Let me state that, while I have no interest in joining issues with anybody, and I do agree that not just the Judiciary, but the legal profession as a whole, and most other sectors and institutions in Nigeria, even the family, require deep cleansing and possibly, a reset; but, in trying to do these repairs and moral rearmament, constructive, and not destructive criticism is required. The latter’s name is self-explanatory – it is destructive and counterproductive, achieving nothing but the enhancement of toxicity in more ways than we can count, all over the country. 

I recall seeing something on social media during the Buhari administration, in which Malam Nasiru El-Rufai had been asked why, as Governor of Kaduna State, he had made a u-turn on his stand about paying ransom to kidnappers to free abductees. Before his tenure as Governor and as a strong member of the opposition, Malam El-Rufai had stated that Government must do whatever it takes to free victims. As Governor, he recanted and said Government must not pay ransom to kidnappers. He then added that, even if the incumbent Government is doing well, as the opposition, they criticise their policies even if they are good! This type of attitude which is what we see from disgruntled Politicians and those who have an axe to grind, is unhelpful, dangerous, destructive criticism. Such critics use it as a means to discredit and breed enmity between the public and those who they criticise, in order to sway the hearts of the same people to their own side. Certainly, the goals of betterment that should be achieved, will not be reached by disgruntled Politicians, ethnic ‘gingoists’ (pretending that they are fighting for the implementation of Federal Character as per Section 13(3) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, when they were silent when their own ethnic groups held the best positions), those who have an axe to grind because the 2023 elections didn’t favour their candidates, and rumour mongers spreading falsehood and bile to the unknowing public, igniting the flames of hatred and generally heating the polity. And, this is certainly not what Nigeria needs. 

For instance, the Hausa/Fulani (though different are lumped as one), Igbo and Yoruba ethnic groups, have always been considered to be the three major ethnic groups in Nigeria. Take for example, INEC, FEDECO, ECN, or whichever name the Nigerian Electoral Commission has been known by. From its establishment in 1959 to date, the Commission has never been headed by a Yoruba man. Someone had told me that the rationale behind INEC, was that none of these aforementioned three majority ethnic groups should ever head the Commission, to allow for better objectivity/impartiality from the Head of the Commission. But, when this rule was broken in 1989 and 2005 by appointing two Igbos as INEC Chairmen, Prof Humphrey Nwosu and Prof Maurice Iwu respectively, I don’t remember hearing any outcry against it, at least, not concerning their ethnicity. Similarly, in the last 15 years, the Commission has been headed by Prof Attahiru Jega and then Prof Mahmood Yakubu who is about to complete his second term (first in INEC’s history to do two terms), both possibly Hausa/Fulani. If President Tinubu appoints a Yoruba man as INEC Chairman, he will be accused of ‘Yorubanisation’, even though out of the three major ethnic groups and the three Southern zones, the Yorubas (Southwest) are the only ones who have never been appointed as INEC Chairman. But, my question is, how progressive is this kind of thinking? Should it be about tribe, or the brightest and the best for the job? I believe that the latter is the correct answer, whatever the person’s ethnic origin. 

And, before anybody goes up in arms to say that they could use the same argument that the Southeast hasn’t yet produced a President in this Republic, we cannot ignore the fact that election and appointment are two different things. And, it appears that Politicians in the major political parties, including those of Igbo origin, aren’t committed to producing an Igbo President. The Igbo Presidential Aspirants must emerge from party primaries as the Presidential candidates of the major parties. If this had been the case in the 2022 PDP and APC Primaries, the electorate would have voted for one or the other Igbo candidate. Unfortunately, even the Igbo delegates in these two parties didn’t vote for their people!

