The invitation to deliver this paper came to me via an e-mail communication on Wednesday 24 August 2011, while performing the lesser hajj in Saudi Arabia. I must say that the invitation was received with a surprise. I was surprised in the sense that apart from the fact that I am a new member in ACN (UK Chapter), I have the feeling that there are older members of our great party here in the UK that are much more qualified than myself and are better positioned in the party to speak on today’s topic. I am therefore humbled and very grateful to the executives of our great party in UK for this wonderful opportunity.

Today’s topic ‘Nigeria Judicial Jargon’ in my opinion should not be a fifteen minutes discussion if every aspect of it was to be dealt with. However, our amiable General Secretary made the task easier for me when in a reply to my acceptance he stated that the topic should be on current happening with the court of appeal and related abuses in the past. But because of the limited time frame allocated for this presentation, I have decided to discuss only on current happenings with the court of appeal in relation to the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

It is my belief that everyone present here knows what has happened with the Court of Appeal in Nigeria. The President, Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Isa Ayo Salami was removed from office on 18 August 2011.

What led to the removal? The removal was based on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council of Nigeria (NJC) following the outcome of a panel that investigated an unprecedented face-off between Nigeria’s two leading judicial officers Chief Justice Aloysius Iyorgher Katsina-Alu and Justice Isa Ayo Salami over allegations of abuse of office and official corruption. Salami had claimed that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) asked him to compromise the then Sokoto State Governorship Election Appeal Panel and consequently pervert its decision in favour of a party. But the NJC cleared Katsina-Alu of wrongdoing, stating that he acted in good faith and in the best interest of Justice by his interference in the proceedings and putting it on hold. The NJC therefore found Salami guilty of false claims and thus in breach of Rule (1) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The NJC therefore at the end of its seventh emergency meeting, headed by Moses Bello, President of the Customary Court of Appeal, recommended Justice Isa Salami for retirement with immediate effect. However, a statement signed by NJC’s Director of Administration, Mr Eugene Odukwu announced the controversial suspension at the end of the emergency meeting. The suspension according to NJC was in “pursuant to the powers conferred on the National Judicial Council by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as amended”.

The National Judicial Council of Nigeria (NJC) derived its powers from sections 20, 21 and 22 of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Nigerian constitution. According to section 21(b), the NJC shall have power to “recommend to the President, the removal from office of the judicial officers specified in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers”.

Those that are so specified in accordance with section 21(a) sub-section (i) includes “the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the President and Justices of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge and Judges of the Federal High Court”.

If the constitutional powers of the NJC as contained in sections 20, 21 and 22 of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Nigerian constitution is considered, one would be right to say that the NJC has acted within its constitutional powers. But it could also be argued that those that are saying the NJC acted unconstitutional are basing their argument on section 292 (1) of part IV (supplemental) of the 1999 constitution. In accordance with section 292 (1) sub-section (a) (i), unless the President is acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate, a judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement.

Those listed in section 292 (1) sub-section (a) (i) included the Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Grand Khadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and President, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

A lot of criticisms and protests have trailed the suspension of the PCA by various groups, including that of our great party, the ACN in Nigeria, condemning the suspension. But in my own opinion, the reasons for the criticism and protests may have emanated not necessarily from the suspension of the PCA, but because of the actions taken by the Presidency which ordinarily should not have been taken, considering the fact that Justice Salami was already in court to challenge the NJC recommendation that he should apologise to the former Chief Justice of Nigeria. The actions are:

The Nigerian President, Dr Goodluck Jonathan having accepted the recommendation of the NJC to suspend Justice Salami, also approved the appointment of an Acting Chairman for the Court of Appeal, knowing full well that Justice Salami was already in court to challenge the recommendation of the NJC.

Based on the above submissions, the criticism that have greeted the action of President Goodluck Jonathan in relation to the decision of the NJC to suspend Justice Salami could not be waved aside, because clearly there are so many questions that need to be answered.

The recent happening with the court of appeal especially the action of President Goodluck Jonathan has brought to the fore the issue of judicial independence in Nigeria. The suspended 1979 constitution as well as the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provided for an independent judiciary. But in practice, it is now clearly obvious that the judiciary is now being subjected to the machinations and caprices of our politicians (the executive and legislative arms). In my view, the current wave of undue interference and influence by political party leaders both at the state and federal levels, may bring the Nigerian legal systems to suffer untold corruption and inefficiency at the detriment of the ordinary Nigerians.

If the NJC derived its powers from sections 20, 21 and 22 of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Nigerian constitution, we should also remind ourselves of the fact that the President of Nigeria also derived his power to act in relation to the court of appeal under section 292 of the constitution. This is where the title of today’s paper is very relevant, taking into consideration the meaning of ‘jargon’. What has happened in the court of appeal in the Justice Salami’s case is nothing but a ‘judicial jargon’. It is nothing but unqualified abuse of constitutional power by both the NJC and the Nigerian President.

But despite its constitutional provision, if the judiciary is still subjected in practice to executive and legislative branch pressures and influence by political party leaders as we can see from the present situation, then the recent happenings at the court of appeal should not be too surprising, but it is indeed very worrisome.

If President Goodluck Jonathan must use his influence (albeit positively), he should have directed his influence or pressure on the suit filed by Justice Salami for its quick and accelerated hearing. Also, he should have waited for the conclusion of the suit to guide his decision to either accept the recommendations of the NJC or not. The dispatch with which Mr President acted in approving the recommendation of the NJC to suspend Justice Salami and the immediate appointment of Justice Adamu as his replacement has given rise to the notion of a conspiratorial gang-up against the suspended President of the Court of Appeal. This is not good enough for our nascent democracy and our much touted ‘rule of law’.

Finally, President Goodluck Jonathan must be courageous enough to look beyond mere partisanship, as the issue at hand involves the basis of our claim to a civilised nation. The judiciary as a branch of government cannot and must not be subjected to any form of executive attack that will erode Nigeria’s legal sanctity.