FRANCIS IWUCHUKWU writes that lawyers have decried the growing cases of misconduct among judicial officers and are calling on the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to ensure strict enforcement of judicial ethics in order to tackle the menace
Some senior lawyers have stressed the need for a strict enforcement of judicial ethics in order to stem the rising tide of misconduct among judicial officers. The men of the wig and gown noted that for judicial misconduct to be tackled headlong, appointment and promotion of judges should be free from political interference, saying this compromises their impartiality and integrity.
The lawyers described judicial misconduct as a deviation from the ethical standards expected of judges and other judicial officers, saying It encompasses various forms of vices such as corruption, bias, arbitrary decisions, abuse of judicial power and collusion with political actors.
They spoke amidst similar concerns recently raised by a former Deputy National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Olabode George. The PDP chieftain voiced his concerns through a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun.
In his letter to the CJN, George emphasized the need for the judiciary to restore its former prestige, reminiscent of the era from the 1950s to the 1980s. The former Deputy National Chairman expressed concerns that the actions of some judicial officers could threaten the st
ability of Nigeria’s democracy, warning that biased or inconsistent judgements could undermine public trust.
He wrote: “The decisions of some judicial officers are increasingly embarrassing to patriotic Nigerians and, if not addressed, could derail democracy. “Judicial misconduct has become commonplace, particularly among courts of equal standing, leading to contradictory orders that confuse the public”.
George criticized the practice of courts issuing conflicting rulings, suggesting that while appellate courts have the authority to overturn lower court decisions, a High Court, whether federal or state, should not counter another High Court on a matter outside its jurisdiction. He warned that this situation could lead to “judicial anarchy.”
The former Deputy National Chairman of PDP urged the CJN to convene a meeting of the National Judicial Council (NJC) involving judges from both federal and state courts to resolve the issue of conflicting judgments. He highlighted that many Nigerians now openly criticize certain court decisions, which, he noted, was not the case during the judiciary’s earlier years of integrity.
Reflecting on the past, the PDP chieftain recalled the era of renowned Chief Justices such as Justice Stafford Foster Sutton, Justice Adetokunbo Ademola, and others, who were known for their unwavering commitment to justice. He lamented the current state, where judicial independence is perceived to be compromised by political influences.
He questioned why, in recent times, judicial decisions appear to be influenced by political considerations, and why technicalities are often used to justify rulings that go against the will of the people. George criticized situations where election outcomes, decided by millions of voters, are overturned by a handful of judges, describing it as an affront on democracy.
George also addressed concerns about the influence of politicians over judicial officers, arguing that the judiciary’s role is being undermined by pressures from the executive branch. He emphasized that electoral outcomes should be determined by the electorate, not the judiciary.
He appealed to the CJN, stressing that democracy is meant to empower the people, not to be dictated by judicial rulings that favour particular political interests. George urged the CJN to ensure that the judiciary remains independent and that its judgements are based solely on justice, without any external influence.
NJC should be more proactive in discipling corrupt, unethical judges
Allegations of judicial misconduct
Judicial misconduct in the country has been highlighted through several high-profile cases over the years, revealing the extent to which some judicial officers have allegedly engaged in actions that compromise the integrity of the judiciary. These cases often involve allegations of corruption, partisanship, and abuse of judicial authority.
One of such is the case of Justice Adeniyi Ademola of a Federal High Court in Abuja. He was arrested sometimes in October 2016 by the Department of State Services (DSS) as part of a crackdown on alleged judicial corruption.
His arrest came alongside those of other judges, including Justice Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court and Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia.
Justice Ademola was accused of receiving bribes and having large sums of money in both local and foreign currencies. The charges also included accusations of granting favourable judgements in exchange for monetary compensation.
While the Federal Government eventually dropped the charges against him in 2017 due to lack of evidence, the case drew significant public attention to corruption within the judiciary.
The NJC recommended Justice Ademola’s voluntary retirement, but the damage to the judiciary’s reputation lingered, raising concerns about accountability and transparency in handling judicial misconduct.
Another case in point was that of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, who was equally arrested in a 2016 raid by the DSS. Interestingly, his home was searched, and large sums of money in different currencies were allegedly discovered.
He faced charges of money laundering and false asset declaration. The allegations against Justice Ngwuta included having undeclared assets, maintaining multiple foreign accounts, and being involved in money laundering activities. Though Justice Ngwuta was never convicted, his case highlighted the systemic challenges in prosecuting high-ranking judges in Nigeria.
The charges were eventually dropped following a ruling that sitting judges should not be subjected to criminal trials until they had been disciplined by the NJC.
However, the case cast a shadow over the judiciary’s integrity and raised questions about judicial immunity and accountability. Justice Walter Onnoghen was the CJN before his controversial suspension by former President Muhammadu Buhari in January 2019, just weeks before the general elections.
This case was one of the most politically sensitive judicial controversies in recent Nigerian history. Justice Onnoghen faced allegations of failing to declare certain assets, specifically foreign currency accounts, as required by law. The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) filed charges against him, accusing him of violating the Code of Conduct for public officers.
