Onnoghen: It’s a surprise, but full drama yet to play out ― Lawyer Jakpa

DELTA-BASED lawyer, Mr Emmanuel Jakpa, has expressed shock at the sudden resignation of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen.

The fiery human rights defender, however, submitted that more drama lies ahead on whether the resignation will meet the expectation of CCT or not.

Jakpa, who had spoken and written intelligently and vociferously at various media platform since the Onnoghen saga began, argued that but for the resignation, it would be hard for President Muhammadu Buhari to muster 2/3 majority at the present or coming Senate to oust Onnoghen as required by law.

In an exclusive chat with Tribune Online on Saturday in Warri, Mr Jakpa opined that “The resignation of the Hon CJN Walter Onnoghen came as a bit of a surprise. In the case of Pakistan, after the Pakistan SJC, the equivalence of our NJC found Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry liable of financial misconduct, he challenged it in court and won.

“But where the Courts are unwilling to hear a matter that may explain the sudden resignation.

“The description of domiciliary accounts as foreign accounts showed that he did not understand his brief before putting pen to paper.

ALSO READ: Why Southern Kaduna killings linger —Middle Belt Forum

“The Presidency denied prior knowledge of the origins of the petition but it did not take too long for the voice of Esau to emerge whilst we were still grappling with the unexpected arm of Jacob.

“From day one, the primary concern of all well-intentioned lawyers and most well-informed citizens was that due process is observed and the integrity of democratic processes preserved.”

According to him, “Now with the resignation of the CJN, has democracy been vindicated? Not quite, in my opinion.

“First, the drama has not yet fully played out. The resignation still has to be accepted and the CCT trial ended.

“My impression is that the President cannot muster a 2/3 majority in this or the next Senate, so he doesn’t have too many options, although it is a fluid situation.

“What does this mean for our democratic processes and for the judiciary?

For the judiciary, we have arrived at a subservient judiciary. How do I mean?

“The same Court of Appeal which could not find a quorum to determine the CJN’s appeal on jurisdiction was able to form quorum the next day to determine an application for stay from the judgement of an Abuja High Court on Zamfara APC candidacy at the just concluded election. Surprising?

“This was an appeal on whether its previous decision applied or not. No decision till now. That was the court refusing to open the door to one of its own. Do you think that was an independent decision? Your guess is as good as mine.

“The allegations against the CJN at the NJC were grievous, that is why some of us lawyers are surprised that the NJC in their wisdom thought it better not to disclose to the public their findings.

“What is in the public domain are the accusations of the EFCC, don’t forget that it was the same bank accounts that formed the basis of the charges before the CCT.

“It would have been better to allow the public compare the Federal Government’s cases and the CJN’s responses in the two proceedings.

“Prof Archibald Cox, one time US Attorney General and Special Prosecutor once said the reason a court must give reasons for its decision is to show that we are ultimately governed by reason.”

Speaking on the implications of the resignation, Jakpa further averred that “as for our democracy, a subservient judiciary is not good for democracy.

“As it stands, you can almost predict whom the government will charge to court based on perceptions of who is friendly or not with the government.

“It would be sad if you could predict who could be convicted on the same basis rather than on the basis of rules and evidence.

“As for fighting corruption, nothing will come out of it, except the real risk that the judiciary will give inconclusive verdicts against the friends of government and conclusive verdicts against perceived or real enemies of the government irrespective of the evidence or the rules. I would love to be proved wrong.”

On the decision of the NJC on the acting CJN, the lawyer opined that “the NJC has indirectly overturned the decision of the Supreme Court in Elelu Habeeb v Att Gen Fed (2012) where the Court laid down the rule that any appointment, disciplinary action or removal of the head of a court without the NJC, is invalid.”

According to him, “It also overturned its own well-established position that anyone, who presents himself for swearing-in in an acting judicial capacity, will be removed.

“Sadly, we have been deprived of the reasoning for these momentous changes in our constitutional law.

“If the rumours of a bargain between the CJN and the Federal Government are true, then it was just powerful people squaring off.”