May 29 is here and we are going to have another dispensation. How should the judiciary prepare?
The judiciary should be left to do its job. Once they are left to do their job, they swear to the oath of allegiance. Their duty is to interpret the law. That is the work of the judiciary. So they should be left alone to do their work.Are you satisfied with the disciplinary mechanism for Judges?
For the legal profession, that one will include lawyers as well. I am satisfied with the disciplinary mechanism for Judges because as at today, anybody can write a petition against any Judge in any part of the country to the NJC and the NJC is bound to deal with the matter.
What we do when they receive a petition, the petition is sent direct to the Judge and copy to the complainant so disciplinary wise we are alright. The NJC can recommend the dismissal of a Judge, and if there are witnesses NJC will conduct investigation just as they are doing now in the Sokoto case. And if found proper, the NJC can recommend to a state governor to dismiss, just as the Federal NJC can recommend to the Head of State to dismiss a Judge. Such instances have happened in the past when I was there. A few judges were disciplined and some were dismissed. When we were there we got petitions against judges almost every day but some petitions were flimsy. We had to appoint a committee to investigate what transpired. We held conferences for judges on their duties. As far as discipline of Judges is concerned, I am satisfied.
Erring judges are always tried in camera, but people feel that they should be tried in the open court.
If it is alleged that money has changed hands or that a trial judge had a telephone discussion with a party in a case should such still be in camera?
The worst thing Nigerians do to themselves is to make allegations which they know cannot be substantiated. You gave judge money, then they ask you what money, how much or which denomination did you give him, and you can’t answer. You just waste the time of the court doing that kind of thing. It is not criminal but it is unprofessional for you to do that kind of thing. How do you try those things in court? May be you investigate administratively then and then you come to conclude in court. Those are not the types of things the public wants to hear. Some of these things are mere allegations. If you make phone calls, is that criminal? People make telephone calls every day. If it is a telephone conversation with a judge before whom you have a case, it depends on what they say.
Now that you have retired, how do you spend your day?
When I wake up, I rest, then I take my bath and I come down to my chamber here and read. I see if there is any letter to reply. What are we doing? We can’t do business. Even if you have a private law chamber you can’t go to Court yourself. May be the juniors will go to court. But you can only do solicitor job and people will prefer to go to lawyers who have been in practice rather than you who have retired. I retired in December 2009 so I have not spent much time in retirement.
People see retired judges as still being agile. Should their retirement age be increased and, secondly, it has been advocated that the retirement age of High Court judges who retire at 65 should be harmonized with that of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court at 70?
The question is a political question; it is the politician who fixes the retirement age not Judges by themselves. They make the law. The SC retires at 70, it depends we are not even asked whether you want to retire or not at 80 or 90. It is Constitutional. It was 60 or 65 before they raised our own. We all retire at the same age before they raised our own to 70. Court of Appeal also retires at 70 but it was not 70 before it was raised during the last constitutional amendment. Now politicians are talking about amendment again. We never discussed it within ourselves. Nobody ask judges at the SC whether they want it to be raised.
Some of us who retire at 70 cannot even do much. One of our colleagues who wanted to be the chairman of ICPC from Oyo State was disqualified because they said he was practically not fit for the job!, a SC judge who retired just last year. He went for screening and the Senate committee rejected him, they say they don’t want.
So it depends. You will find that some of us who retire are still physically fit, l don’t know why, some of us are still active, some are not, it depends on nature. I think it cannot be uniformed for everybody. Some retire, some cannot do anything.
Your retirement has been an issue because you are the tenth indigenous CJN and the first CJN that single handedly swear-in your successor and in fact many of the Justices at the Supreme Court at that time did not attend that ceremony, do you still want to defend that action?
It is not true, after the swearing in , after l have done the job l made a small address to the Court and showed them the law , the Oaths law says President or CJN. l read the law in Court I did not invent it ,you look at the Oath act, it is there. President or the CJN. So the president cannot do it, he was unavoidable absent so the next person is the CJN, and l did it. It is not true that all the SC Justices did not attend the ceremony. All my brother Justices were there, the court was full. You look at the law it is there. Anyway, I don’t need to go into that, you go and look at the Oaths Act you will see the people who can swear in the CJN.
When you look reflect on your tenure as the CJN, do you have any regret(s)?
I am not aware of anything I should have done that I did not do or anything I did that I should not have done. Everything l did I made sure it was permitted by the law. The government of the day operate according to the rule of law and I did everything to the best of my ability.
How was the Judiciary able to sustain our fledgling democracy during your tenure as CJN?
Even the Judiciary and judges have to do things according to the law. If we all do things according to the law, there would be no problem. Even judges run into problem now because people believe that they do not do things according to the law. That is their own perception; but once a judge has a clear conscience in the interpretation of the law, that’s all.
The 2007 general elections was said to be the worst in Nigeria’s history. Many governors were sent packing by the Court. One of the cases that came before the Supreme Court was between Muhammadu Buhari and Umaru. Yar’adua. Many people felt the Supreme Court should have up-turned that election.
Everybody sits in his house or office and makes wild statements. People will say that election was rigged but they don’t tell the Court how it was rigged. The Court is bound by the evidence before it. The Court would not form an opinion! Nobody will ever come to Court to tell you how it was rigged. Honestly, they are all allegations until they are proved otherwise. If nobody comes to court to give evidence then it goes nowhere.
Somebody must come to Court to substantiate the facts of how it was rigged. If it was imperfect, tell us how it was imperfect. Ask those who took part in the Buhari petition. None of them could prove how the election was rigged. Nigerians need to cultivate that character of telling the Court the truth. You just talk and you think that is evidence? Who did what? The Court acts on evidence.
Looking at the judiciary, are you satisfied with the image today?
You cannot comment now because allegations are still under investigation. We want to hope that it will be resolved sooner than later.
Many people have said that the members of the National Judicial Commission (NJC) looking into the allegations of rot in the top echelon of the Judiciary are also interested in the investigation.
The NJC consists of quite a number of people, including people from the Bar. Many of the SANs are members; chief justices and few private individuals are members. Even if we say that they are interested, they are interested in what? The whole thing is being investigated.
No comments:
Post a Comment