By Abdullahi O. Haruna (Haruspice)
There is a dangerous trend that, if not urgently checked, could spell doom for the nation’s judicial landscape, with Kano State at the forefront of this macabre absurdity. The trend involves using state mercenaries to undermine, impugn, and intimidate judges.The latest episode in this unsettling series is the denigration of Justice Simon Amobeda by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Chairman, Kano Chapter, Usman Umar Fari. This bizarre antic stands out as one of the rarest manifestations ever recorded in the judicial realm, where entities are deployed to obstruct the wheels of justice.
The most recent instance occurred at the Federal High Court in Kano on Friday, when the Kano State Government filed an application requesting Justice Simon Amobeda to recuse himself from a case involving the recent local government elections, citing perceived bias. In the case (Suit No: FHC/KN/CS/425/2024), the All Progressives Congress (APC) and other plaintiffs sought a declaration that no democratically elected council chairmen exist in Kano. The plaintiffs also requested the court to restrain the Federal Government, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and the Accountant-General, among others, from releasing statutory funds to the 44 local government councils in the state.
Justice Amobeda, known for his no-nonsense demeanor, wasted no time in criticizing the NBA Chairman’s antics. He remarked, “Only lazy lawyers make applications for recusal,” and accused lawyers in Kano State of saying “despicable things” about him. The judge clarified that he was not against the Kano State Government but opposed “the impunity of the state,” adding that he had previously delivered judgments favorable to the government in other cases.
From the unfolding events, it is evident that the NBA Chairman’s antics were not only laughable but utterly lugubrious. He appeared as a hastily packaged errand boy—fuming and puffing with watery arguments, seemingly fulfilling what many onlookers considered a hatchet job for the state government. His questionable approach shocked the lawyers present in court, drawing widespread condemnation. Many distanced themselves from the charade, describing the chairman’s posture as embarrassingly condescending.
Driven by mischief, the NBA Chairman stormed the courtroom armed with a motion and a voluminous document of annexures, alleging—without merit—that over seventy cases presided over by Justice Amobeda in Kano were against the state. This was a lamentable distortion and barefaced mendacity. For the record, Justice Amobeda’s judgments in Kano have been celebrated as watertight and rooted in sound legal precedents. Conscientious members of the public recognize his rulings as examples of fairness and justice.
One such judgment saved the people of Kano from an impending drug menace. The ruling, which garnered Federal Government attention and prompted the Minister of Health to visit the Kano State Governor, compelled recalcitrant drug dealers in Sabon Gari Market to relocate to a designated site along Kano-Zaria Road. This judgment, hailed as a legal milestone, has since become a reference point for the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration Control (NAFDAC) and the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). Ironically, this very ruling, which earned Justice Amobeda widespread accolades, was included by the NBA Chairman among the judgments he wrongly claimed were against the state government. In reference, In the case of NIGERIA ASSOCIATION OF PATENTS AND PROPRIETORS MEDICINE DEALERS & 4 ORDERS. VS PHARMACY COUNCIL OF NIGERIA & ORS. IN SUIT NO.FHC/KN/152/2023.
This is the consequence of vested interests taking precedence over moral conscience. In a rush to please his political benefactors, the NBA Chairman neglected diligence and exposed his intent as a merchant of state-sponsored advocacy. His failure to verify facts before acting on the emotions of his political clients further highlights his compromised position.
The NBA Chairman’s sudden interest in these cases, despite having no prior involvement, raises pertinent questions. On what locus standi does he base his interest in this orchestrated attack on Justice Amobeda? When did the Nigerian Bar Association transform into a hired advocacy body used to obstruct justice? Why is the Kano State Government so intent on muzzling judicial independence?
Justice Simon Amobeda became a target the day he delivered a landmark judgment against the state government for the insensitive demolition of mosques and business areas. That day, he earned the ire of the establishment, and the war against this fearless and stoic judge began. In reference, THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF MASSALCIN IDI SHOPS OWNERS ASSOCIATION & 55 ORS. VS KANO STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS. SUIT NO. FHC/KN/CS/208/2023, Justice Amobeda resisted pressure from the Kano State Government, earning praise from the community. The government opted for an out-of-court settlement, paying 3 billion Naira, reduced from the initial 30 billion Naira award.
The NBA’s role in this saga is a glaring betrayal of its mandate to uphold justice. Instead of resisting state overreach, the NBA, under its Kano chairman, has emboldened illegality. It is a stark reminder of the adage: “There is no creed money cannot decrypt.”
The NBA in Kano must prioritize the rule of law and justice over needless political affiliations. The Chairman must be an arbiter of the law, not a lackey to politicians. A politically neutral NBA leadership will enhance public confidence in the association and uphold its commitment to justice and ethics. Failure to do so will leave Kano State vulnerable to the machinations of rogue politicians, a compromised judiciary, and legal practitioners turned political tools.
In conclusion, the blatant manipulation of facts on social media platforms, aimed at discrediting Justice Amobeda, is a stark reminder of the urgent need to safeguard the integrity of our judiciary. The National Judicial Council must take decisive action to prevent the use of telephones in courts, thereby protecting the sanctity of our justice system. Only through such measures can we ensure that truth and justice prevail, untainted by the malicious agendas of those who seek to undermine our institutions. The time for action is now.
*Abdullahi O Haruna haruspicee@yahoo.com is a public commentator
Firing wide on the absurdities in Kano court: A response to Haruspice
By Habibu Sani
A piece titled The Absurdities in Kano Court: Who Will Stem the Tide? was published in Peoples Daily on the 24th of November, 2024, authored by Abdullahi O. Haruna (Haruspice).