Unsubstantiated Allegations Against the JSC

On Friday, I saw a post made by a platform called “The Nigeria Lawyer” on social media, citing posts by Prof Chidi Odinkalu accusing a Justice of the Supreme Court (JSC) of impropriety for being at Protea Hotel, Edo State, and allegedly being in the company of the Edo State Attorney-General, coinciding with the time when an appeal was  lodged at the Supreme Court against the Edo State Governor by the PDP Candidate, following the Edo State Gubernatorial election. The video of the gentleman who was allegedly named as the JSC, circulated to buttress the point was unclear, and even though the silhouette of a man could be seen, the identity of the man couldn’t be properly ascertained in the video that made the rounds. And, even if indeed, it was the JSC in the video, it was clear that his arrival at the place was in broad day light, and that he was alone, not in the company of anybody. 

My first observation is that, it is interesting that the video that is strangely being used to push a narrative that the JSC went to meet AG Edo for some shady meeting in the night, showed only a man during the daytime, and not two people, the man and the AG. If the video was meant to corroborate the narrative that was posted about the JSC, it did not, at least not for me, a Lawyer of almost 34 years standing, or any Lawyer worth his salt, as the video doesn’t even reach the level of circumstantial evidence. It only showed that the man in the video, even if it was the JSC, arrived at a place. 

In Ayinde v State (2023) LPELR-60153 (SC) per Amina Adamu Augie, JSC the Supreme Court held that “…the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling, and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Prisoner, and no one else, is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the Accused, and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt”. I submit that the video posted by Prof Odinkalu, certainly does not meet the threshold set in Ayinde v State (Supra) – it wasn’t cogent, compelling, unequivocal or complete – far from it! Aside from the fact that it only showed that the person in the video entered a lobby, and certainly proves nothing but the fact that he entered the place, the statement which has since been issued by the Supreme Court that the JSC had sought and obtained the permission of the CJN to attend a funeral in Benin, trumps any other unsubstantiated hypothesis proffered by Prof Odinkalu. 

I recall that when the Supreme Court judgement in Sunday Jackson’s murder case was delivered, Prof Odinkalu issued a statement in which, like so many others, he showed his dissatisfaction with the decision affirming Mr Jackson’s conviction for killing Mr Bawuro, a Fulani Herdsman. In his submission on the Jackson case, Prof Odinkalu made a statement which showed that he didn’t verify his facts fully, nor could he have read the 5 judgements in the case, or that, if he did, he preferred to suppress the fact that the Head of the Panel, Hon. Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC had delivered a dissenting judgement allowing Mr Jackson’s appeal, setting aside his conviction and recommending that the Adamawa Governor exercise the prerogative of mercy in his favour. Instead, Prof Odinkalu stated thus: “The miracle in this case, is how the court reached a unanimous judgement”; this part of his submission, was absolutely false. In a bid to bash the Supreme Court, spread bile and further turn the public against the Judiciary, Prof Odinkalu, didn’t mind disseminating a lie. What veracity can we then attach to his statements without proof or irresistible circumstantial evidence, if he is able to disseminate a blatant falsehood which could easily be verified by reading the judgements in Jackson’s case?

Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Federal Republic of Nigeria

Though the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Federal Republic of Nigeria 2016 (CCJO) may be considered to be somewhat of a derogation from some of the fundamental rights guaranteed Nigerians, such as Sections 39(1), 40 & 41(1) of the Constitution, that is, freedom of expression, association and movement (also see Section 45(1) of the Constitution and Rule 5 of the CCJO), as it has robust rules regulating the behaviour of judicial officers in Nigeria, the rules are designed to uphold the integrity of judicial office. If attending the funeral of the Mother of a recent President of the African Bar Association with the permission of CJN (see Rule 14.3 of the CCJO) is considered to be controversial by Prof Odinkalu and the Nigeria Lawyer, because Justices are no longer allowed to travel nor visit places for fear that they may run into litigants that have cases in their courts, then all judicial officers should never go anywhere, even the hospital or places of worship, aside from sitting in their courts! 

