue, and probably fester to the point of damaging the polity and encouraging self-help, an attitude already evident in most parts of the country among various competing and conflicting ethnic and religious groups.

In July alone, three judges demonstrated how angry they were at the manner some government agencies were carrying out their constitutional responsibilities. Case one involves an aide of Governor Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State, Abiodun Agbele who was detained between July 1 and July 21. Arrested around June 27 by the EFCC for his alleged role in laundering N1.2bn on behalf of the Ekiti governor, according to reports, he was awarded five million naira as damages for wrongful and illegal detention. An angry Justice Olukayode Adeniyi of the Federal Capital Territory High Court condemned what he described as EFCC’s ‘gross abuse of powers’ and ‘arrogant display of executive might’. The EFCC in turn described the judgement as curious.

Case two involves retired Air Commodore Umar Mohammed who was ordered remanded in prison custody by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal Capital Territory High Court. The retired air force officer, who was a member of the presidential committee on arms procurement, had been arraigned for money laundering and other charges. But instead of keeping him in prison custody, the Department of State Service (DSS), which arraigned him, kept him in their own custody for days presumably to complete some paper work. An incensed Justice Dimgba lashed out at the DSS, saying: “I take a strong exception to this type of behaviour; when the court orders that someone be kept in prison custody, the person ought to be kept in prison and not in the office. If the people at the DSS want to become judge and do their job as well, I am ready to vacate my office for them, but as long as I am still here, I take an exception to them flouting the orders of the court. Once processes have been filed in court, it is no longer in their hands, and the order of the court must be obeyed.” There was no punishment meted out to the DSS operatives who flouted the order, not even a censure, nor a query, nor a slap on the wrist.

Case three is strictly speaking not a part of the arms scandal trials. It was a regular corruption case which drew the ire of the trial judge, Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye of a Lagos State High Court, Ikeja. She also had very harsh words for the EFCC and the commission’s lawyer, Babatunde Sonaiki. “It appears that you are keen on taking the laws into your hands,” she told the EFCC counsel. “Why would you go before another court for this kind of order (a forfeiture order) when the matter is before me? This kind of action is what is giving the judiciary a bad name.” The EFCC had recklessly engaged in what the judge described as forum shopping to get an order it was unable to secure from her court.

Another earlier case involving Col Nicholas Ashinze, an aide of the former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col Sambo Dasuki (retd), outraged a judge. This column drew attention to it last May. The colonel had been admitted to bail, but the EFCC ignored the order and kept their quarry. Furious, Justice Yusuf Halilu, the trial judge, blurted out: “The EFCC is a creation of the law. The court will not allow it to act as if it is above the law. It is remarkable to note that the motto of the EFCC is that nobody is above the law, yet they are acting as if they are above the law. The EFCC Act is not superior to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The respondents in this matter have not behaved as if we are in a civilised society. They have behaved as if we are in a military dictatorship, where they arrest and release persons at will. The respondents, I must be bold to say the EFCC and the Army have behaved like illiterates.”

The anger of the judges is not surprising. They were not wrong to feel besieged by the government’s brusque manner of relating with a judiciary they had at various fora and in trenchant words described as equally corrupt as the suspects they were defending. If lasting and impactful progress in the anti-graft war is to be achieved, the government must find a better way to fight the war lawfully. After all, the executive arm has the leeway to propose a welter of reforms in the judiciary to expedite court processes, engender efficiency in the courts, and remunerate judges in such a manner as to sustain them above the proverbial suspicion of Caesar’s wife. The government can’t hope to put the cart before the horse and expect a miracle.

Just as the legislature is not perfect and is in need of urgent reforms and cleansing, both the executive and the judiciary also share in the blame of poor justice delivery and destabilisation of the country’s economy and politics. Rather than engage in blame game, the Buhari presidency must be persuaded to recognise the limits of throwing caviar to the general as it has unwisely done so far. With the people on its side, sensibly or otherwise, and with the legislature fairly amenable to passing relevant laws to quicken the pace of justice delivery, the government should seize the opportunity to formulate policies and programmes that are capable of sustaining the effort to bequeath a better and cleaner judiciary to future generations. But should the government and its agents keep on seeing the struggle with the judiciary as a sanctimonious fight for the upper hand, they would only succeed in passing the nuisance on to coming generations.

Source: nation