Perhaps the first absurdity in the said writeup was the obvious ignorance displayed by the writer on, first – the incident that occurred in the court about which he wrote and, secondly – the position of the law on the general gamut of legal issues surrounding the incident.
I dislike the unnecessary arrogance of lawyers in ascribing the intentionally denigrating attribute of ‘laymen’ to non-lawyers, and I must confess that I felt guilty thinking the writer should not have delved into issues that only the ‘learned’ are qualified to comprehend.
The writer thinks it is “a dangerous trend”, a “macabre absurdity” and a “denigration” of a sort to ask a judge, this time, a Federal High Court judge, to recuse himself from a case he is handling.
I will strive to explain in as much simple terms as possible why asking a judge to recuse himself in a case before him is not any more absurd than drinking a cup tea at a breakfast table.
In Nigeria’s courts of record, a demand for recusal is to be made officially via what lawyers call written ‘applications’ or ‘motions’. As far as it has been properly filed, the judge must consider it and make a decision on it.
This was what happened in the case at hand. The motion for recusal was properly filed. That’s normal. The motion was not considered because of issues concerning service on other parties in the case. So, the consideration and decision parts were deferred till the next adjourned date. That, too, was normal.
But abnormalities or absurdities, if you like, were introduced along the line.
Judicial recusal applications are made when a party involved in a legal proceeding believes that the judge presiding over their case may be biased or unable to render an impartial decision, especially if the judge has exhibited animosity to the party concerned.
The lawyer in the case at hand (who happens to be the chairman of the Kano branch of the Nigerian Bar Association) said the judge has consistently been displaying, in open court for that matter, a sense of anger and animosity against his client (Kano State government). There was no day he does not begin his court sitting with some tirades against Kano State government.
That’s an absurdity!
He said the animosity stemmed from the fact that the state government, through one of its agencies, had filed some petitions against the same judge at the National Judicial Council (NJC).
He also claimed to have noticed a very unusual concentration of cases filed by a particular opposition political party members against the state government in the said judge’s courtroom.
Here, I will excuse the confusion that Haruspice was thrown into. The applicant never spoke about the judgements of Justice Amobeda in their cases. They have the leeway to challenge any judgement at the appellate courts if they are not satisfied with it.
They were concerned about how one same judge would be the one to hear 70 out of 70 cases filed by people of one political affiliation against the state government within a year. Who, for example, was directing those cases to one, just one, out of three judges of the Kano division of the Federal High Court, and why? Why do some of those politicians pull their cases out of other courts and refile them at Justice Amobeda’s court?
Those are the questions that were raised by the application filed by the NBA chairman.
The legal standards dictate that judges must recuse themselves when there is an appearance of bias. The test often used is whether a “fair-minded and informed observer” would conclude that there is a real possibility of bias. Here, the mere possibility of bias is enough. The judge does not have to be really biased.
So, there is nothing ‘unsettling’ in the application of the NBA chairman before Justice Simon Amobeda.
Now, let’s consider the next absurdity in the incident.
The newspaper report upon which Haruspice built his article said Justice Amobeda became emotional and alluded to those who filed the recusal application as ‘lazy lawyers’ in open court. Those in court said he spent about an hour venting his anger over the fact that there was an application for recusal. Three Senior Advocates of Nigeria were present in the court, one of them the chairman of the Body of Benchers, the legal body of practitioners of the highest distinction in the legal profession in Nigeria. They had to appeal to him to be calm and mend his emotion.
That’s clearly an absurdity!!
Ordinarily, when a recusal application is made before a judge, the judge must follow a series of steps to address the request appropriately. First, he should review the application thoroughly. Then, he should consider legal standards, hold a hearing if necessary and take the appropriate decision, either to grant or deny the recusal request. It is that simple.
But this judge did not find it simple, for some reasons that were not clear to anyone in the courtroom.
The demeanor of Justice Amobeda in that court that day reflected the exact evidence given by the applicants in their affidavit; the very reason they wanted him to recuse himself. They said he comes to court to castigate the state government every day, calling government officials names and rendering bad utterances about them, the same way he called the NBA chairman names.
Most judges will recuse themselves from the case at hand even before the application is moved.
When G.O.K. Ajayi asked the Justices of the Supreme Cout of Nigeria to recuse themselves from hearing a case against late M.K.O. Abiola on the basis that all them were joined in a defamation lawsuit against Concord newspaper (owned majorly by Abiola), they all obliged. They recused themselves. Late Ajayi remains one of Nigeria’s most brilliant lawyers. In fact, it was out of brilliance, an unparalleled hard work, coupled with brevity that he was able to locate that there was a need for recusal.
One more absurdity was the way Justice Amobeda went on a self-glorification monologue about how he’s a ‘judicial activist’ as opposed to ‘judicial rascals’ and how his courtroom utilizes modern recording gadgets to make proceedings faster, even though lawyers in the jurisdiction say his court is the slowest when it comes to obtaining records of proceedings.
That is certainly an absurdity.
Judges with ‘no-nonsense demeanor’ do not waste their precious time making long remarks to justify or glorify their actions in court. They simply give their rulings or judgements and allow the wheel of justice to roll on.
Without doubt, there are absurdities in the courtroom of Justice Amobeda on Friday, the 22nd of November, 2024, except that Haruspice misplaced the source of the anomalies. The writer fired wide, perhaps because he did not know.
The remaining parts of Haruspice’s piece are not worthy of response. They are a regurgitation of what every lawyer have repeatedly heard directly from Justice Amobeda’s mouth in his courtroom. Haruspice’s parroting did not even capture those self-praises well enough.
Sani is a law student based in Kano