Reign of ‘billionaire’ tribunal judges

Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed

APPROPRIATELY, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmud Mohammed, reminded members of the Election Tribunals he inaugurated in Abuja early this month of the judiciary’s shameful role in the past, which undermined the country’s democracy. The judges, who are to serve as chairmen and members of the tribunals in the 36 states for the rescheduled general election, were warned to be at opposite poles with politicians and political parties to avoid compromising their integrity. Avoid their gifts and illicit communications, even with their lawyers, the CJN warned.

He said, “We must never again be used as tools to truncate our nation’s democracy. I assure you that any judge found wanting would only have himself or herself to blame as the National Judicial Council will definitely not spare the rod in ensuring that the honour, respect and independence of the judiciary are protected.”

Indeed, Mohammed’s concern is not without basis. Nothing brought this impunity to a spectacular climax than what the late Justice of the Supreme Court, Kayode Eso, referred to as “billionaire judges,” after the 2007 elections. The fraud that hallmarked the elections of that year was condemned by international observers as the worst ever experienced. For evidence, look no further than the seven governorship results the Supreme Court annulled.

In one of the most bizarre cases that the House of Representatives once threatened to probe, a state governor, whose identity was not disclosed, reportedly paid N2 billion to tribunal members for his purported victory to be upheld. It was against this background that some concerned stakeholders called for a panel to probe these judges.

Regrettably, both the political and judicial authorities at the time were indifferent. Most disturbing about this decadence is the fact that some retired senior members of the Bench, under the guise of being “legal consultants,” became the middlemen between the litigants and the corrupt tribunal members.

No one is under any illusion that the country has seen the last of this abuse. But the tribunal judges can live above board by restricting themselves to the provisions of Section 138 of the Electoral Act 2010, which spell out the grounds for a petition to be brought for hearing.

The section deals with persons not qualified to contest an election; invalidation of the poll by corrupt practices; a respondent not duly elected by majority of lawful votes; unlawful exclusion of validly nominated candidates and an act or omission contrary to the provisions of the Act.

Yet, some tribunals had in the past ignored all this, and relied on superfluous considerations to give judgements to the chagrin of Nigerians. On this score, the CJN warned that “… the tribunal is not a court of vain inquisition.” Mohammed’s homily to the 242 tribunal judges and the concern of Nigerians would not have been necessary, if the NJC had been firm and decisive in dealing with corruption in the judiciary. The ritual of just easing out corrupt judges from office when adjudged corrupt has to stop. When these compromised judges get only a slap on the wrist, and thereafter go home to enjoy their ill-gotten wealth, it promotes, rather than eviscerates, the vice from the system. This was what happened with some errant judges that handled 2003 election petitions.

As Itse Sagay, a law professor and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, once said, “The number of rogue judges who have completely gone out of line with the rules and ethics of the profession has increased tremendously.” Today, this is a sing-song of many members of the Nigerian Bar Association, the body of Benchers and the larger society. Disappointingly, nobody is bold enough to name names. As a result, the rot continues to erode the credibility of our justice delivery system, with dangerous consequences for the society.

The development raises larger questions about our values. A more impartial judiciary is a more trusted Bench. No amount of reprimands or sacking of judges who abuse the granting of ex parte motions and discretionary powers would bring sanity to the system, without recourse to the golden rule of crime and punishment. This has been a hard nut to crack here because the legal profession jealously protects its own. This is tantamount to sacrificing the moral wellbeing of the nation and justice, on the altar of the professional ego of a few.

As a matter of fact, nothing could be more criminal and damaging to a society than purchasing justice. In the United States, Thomas Spargo, a judge, was jailed for 27 months in New York for attempted extortion and bribery of $10,000.

In justifying the action, Richard Pilger, the prosecutor, told the presiding judge that a strong message had to be sent that “corruption in a judge’s seat does not go unpunished,” and that, “without a legal system free of impropriety, nothing works.” This is the only paradigm that makes sense in cleansing the desecrated temple of justice in Nigeria.

The CJN, therefore, must walk his talk. Making a clean break from the empty rhetoric of his predecessors is a patriotic duty on which he should not waver.