Reps move to prohibit indiscriminate removal of Judicial officers

Members of the House of Representatives, on Wednesday, expressed overwhelming support for the proposed legislation which seeks to prohibit the indiscriminate removal of Judicial Officers in the country.

The lawmakers expressed support during the debate on the general principles of the bill for an Act to amend Sections 20 and 24 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act with a view to “insulate Judicial Officers from arbitrary prosecution before being lawfully removed from office.”

In the same vein, the lawmakers expressed support for the bill which seeks to amend the Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act with a view to remove spouses from the list of persons required to declare their assets, expunge the section which is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and for other related matters, sponsored by Chairman, House Committee on House Services, Hon Wale Raji.

In his lead debate, Hon Raji averred that the crux of the amendment was to cure the bottlenecks experienced by political office holders while declaring their assets before the Bureau.

He said: “The proposed amendment is in two phases, which is tailored towards removing “the spouse” of a public office holder from the list of those required to declare their assets together with such office holder under section 15 (1)(c) of the Act; and to expunge section 23(7) of the Act which is in direct conflict with section 175 of the 1999 constitution as amended.

“With respect to the first amendment, this borders on the removal of a spouse from the list of persons required to declare their assets when married to a public office holder, irrespective of the fact that the Act would not have applied to such a spouse if not for marriage. In the light of the above and with respect to the 1999 Constitution as amended, it constitutes a breach of the rights to the private life and right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria of such a spouse as he/she did not accept to abide by any rules governing public office holders, being a private individual.

“Secondly, it is submitted that section 23(7) of the Act which provides that the prerogative of mercy as provided under the constitution shall not apply to exempt anyone found wanting under the Act.

“This provision of the Act is in direct conflict with the provisions of section 175 of the 1999 constitution as amended and a misstatement of law. The above constitutional provision is clear to the effect that the President can grant pardon to any person convicted of any offence created by an Act of the National Assembly, this present Act not being an exception,” Hon. Raji stressed.

On his part, Hon. Bob explained that the proposed bill has “high propensity to entrench the rule of law and concomitantly deepen our democracy.”

While stressing the need to ensure the sanctity of the office of judicial officers, their tenure, freedom from arbitrary interference and harassment, and to ensure that no Judicial Officer is put on trial except upon being lawfully removed in strict fidelity to Section 292 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He maintained that “Giving effect to this amendment will, besides securing the tenure or office of the judicial officers, negate the apparent absurdity and illogicality of a man who is himself under trial for wrongdoing, sitting in judgement over another for contravening the law.”

Section 24(5) provides that: “Nothing in this Act shall permit the commencement of any action against a Judicial Officer before the Tribunal unless such Judicial Officer has been validly removed from office under section 292(1) of the Constitution.”

Section 24(6) further stipulates that: “Any action seeking to prosecute any Judicial Officer in contravention of sub-section (5) of this section shall not be entertained by the Tribunal.”

He maintained that: “it is axiomatic that in a presidential democracy such as we profess to practice, the three arms of government are distinct and independent of one another, each with its powers constitutionally determined. Under our constitution, their powers are created by sections 4, 5, & 6 for the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary respectively.

“It is the intention of the constitution that each arm of government be empowered to discharge its responsibilities without interference by the other arms. This is in sync with the U.S presidential democracy after which we patterned our version.

“The Code of Conduct Tribunal which is the crux of this bill is a body with statutory judicial powers to try and sanction public office holders found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct Bureau Act. The powers of the Tribunal are pursuant to section 24 of the Principal Act – The Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act,” Hon Bob stressed.

He added that: “it is trite that the essence of good legislation is the ability of the legislation (statute) to regulate and ensure orderly conduct in the affairs of men or state, promote transparency in the running of government and eliminate or at least minimize mischief in public discourse.”

To this end, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary for further legislative action.