Monday Column By Hameed M. Bello, PhD
hamdbelo@yahoo.co.uk
In the last couple of months, the judiciary had taken a series of decisions in demonstration of its independence as an arm of government. The courts either ordered for the arrest, or of committal to prison of key officials of the executive arm of government, including in the top echelon of the armed forces and the police. Some of the headlines reporting those judgments were: “Niger CJ issues warrant of arrest on COAS, Minna TRADOC Commander”; “Court sentences EFCC chairman for contempt”; “Court sentences IGP to 3 months in prison for contempt”, etc.
The judicial decisions, as they were, might have not been targeted at individuals holding specific offices, but to ensure institutional adherence to the rule of law. The rulings certainly sent the message that no official of government is above the law no matter how highly placed. They also reinforced the sanctity of the rule of law which must remain sacrosanct at all times. The rulings have been received, albeit with resentments, from some quarters dismissing them as playing to the gallery. This is, perhaps, because none of the judgments came to pass for reasons of appeal or due to additional information subsequently furnished the courts which were hitherto not at their disposal. To appeal a judgment is a legal requirement that allows for fair hearing to parties in a dispute, and it is also a constitutional mechanism to guarantee equitable dispensation of justice. After All, the judges are not magicians. They necessarily rely on evidence to take informed decisions.
Foremost educationist and legal icon of repute, Aare Afe Babalola (SAN) had vividly captured the essence of safeguarding the independence and integrity of the judiciary in a democracy. In a Vanguard newspaper column of Aril 1, 2022, titled “The judiciary must remain independent”, Babalola argued that the judiciary is an indispensable arm of any constitutional democracy, and the existence of an effective judicial system is pivotal to the sustenance of the rule of law. A strong and independent Judiciary, he wrote, plays a crucial role in the process of nation-building as the institutions of the state are premised on maintaining an equilibrium among competing interests between individuals and governments, and between governments themselves, and this role, he added, is fundamentally played by law as administered by the courts.
The courts, according to Babalola, are the repository of the great responsibility and duty to ensure that justice is done, irrespective of any internal or external influence. In this regard, the courts, he said, dispense justice using the instrumentality of laws which are, by themselves, instruments of social engineering.
This brings us back to the three separate judgments by the courts earlier cited which, as Babalola suggested, seem to be premised on promoting the equality of all persons before the law.
News reports had earlier on November 30, 2022 quoted a High Court sitting in Minna, Niger State Capital to have issued a warrant of arrest on the Chief of Army Staff, General Faruk Yahaya for contempt of court. Also ordered to be arrested included the Commandant, Training and Doctrine Command Minna, Major General Stevenson Olugbenga Olabanji for similar offence. The presiding judge, Justice Halima Abdulmalik said the order followed a motion on notice brought before the court pursuant to order forty two rule ten of the Niger State High Court Civil procedure 2018.
Justice Abdulmalik ruled that the duo of Generals Yahaya and Olubanji were to be kept in Minna correctional custody for contentions of order of court on 12 October, 2022. According to her, the two suspects were to remain in custody until they purge themselves of the contempt.
In respect of the Inspector General of Police, IGP, Usman Alkali Baba, Justice Mobolaji Olajuwon of the Federal High Court, Abuja, was November 9, reported to have sentenced him to three months in prison for disobeying a valid court order. The court held that the IGP should be committed to prison and detained in custody for a period of three months, or until he obeyed an order made since October 21, 2011.
“If at the end of the three months, the contemnor remains recalcitrant and still refuses to purge his contempt, he shall be committed for another period and until he purges his contempt”, the court held.
The order followed a suit filed by a police officer, Mr. Patrick Okoli, who was unlawfully and compulsorily retired from the Nigerian Police Force. Justice Olajuwon noted that though the Police Service Commission, PSC, recommended Okoli’s reinstatement into the Police, a decision that was affirmed by the court, the IGP, refused to comply with the order. The court had also ordered the payment of 10 Million to the Applicant, being special and general damages for the unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional denial of his rights and privileges as a Senior Officer of the Nigeria Police Force from 1993 till date.
Reacting to the ruling through the Force spokesman, Olumuyiwa Adejobi, the IGP wondered why he should be committed to prison for a case he didn’t know anything about. Baba explained that he did not disregard the court orders or rule of law, and that his office was not aware of any court order, adding that the matter happened in 2011 which should ordinarily not fall under the direct purview of the current administration of the Force.
“It is instructive to note that the case in point concerns an officer who was dismissed as far back as 1992, a few years after the current IGP joined the Nigeria Police Force, based on available facts gleaned from the reports.
“The most recent judgement on the matter was given in 2011 which should ordinarily not fall under the direct purview of the current administration of the Force.
“The IGP, has, however, directed the Commissioner of Police in charge of the Force Legal Unit to investigate the allegation in a bid to ascertain the position of the court and proffer informed legal advice for the IGP’s prompt and necessary action, ” Adejobi, a Chief Superintendent of Police said.
And in respect of the sentence passed on the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Abdulrasheed Bawa, facts later emerged that the EFCC had already complied with the ruling which the court, perhaps, was oblivious of. The EFCC Chairman, Abdulrasheed Bawa, had however appealed the court ruling which sent him to the Kuje Correctional Centre for contempt, to allow the process to take its course, while citing procedural lapses in the judgment.
Recall that Justice Chizoba Oji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court had November 8 2022 convicted the EFCC chairman in relation to his agency’s failure to comply with an earlier order of the court in 2018. In her ruling, Justice Chizoba Oji held that the anti-graft boss was in contempt of the order of the court made on November 21, 2018, directing the commission to return to an applicant, his Range Rover (super charge) and the sum of N40 million. The judge further directed the Inspector General of Police, Usman Baba to ensure that the order of the court was executed forthwith.
The anti-graft agency’s spokesman Wilson Uwujaren said in a reaction that the EFCC Chairman will not tolerate impunity or disregard any lawful orders of court.
Uwujaren said Bawa, in his capacity as Executive Chairman of the EFCC since March 5, 2022, did not disregard any order of court. “For the benefit of the public, the said order of the FCT High Court was given on November 21, 2018, three years before Abdulrasheed became EFCC Chairman. This fact is germane as the contempt process is quasi-criminal in nature and must be served on the person involved. In this case, Bawa as incumbent chairman of the EFCC was neither served form 48 nor form 49,” the spox said.
“Despite this fact, the Executive Chairman, upon being aware of the said order of November 21st, 2018 had released the Range Rover in question to the Applicant on the 27th of June, 2022, and had approved the process of the release of the remaining N40m.
“Taking into cognizance the procedural lapse in the contempt proceedings the commission has initiated a process to set aside the entire contempt proceedings and committal of the Executive Chairman for contempt. “
A number of deductions could be made from these judicial pronouncements and their outcomes. It does appear that there are some palpable laxities in the transmission to the court of compliance with its rulings or judgments as the case may be. Even if the court is aware informally that its judgments have been complied with, if such compliance is not formally communicated and documented, it may not suffice as admissible evidence to aid judgment.
An angle also requires legal opinion here. It is to ascertain whether or not an incumbent can be held liable for the misdeeds of his predecessor, including failure to comply with court order. Some People will argue that governance (or leadership) is a continuous process, and a chief executive necessarily takes responsibility for liabilities of his predecessor.
Also, the judgments have the potential to rein in recalcitrant executives who think that they are above the law. That way, the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances will be reinforced. This could help to deepen democratic institutions and structures and improve upon delivery of good governance.
