Court dismisses suit accusing acting CJN of age falsification

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, on Friday, dismissed a suit filed by a businessman, Tochi Michael, against the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, over alleged falsification of age.

This is even as the court slammed a N10 million fine on the counsel for the plaintiff and ordered the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to commence a disciplinary action against him with a view to removing his name from the list of lawyers in the country.

The plaintiff had dragged the acting CJN before Justice Danlami Senchi sitting at Jabi, Abuja, alleging that the CJN deliberately falsified his date of birth.

In the originating summons with suit number FCT/HC/CV/79/2019, filed before the court in April, Michael alleged that the CJN falsified his date of birth from December 31, 1950 as contained in all his official records, including that of WAEC, to December 31, 1953 upon his appointment as a judicial officer.

The plaintiff prayed the court to determine whether such an act of the CJN did not constitute perjury, falsification and forgery.

He further asked the court to determine whether by falsifying his date of birth upon being appointed to the Nigerian Bench as a judicial officer, Justice Muhammad had not breached the constitution.

The plaintiff also prayed the court to determine whether Justice Muhammad had not breached the Code of Conduct for judicial officers and consequently brought the image of Nigerian judiciary to disrepute and odium.

• Court dismisses Falana’s suit against National Assembly

In the reliefs he sought before the court, Michael asked for a declaration that the defendant falsified his date of birth and that the defendant had desecrated the Nigerian constitution.

He further sought an order directing the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to prosecute the acting CJN for the offence of perjury and any further order which the court might deem fit.

Delivering judgment in the suit on Friday, Justice Senchi stated that although the plaintiff and his counsel were served with hearing notices on May 19, 21 and 24, respectively when the matter came up for hearing, they failed to show up in court.

He stated that although the plaintiff filed a notice of discontinuance, dated May 20, on May 24 after the court had adjourned for ruling/judgment in the matter, mere filing did not constitute discontinuance.

According to him, the plaintiff had to serve the notice on the respondent, declaring that there was no affidavit before the court showing service of the notice on the respondent.

He, therefore, held that the notice of discontinuance before the court was of no effect, adding that the notice was filed to arrest the decision of the court on the matter.

The judge stated that by the tone of the letter of discontinuance, the plaintiff did not seek the leave of the court to discontinue the matter. He subsequently dismissed the notice.

Addressing the issue of locus standi raised by the counsel for the acting CJN, Sam Ologunorisa (SAN), Justice Senchi described the plaintiff as a meddlesome interloper and a busybody on a voyage.