Panic in Judiciary as Bank Accounts of Election tribunals Judges come under watch

Lawyers have expressed diverse opinions on the reported move by security agencies to place the bank accounts of judges serving on the various election petitions tribunals under watch, RAMON OLADIMEJI writes
The current anti-graft crusade of the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, since inauguration on May 29, 2015, seems to be leaving no stone unturned to root out corruption from the country. It will appear so if a media report last week is true that security agencies have now put under surveillance the bank accounts of judges who are adjudicating over petitions from the 2015 general elections.
On February 3, 2015, in Abuja, when oath was being administered on the 242 election petitions tribunal judges, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, had warned them against allowing themselves to be compromised by desperate politicians.
The CJN, at the ceremony held on the premises of the Supreme Court in Abuja, emphasised that the National Judicial Council, under his watch, would not tolerate any attempt by any judge to bring disrepute or dishonour to the judiciary through undue fraternity with politicians.
“Let me use this opportunity to sound a note of warning to all judicial officers. Do not allow any political party or politicians to compromise your integrity or your future.
“We must never again be used as tools to truncate our nation’s democracy. The NJC will definitely not spare the rod in ensuring that the honour, respect and independence of the judiciary is protected,” the CJN warned.
His concern and warning were not baseless. There had been events in the past that informed the CJN’s concern.
The warning had also come at a time when the courts were inundated with several cases ahead of the 2015 general elections.
That period brought a recollection of the infamous role that the judiciary played in the annulment of the presidential election of 1993, where late Justice Bassey Ikpeme’s so-called “midnight injunction” purporting to halt the election was followed by Justice Dahiru Saleh’s order restraining further announcement of the results, including an order arresting the then Chairman of the then National Electoral Commission, Prof. Humphrey Nwosu.
Also in the immediate past, there had been cases of judges who were marched onto compulsory retirement, having been found culpable of soiling their hands, either while sitting as judges in the regular courts or at Election Petitions Tribunals stretching back to 2003. For instance, the tenure of Mohammed’s predecessor, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, witnessed the sacking of some judges, said to be culpable of unethical practices.
One of such is the case of Justice Thomas Naron, who was compulsorily retired on February 20, 2013, for allegedly engaging in an unethical communication, while sitting as the Chairman of the 2007 Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, in a case between erstwhile Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola and the incumbent, Governor Rauf Aregbesola.
Observers have said that it would amount to wistful thinking to expect a judiciary that is totally free of corruption, since the judges are also a product of the Nigerian society, where corruption is generally believed to be endemic.
But true to its promise, the current administration of President Buhari, since inauguration on May 29, 2015, has been out waging war against corruption in every nook and cranny.
It seems that even the judiciary would not be spared, going by the media report that security agents have now put under surveillance bank accounts of judges hearing election petitions.
But this development has thrown up a debate among legal practitioners. While some described it as a right move in the right direction, others expressed the view that such an action might occasion an infringement on the constitutional right of judges to privacy.
Among those who supported the move were two Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Mr. Norrison Quakers and Chief Emeka Ngige.
Quakers believed that, going by history, the decision to beam the anti-graft searchlight on the tribunal judges was justified. He dismissed the argument that the right of the judges to privacy might be breached in the process, saying the law permits one to take pre-emptive action to forestall perceived illegality.
“I won’t consider it as an infringement. Mind you, there is widespread allegation of corruption against judicial officers just like other public office holders. What I think this government is saying is that let us keep everybody under watch.
“It cannot be said that someone’s right is being infringed upon when there is a move geared towards investigating either an alleged criminal activity or breach of trust. Our judicial officers are expected to be above board. So, if the state apparatus is trying to investigate alleged criminal complaints, it is not an infraction of right, insofar as it is done within the ambit of the law.
“For instance, under the fundamental right enforcement procedure rules and even under the Constitution, if you suspect that there is likely going to be an infraction of your right you can go to court, same thing here, if you suspect that there is a possibility of corruption, you can place surveillance. The essence of surveillance is to forestall a breach of the judicial ethics,” Quakers argued.
