ISEOLUWA IGE
The National Judicial Council on Tuesday began the probe of two most senior judicial officers in the country—Justice Samuel Walter Kanu-Onnoghen and Justice Tanko Mohammed, over sundry allegations of misconduct levelled against them.
Justice Onnoghen is the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) but at present sent on suspension by President Muhammad Buhari on the order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal sitting in Abuja while Justice Tanko Mohammed is the next most senior justice of the Supreme Court but was elevated last Friday by President Muhammad Buhari as the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria in place of Justice Onnoghen.
By virtue of section 153 of the 1999 Constitution, the meeting of NJC is chaired by the substantive Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) or the most senior justice of the Supreme Court in the event the substantive CJN is not available.
The Council is empowered to hire and sanction erring judicial officers in Nigeria.
But coincidentally, both the CJN Onnoghen and the most senior justice of the Supreme Court after the CJN, Justice Mohammed were absent at the Tuesday meeting.
This is because both Justices Onnoghen and Tanko are having questions to answer.
Following their absence, it was learnt Tuesday that there was a mild drama on who should preside over the meeting.
It was reliably learnt that the next most senior justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour was invited by the Secretary of the National Judicial Council (NJC), Mr Saleh Gambo to attend the meeting and possibly preside.
Justice Rhodes-Vivour, it was learnt, made himself available at the sitting venue of the NJC but he was reportedly asked to leave politely, being not a member of the NJC.
The NJC members present at the venue eventually voted a former Court of Appeal President, Justice Umar Abdullahi to preside over the meeting.
The Abdullah-led NJC consequently examined the emergency petitions pending against the two most senior justices of the Supreme Court and another against the Chairman of Code of Conduct Tribunal, Mr Danladi Umar and referred the one against the tribunal chairman to the Federal Judicial Service Commission for consideration.
The Council however saw substance in the allegations against the duo of CJN Onnoghen and acting CJN Mohammed and directed that the petitions be sent to them for their reactions.
In a communique issued at the end of its emergency meeting, the NJC said it received two petitions against Muhammad and one against Onnoghen.
The petition according to NJC are the one against Hon. Mr. Justice W.S.N. Onnoghen, GCON by Zikhrillahi Ibrahim of Resource Centre for Human Rights & Civil Education; a petition against Hon. Mr. Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, CFR by Centre for Justice and Peace Initiative and another petition against Hon. Mr. Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, CFR by Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, OON.
The petition against Hon. Danladi Yakubu Umar, Chairman, Code of Conduct Tribunal was filed by Centre for Justice and Peace Initiative.
The NJC will reconvene in February to set up separate probe committees for the two most senior judicial officers to explain themselves.
The commencement of probe of the Chief Justice Onnoghen and acting CJN Mohammed by the NJC makes it the third time when heads of the Council will be probed.
The first head of the NJC to face its probe panel was former CJN Muhammed Uwais during the Ibori’s trial.
Justice Uwais was the one who volunteered to submit himself to the NJC panel to clear himself of dirty allegations of corruption levelled against him by some lawyers.
Justice Uwais was given a clean bill of health while the authors of the petition were referred to the NBA Disciplinary Panel which tried them and disbarred them.
The second serving Chief Justice of Nigeria who also faced the NJC panel was late Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu when he had a disagreement with the then Court of Appeal President, Justice Ayo Salami over the handling of gubernatorial election petition.
It would be recalled that the NJC set up three separate panels at three separate times on the matter with each panel giving contradictory verdicts.
The third time is the instant case when the substantive CJN on suspension and the acting CJN would be facing NJC panel.
