LAST week witnessed a disruption in the politico-legal space of Nigeria. If there is any take away from the event that erupted in the country, it is the fact that Nigeria parades the highest number of Senior Advocates of Nigeria and barristers at law in the comity of nations; please, don’t ask me for any statistical evidence to this effect. You don’t need a calculator to calculate this. In fact, ours is a country where each “learned colleague” has his own distinct version of the constitution, and can therefore interpret it at will.
The whole issue began on the 7th of January 2019 when a civil society group, Anti-Corruption Research Based Data Initiative (ARDI) submitted a petition to the Code of Conduct Bureau alleging that the CJN of Nigeria, Chief Walter Onnoghen, is guilty of a number of improprieties. These improprieties border largely on false asset declaration and the receipt of bribes both in local and foreign currencies totaling billions of dollars, obviously to influence judgments.
Ever since then, the CJN had been in the eyes of the storm and the bone of contention until all speculations were put to rest as the C-in-C of Nigeria ordered his suspension on January 26 following an ex parte order from the CCB.
Most of those who argued against the action of the president describing it as a brazen coup cited the fact that the judiciary is an arm of the tripod structures on which democracy rests, not a branch of the executive. Thus, it is not subject to the authority of the executive. If there is any need to remove one of its principal officers, the procedures are well spelt out in the constitution. Thus, not conforming to these procedures will amount to a rape of the constitution dragging us back to the dark days of the khaki men. Imagine a situation where the president was suspended following the same curious pattern with scant regard for the rule of law! Is that not anarchy?
Counter-arguments had also ensued. Those who argued for the president’s action referred us to the mishap in the removal procedures contained in the constitution. How can a man who presides over a commission be subjected to that same commission for scrutiny, and consequently removal? “That would amount to a misfire,” they quipped. The result of such an action is clearly written on the wall. Also, how will a senate whose leader was alleged of spearheading the bribery enterprise in the case of the CJN be given the prerogative to effect the removal of the CJN?
Both parties are correct in their own rights. The former school of thought is correct from the legal prism. While the latter school of thought is not wrong from the moral perspective. On a normal ground, the CJN should have, in the sense of morality, resigned pending the time his case is heard and concluded by the Code of Conduct Tribunal. But here we are: the idea of presumption of innocence before conviction will not allow for this.
In all of these, there is something germane, our constitution needs complete overhaul. It is, in most cases, a major setback for the fight against corruption. Cases like this should have been thought of by our legislators, and an amendment should have come the way of our constitution to aid the fight against corruption. You cannot be the judge of your own case. But our legislators here are the dancing, singing and unserious types.
Abdullah Abdulganiy,
Ilorin.
and then