NJC’s recall of suspended judges

Reactions to the recent recall of some suspended judges by the National Judicial Council (NJC) have been somewhat mixed. While some aides of President Muhammadu Buhari were disappointed by the recall which they saw as further frustration of the administration’s anti-corruption fight by the judiciary, many Nigerians saw the NJC’s action as a welcome development that has corrected the hasty punishment of the judges and the violation of the presumption of innocence. It would be recalled that some judges were directed by the NJC to step aside from their duties in the wake of serious allegations of corruption levelled against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).  The NJC was practically pressured to abbreviate the presumption of innocence of the affected judicial officers by relieving them of their judicial duties  pending the conclusion of investigations or determination of the cases filed against them.   However, eight months down the line, many of the judges were reportedly yet to be formally charged in court and the only judge, Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court whose case has been concluded, has been discharged and acquitted of corruption charges by a trial court.

Against this backdrop, it is uncharitable to criticise the NJC for asking those who have not been charged to court and the person who has been given a clean bill of health to resume duties. Would it have been more appropriate for those judges who have been staying at home for eight months to continue to do so for as long as it took the anti-corruption agencies to file cases against them in the court?  Or should Justice Ademola be prevented from benefitting from the outcome of his case in court, especially when the judgment of the court in his favour has yet to be properly appealed? Even if the verdict of the trial court has been appealed by the EFCC, is an appeal tantamount to a stay of execution?  What has the anti-corruption agencies been doing for eight months that they could not build iron-clad cases against these judicial officers if indeed they have strong evidence against them? And why did the EFCC, in what seemed like a childish and afterthought, rush to court to file processes against the judges it did not charge to court for eight months now that the  NJC has recalled them  from suspension?

Sadly, many Nigerians wrongly thought that the EFCC’s job of prosecuting the judges would be simple given the items of evidential value allegedly recovered from some of them when their homes were raided some months ago by the operatives of the State Security Service (SSS) also known as the Department of State Services (DSS). Instead of allowing the NJC to exercise  its constitutional disciplinary control since the affected persons are judges of superior courts of record, the SSS and EFCC intervened. The SSS in particular is till date yet to establish a nexus between the alleged corrupt practices by the judges and the breach or potential impairment of national security which could have provided justification for its intervention.  Ironically, the Presidency that is accusing the NJC of not being on board with it in the fight against corruption has allegedly failed to act on the recommendations of the NJC to it to dismiss or compulsorily retire some judicial officers who were found guilty of corrupt practices.

Nevertheless, since there was no case against the judges, the NJC was perfectly in order to have recalled them. It would have been immoral, oppressive and even illegal to keep the judges in suspense indefinitely.  To do that in addition to the public odium, humiliation and media trial they had suffered after the raid of their homes and the seemingly malicious public disclosure of alleged incriminating items found by the DSS would have been tantamount to adding insult to injury.  The recalled judges should be allowed to resume and attend to their duties without let or hindrance.  After all, there are senior officials in the other arms of government who are still carrying on with their official duties while undergoing trial for alleged corrupt practices.

It is still rather curious that for eight months, the alleged incriminating evidence and proceeds of crime allegedly found in the judges’ homes could not be put together to initiate trial against those yet to be charged, or get conviction in the only case that has been concluded.  The usual excuse of the complexity involved in handling the prosecution of corruption cases cannot explain away eight long months of inactivity on the judges’ cases while they were already serving punishment for offences they have yet to be charged in court for, let alone being found guilty. It is the law in this jurisdiction that the burden of proof rests on the party that alleges. This dictum applies to all criminal cases and not corruption matters alone. It is important that prosecutors endeavour to work hard and responsibly within the ambit of the law to get justice without inflicting unwarranted punishment on suspects.