SUNDAY EJIKE and LANRE ADEWOLE delve into the rumblings in the Supreme Court over Tanko’s leadership style.
By the time the dust finally settles in the current imbroglio between the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Tanko Mohammed and the justices of the Supreme Court (14 in number) who wrote a damning petition, accusing the country’s top judicial officer of corruption, maladministration and incompetence in human and resource management, the nation’s judiciary, would have passed through a watershed, that is likely to determine the shape of things to come.
In the blistering petition, now in the public domain, the justices of the court, gave a withering account of their perception of Tanko’s accountability, probity, managerial ability, administrative competence and leadership sacrifices, hallmarks of a functional leadership, which they held, Tanko lacked.
In the viral letter, the justices, united in their opposition to Tanko’s leadership style, itemized their woes under him, queried his competence and fidelity to accountable leadership, demanded what they deemed their rights and concluded with a chilling warning that the worst might be ahead.
In concluding their grievances-laden treatise, Tanko’s colleagues issued a threat that was completely unprecedented in disputes among judicial officers in the country. They said, “It is either you quickly and swiftly take responsibility and address these burning issues or we will be compelled to (take) further steps immediately.”
In the opinions of the justices, the highest court in the land has shut down on Tanko’s watch and the never-seen-before action they took, in documenting their protest, is a concern to many stakeholders, that the aftermath of their revolution, may signal both the good and the bad, for the system.
History beckons?
While Justice Tanko isn’t the first sitting Chief Justice to be accused of corruption, or the first to be accused by a fellow judge, this is the first time in the known history of the apex court, that all the justices, would rise against a sitting CJN.
In the recent history of the court, corruption allegations had flown in-between Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, then-sitting CJN and his then-deputy, Justice Alfa Belgore, over a computerization project, one of them, was accused of awarding to a relative. While their spat didn’t get fully blown into the media like the current crisis between Tanko and his colleagues, a section of the media was brought into it, with Uwais, briefing selected journalists. At the parley which held at the conference hall of the CJN, he specifically mentioned names, which could not be published. Then President Olusegun Obasanjo waded in and the matter was settled between the top jurists..
Immediate CJN Walter Onnoghen, was however not as lucky as those before him. The alleged corruption scandal that plagued his short tenure, eventually consumed him, ushering in Tanko, also his deputy. Many however believed that Onnoghen lost his seat to politics, rather than alleged corruption. The controversy that claimed Onnoghen, many stakeholders believed, is akin to the crisis that led to the untimely exit of Justice Taslim Olawale Elias, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, sacked by the military regime of General Murtala Mohammed. Elias was in office, between 1972 and 1975.
In his account of the controversial sacking, Olusegun Obasanjo who was Murtala’s second-in-command said, in his book, ‘Not My Will’, “The judiciary had lost credibility and confidence in it, had greatly eroded when we came to government. A Nigerian eminent legal luminary confirmed the situation by saying that he had made up his mind to stop appearing in courts. The situation was that bad and a desperate situation requires a drastic action.
“His (Elias) management competence and integrity to administer the judiciary was called to question especially, as a result of the apparent muddle, confusion and ineptitude by the judiciary previously.
“One issue of integrity that was raised and the accusation against him was the empanelling of a Supreme Court body to hear the appeal of a land case brought by the Chief Justice’s brother on which the Chief Justice was alleged to have sat, and he chaired that panel which decided in favour of his brother. If it was right legally, we considered it improper and offensive to public morality.
“We considered his capacity to administer the judiciary thereby impaired. He would not be able to move along with the new order and new dispensation. He had to be relieved of his assignment.
“It was made known to me by a colleague of Justice Taslim Elias much later after my period in government that Dr. Elias could lose his sense of propriety on issues involving his brother who was his great mentor. This could possibly explain his behavior in this respect.”
After the backlash the new regime suffered over the sacking, two months later, the military government wrote the secretariat of the International Court of Justice, proposing Elias as the Nigerian candidate for the election for African seat on the court.
Explaining the decision years later, Obasanjo said, “It was in consideration of Justice Taslim Elias’ distinguished status as a jurist, if not as an administrator and a good manager of judicial establishment and to indicate that our intentions were based purely on the fact as we saw them, that we recommended him for appointment into the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Not only did we recommend him, we also fought to get him elected against other African candidates who were nominated well ahead of him.”
The verdict of history is against the sacking.
Poor funding, our bane —CJN’s aide
Ahuraka Yusuf Isah, the media aide to the embattled Chief Justice Tanko, in an op-ed on the crisis, said, “The problem of judges’ salaries, allowances and other entitlements, was prompted by lumping them in the ’’Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2008’’.
For about 15 years the Federal Government is yet to review it or single them out for upward review. The stagnant salaries and allowances being received by judges, triggered the judiciary or the Supreme Court to devise payment of other allowances to supplement and cushion its adverse effect.
“The courts are not revenue-making institutions, hence they depend on yearly budgetary allocations to pay statutory justices’ salary and allowances contained in the Act mentioned above and supplementary allowances such as the ones the Supreme Court Justices are demanding for.
“To say all is not well with budgetary allocation to the judiciary since 2015 is to say a little. Despite the outcry in the Judiciary over the declining budget share for the Third Arm of Government, curiously, President Muhammadu Buhari’s first Appropriation Act was to reduce previous figure he met by allocating N70 billion budget for the entire nation’s Judiciary in the 2016 fiscal year. This is N3 billion lower than the N73 billion appropriated for the Judiciary in 2015.
“By 2017 fiscal year, judiciary’s budget was increased to N100 billion, and in 2018, it was also increased to N110 billion, but remained N110 billion in 2019, 2020 and 2021; in other words, the judiciary budget remained the same or N110 billion, for four consecutive years. Reluctantly, it was increased to N120 billion for the current or 2022 fiscal year.”