Ngige, while arguing in favour of the development, said the anti-graft searchlight should not be limited only to the judges’ bank accounts, but should also be beamed on their properties.
Ngige said, “I believe that our judges should know by now that there is change and that change includes change of attitude and change in the pattern or the order of doing things under the last administration.
“Corruption is being fought now from all angles; so, putting the bank accounts of judges hearing election petitions under surveillance is a positive development. And in fact, it should not be limited to their bank accounts; security agents should equally check their properties now. There should be a kind of screening to fish out those judges who are living above their means and if there is any judge who cannot justify the property that he has acquired, appropriate actions should be taken.”
But a Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Dele Adeogun, said the move to place judges under surveillance might be counter-productive, as he believed that a situation where judges were being breathed down upon might slow down the speed of justice dispensation.
Adeogun, who confirmed increased security presence around the election petitions tribunal court in Lagos State, also urged the government of the day to exercise caution, so as not to cross the boundary where the rights of judges to privacy, like any other citizen, is involved.
“A situation where you are putting judges under surveillance will, to my mind, impede quick dispensation of justice. A judge must be able to operate in an atmosphere where he is not breathed down upon by security operatives. If there are doubts as to the integrity of any judge handling any election petition, I think, the proper thing to do is that the President of the Court of Appeal should exercise her power to check such an activity. But a situation where judges are being followed around will not augur well for the administration of justice in the country. For me, it is not right; it constitutes an infringement on their right to privacy.
“Inasmuch as you are looking at the positive end of placing the judges under surveillance, we must also be careful that we do not cross the constitutional line because even judges have a right to their privacy,” Adeogun warned.
Toeing the same line of argument was Mr. Fred Agbaje, who, while condemning the development, described it as not just unlawful but one which would subject the judiciary to embarrassment.
Agbaje believed that monitoring the judges would not, in any way, forestall corruption.
He argued, “Even if such a move was informed by what has happened in the past, does that justify the illegality or unconstitutionality of putting judges under surveillance? Are we not putting such judges under undue pressure or violating their right to privacy? Are we not violating their right to own their own properties and protect their properties? I am not supportive of such a move.
“In fact, the fact that you are monitoring the accounts of judges does not mean that anyone who wants to be corrupt will not be corrupt. The cloak doesn’t make the monk. As far as I am concerned, it is an unnecessary move. Judges are supposed to work under an environment that is free of intimidation. Putting judges under such surveillance is tantamount to putting them under tactical coercion.”
Another Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Aderemi Adekile, however, wanted attention to be directed at politicians who try to induce judges.
Adekile, who emphasised that the judges are a product of the society, maintained that putting judges under surveillance, apart from having the tendency to backfire, would also not help to purge the judiciary of real or perceived corruption, unless desperate politicians and their handlers were deterred from trying to buy justice.
“Let me start by sounding a note of warning that our judges must, under no condition at all, be intimidated in any kind of way. Judges are people who should not be intimidated; neither should the independence of the judiciary be eroded in any form. Whatever we are doing, should be to uphold the independence of the judiciary. This is important because if we toil with this fundamental issue, then we are looking for trouble.
“When you are talking about corruption in election petitions, we must also send a very strong signal to the politicians and their lawyers. Desperate politicians and their handlers, who try to corruptly influence the judiciary to get the justice that they did not get at the poll, have to be dealt with.
“The law is a function of the society that it has been called upon to regulate. Therefore, this monitoring of the judges may find justification going by the type of society that we live in, whereby if politicians lose elections, they do not accept defeat and want to win election at all cost, thereby heading for the tribunal. But if I were to be one of the tribunal judges, I will take it that a clear conscience fears no accusation. As such, judges who are discharging their sacred duty with integrity and without any tinge of corruption, whether serving in any election petitions tribunal or in the regular court, should have nothing to fear,” Adekile said.