There is obviously a remedy for this in Rule 12.1 of the CCJO, which allows judicial officers to disqualify themselves from cases in which their impartiality can genuinely be questioned. Litigants may also apply to Heads of Court for their matters to be reassigned, where they allege bias on the part of the Judge. In the 2019 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal at the Court of Appeal, that is, Atiku Abubakar v Muhammadu Buhari, the then President of the Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa voluntarily withdrew from sitting on the Panel, or maybe not so voluntarily, because the Petitioner had also applied for her Lordship to recuse herself from the case because her husband and son were card-carrying members of the APC, and at the time, her husband was also a Senator-elect on the APC platform. See the case of R v Sussex Justices Ex parte McCarthy 1924 1 K.B. 259 where the Court held that “Justice must not only be done, but also seen as done”. Also see Rafiu Womiloju & Ors v Ogisanyin-Anibire & Ors (2010) LPELR-3503(SC) per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC (later CJN) on what must be established to prove allegations of likelihood of bias. 

Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners

Part IV of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 (LPA) Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (RPC) sets out how the Legal Practitioner should conduct relations with the court, and Section 31(1) thereof provides that a Lawyer shall treat the court with respect, dignity and honour. The RPC, nevertheless, recognises the fact that a Lawyer can have a complaint against a judicial officer, and provides that such complaint should be made to the appropriate authorities (see Section 31(2) of the RPC), instead of scandalising judicial officers in public without ample evidence. 

As Lawyers, Officers in the Temple of Justice, it is not only our duty but our training, not to be reckless in our utterances, and refrain from hurling false/unsubstantiated allegations at people/judicial officers which may tend to damage their reputation, bringing them down in the estimation of right thinking members of society without proof, when we know that, in law, this is called defamation. They may even be attacked physically by members of the public, with these kinds of unproven/false damaging narratives. In Emmanuel v Felix & Ors (2022) LPELR-57960(CA) per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JCA (as he then was) the Court of Appeal held thus: “The tort of defamation aims at punishing and thereby, discouraging the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person. The Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition defines defamation as ”the act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person. A false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation”. 

Conclusion 

It appears that by their utterances and publications, Prof Odinkalu and the Nigeria Lawyer have issued defamatory statements against the JSC and the Supreme Court. A person who wasn’t shy to push a false narrative that the Sunday Jackson judgement which was a split decision, was unanimous, just to disparage the Supreme Court, would be only too glad to disseminate any photos or videos of a clandestine meeting between the JSC and Edo AG if indeed, any such thing exists. The video circulated, goes to no issue. This is not to say that the Supreme Court, all JSCs or all judicial officers are perfect. No. Judicial officers need to take their judicial oath and the CCJO more seriously, as indeed, there are bad eggs within their ranks – some corrupt, some inept. But, my point is that, we cannot tar everybody with the same brush of iniquity, or frame them with guilt without proof, simply to scandalise them. Such destructive behaviour only further erodes public confidence in the Judiciary, and does absolutely nothing to improve it.

A good deal of bad behaviour perpetrated by Lawyers, especially the Senior ones – forum shopping; filing multiple actions; filing frivolous cases (see Section 14(1), (2)(e) & 32 of the RPC) and bringing the courts into odium and opprobrium with their abusive statements, particularly when they lose a case, qualify not just as defamation, but also as professional misconduct/infamous conduct – see Section 11 of the LPA on penalties for unprofessional conduct. Maybe when the LPDC becomes more up and doing in its duty to deal with erring legal practitioners, will we begin to see restraint and better behaviour from Lawyers. 

The way to bring about positive reform of the Judiciary, is not by spreading rumours. Holistic measures must be taken, including creating a better, transparent recruitment process of judicial officers based on merit and integrity, while the NJC must concentrate on instilling discipline and not sparing erring judicial officers. And, the way to bring about progress in the country, is not by entrenching ethnic division, but rather, by pooling our resources together, and united, facing the issues that confront us as a country. After all, poverty and hunger, are not tribalistic – they affect everyone.