He also did comparative analysis to underscore his point on alleged poor funding of the sector, being at the root-cause of the current crisis.
According to Isah, “A cursory glance at budget figures in the referenced period shows that while the country’s budget witnessed a geometric incremental pattern annually, including that of the Executive bodies and the National Assembly, the third arm of government saw a slow but steady paralysis, brought about by a downward trend in its yearly allocation.
“Indeed it has been debilitated by this funding gap. Why do I say this? Well the figures tell the story once again. Let us examine this poser- while the 2011 allocation to the Judiciary represented 2.2% of that year’s budget, in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, the nation’s budget shares for the Judiciary were 1.7%, 1.3%, 1.3% and 1.6% respectively. The N70 billion budgeted for the Judiciary in 2016 (out of the N6.08 trillion total proposals) is 1.1%. The 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 budgetary figures for the judiciary have been declining to below 1.0% just as that of the 2021 fiscal year budget of N110 billion out of a total budget of N13.08 trillion is 0.84%.
“This is because, while the nation’s total budget increases that of the third arm of government remains constant at N110 billion. The former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed had raised the alarm during 2015 All Nigeria Judges’ Conference noting that the waning budgets for the Judiciary do not only impoverish the third arm of government but would invariably make it less independent, contrary to the intent and provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
‘It is a source of great concern that in a country where an arm of Government is appropriated with less than one percent of the National Budget, it is difficult to refer to our Judiciary as being truly independent’, the then-CJN said.”
The writer exonerated his principal, but acknowledged the stunning development in the system, would haunt it for years.
He further wrote in the op-ed to The Jury, “It is no longer what prompted Supreme Court Justices to write a letter of demands to the CJN (that is) agitating some minds but what informed the making of the letter.
It’s highly likely to haunt the apex court for years to come
“On June 9, 2019 when President Buhari formally wrote to accept Justice Onnoghen’s resignation letter, the President also asked the then Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Tanko Muhammad, to initiate the process of appointing four new justices of the Supreme Court.
“Consequently, the National Judicial Council on October 24, 2019 recommended the appointment of Justices Adamu Jauro (North-East); Emmanuel A. Agim (South-South); C. Oseji (South-South); and Helen M. Ogunwumiju (South-West).
“On November 6, 2020, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Tanko Muhammad, swore in eight new justices of the Supreme Court. Besides, not less than 60 justices of the Court of Appeal and Federal High Court were appointed in 2021.
“The additional Supreme Court justices being appointed, require spaces as their chambers, which must be equipped with books, equipment, aides and logistics. This also applies to the justices of the other Federal Courts who were appointed the same year. All that were captured in the judiciary budget proposal which the Federal Budget Office overlooked. With the increasing burden and static judiciary budget at N110 billion, how anyone expects the third arm of government to survive the starvation is better imagined.”
We aren’t independent —Ahuraka
Despite the autonomy, judiciary’s yearly appropriations are hardly released as when due, claimed Isah, adding that the sector is always seeking cash backing.
He also claimed that, “The most disturbing aspect of the whole saga is that the judiciary has always itemized the statutory duties it wanted to carry out during any fiscal year, but the executive, through its window budgeting policy would (always) hand over any budgetary figure it deems fit, to the judiciary.
“For instance, a budget proposal of about N188 billion was submitted to the Budget Office for 2021 fiscal year. But at the end of the day a budget envelop of N110 billion, was announced by President Buhari.
His government has neither reviewed judges’ salaries, retired judges’ pensions nor adequately appropriated funds under any fiscal year to the judiciary.”
Lawyers back judges
A human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome, told The Jury that the demand by the justices of the Supreme Court was, “very apt and overdue”, adding that they are suffering in silence in the name of judicial discipline and comportment.
“They die in silence by installments and yet pretend all is well even when their house is on fire” he posited.
To the constitutional lawyer, “They have done the right thing by confronting the head of the judiciary who relates directly with the Heads of the other two arms of government. The law certainly permits it. It is part of their constitutional right to peaceful assembly, association, protection of their dignity and right to adequate remuneration for work done”.
According to Ozekhome, the inadequate welfare for judges, adversely affects justice delivery and leads to corruption in the judiciary, as they wait for politicians to have their fingers on the baked national cake.
Bola Aidi is a constitutional lawyer of many years. In his reaction to the face-off, his support was for the Justices.
Aidi, who bemoaned their poor working conditions said, if their entitlements are not reviewed to reflect the reality of the nation’s current economy, the quality of judgements that would emanate from the apex court, will drop.
He said, “The fact that justices are now writing the CJN, asking for a review of their salaries and emoluments, is largely a failure on the part of the Bar.
“The Bar is supposed to be the one anchoring and doing something on behalf of the Bench. Ordinarily, the Bench is not supposed to advocate for anything. The Bar is the one that normally advocates on behalf of the Bench, especially, as it relates to issues that affect the Bench.
“But where for a very long period of time, the Bar is not doing anything, to ensure an improvement in the welfare of the Bench, there is nothing wrong if the Justices now decided to take a step, I don’t think there is anything wrong about that. There is no law that says that they cannot write to the CJN to take a step towards making sure that their salaries and allowances are reviewed.
“More so, when you see that the Salaries and Wages Commission is reviewing salaries and allowances of political leaders, almost every four years. They keep reviewing their salaries and emoluments and the third arm of the government, which is the judiciary, which is doing the bulk of the work of democracy, is being kept away from what to keep them afloat.
“This democracy cannot survive without the judiciary playing the crucial role it is playing. So, if you want them to play the role assigned to them beautifully, we must make provision that is commensurate with their responsibility.
and then