The case against Justice Onnoghen was handled by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), which eventually convicted him, resulting in his removal from office and a ban from holding public office for ten years. Many viewed the timing of his suspension as politically motivated, considering his critical role in overseeing the judicial aspect of election disputes.
The case raised concerns about executive overreach and the independence of the judiciary, highlighting the vulnerability of judicial officers to political pressure. Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court faced allegations of corruption and misconduct.
Her case began with her arrest by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in 2016 on multiple counts, including money laundering and breach of public trust. Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia was accused of using her position to obtain bribes and illicit financial gains.
She was also charged with operating an account in which significant sums of money were deposited, allegedly linked to bribes from litigants and lawyers. Initially, she was acquitted of the charges in 2019 due to jurisdictional technicalities, but she was later re-arrested and re-arraigned in 2021.
Her reinstatement by the NJC in 2021 following the acquittal caused an uproar, as many believed her initial conduct warranted a permanent removal from office, irrespective of the legal technicalities.
The case reflected the challenges in holding judges accountable and underscored the procedural hurdles in prosecuting judicial officers.
Justice Mohammed Yunusa’s suspension and eventual dismissal in 2016 is another case worthy of mention. Justice Yunusa, a judge of the Federal High Court, was accused of misconduct and corruption in his handling of certain highprofile cases.
The EFCC investigated him following accusations of accepting bribes from a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Rickey Tarfa. The allegations against Justice Yunusa included granting favourable rulings in exchange for financial inducements and engaging in ex-parte communications with parties involved in litigation before him.
He was specifically accused of aiding lawyers to obtain favourable judgements in exchange for monetary benefits. The NJC eventually recommended his suspension and dismissal from the Bench in 2016, citing his unethical conduct.
Tinubu’s promise
President Bola Tinuhu had on September 30, 2024, during the swearing-in of Justice KekereEkun as the 23rd substantive CJN at the State House, Abuja, vowed never to interfere or abuse the relationship between the executive and judiciary.
While describing the judiciary as a crucial pillar of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, President Tinubu through a statement issued by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, acknowledged the judiciary’s role as a moderating force, ensuring that everyone remains in check, and as the last hope of the common man, sustaining people’s confidence in democracy.
The president emphasized that his administration will preserve the sanctity of the judiciary, recognizing the importance of its independence, even as he pledged to respect the clear line demarcating the executive and judiciary.
NASS’ intervention
On its part, the National As sembly, through the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, tasked Justice Kekere-Ekun to collaborate with other arms of government to ensure stability and consistency in the judiciary.
The Senate President who expressed concerns over conflicting decisions at lower courts and the Court of Appeal, stressed the need for predictability and adherence to superior court decisions.
In noting that this inconsistency is worrisome and needs to be addressed, Akpabio highlighted the pressing issue of prison congestion, citing the alarming number of people awaiting trial, particularly in land matters.
He noted that many individuals spend years in prison, only to be sentenced to shorter terms, emphasizing the need to speed up the justice system.
Akpabio emphasized that the National Assembly is committed to supporting the judiciary in implementing reforms, outlining key areas requiring attention, including prison congestion, judicial consistency, and speedy justice.
Lawyers speak
Speaking on how to curb judicial misconduct in the nation’s judiciary, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Anthony Idigbe, called on the CJN to strengthen the capabilities of judicial officers and introduce measures to attract top talent to the judiciary.
The SAN emphasized the need for the CJN to focus on both the people and the processes within Nigeria’s justice delivery system. He said: “The key issue is for the CJN to work on the people and the process of justice delivery in Nigeria. If she can focus on that, she will make a significant impact. The emphasis should be on the people, the process”.
Idigbe highlighted the importance of retaining existing personnel, improving their skills, and creating strategies to draw in the best candidates.
He expressed concerns about the judiciary’s current struggle to attract top talent. Additionally, he emphasized the need for reforms in areas such as case scheduling, management, and other aspects of the judicial process.
Idigbe noted that while some changes require constitutional amendments, others can be achieved through regulatory reforms within the legal profession and the broader justice system.
CJN should work on the people and process of justice delivery
A human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), stressed the need to strengthen the rule of law, promote accountability and safeguard the independence of the judiciary. T
he SAN who suggested that the appointment and promotion of judges should be free from political interference, as this compromises their impartiality and integrity, equally called for adequate funding for the judiciary.
While arguing that financial autonomy is crucial for the judiciary to function independently and avoid undue influence from the government, Falana maintained that there is a need for strict enforcement of judicial ethics.
He called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to be more proactive in discipling corrupt or unethical judges. According to him, any judge found guilty of misconduct should face appropriate sanctions to serve as a deterrent to others. He also suggested the implementation of mechanisms to regularly evaluate judges’ performance based on competence, integrity, and delivery of justice.
The human rights lawyer believes that judges should be held accountable for their decisions, especially when their judgements appear to favour personal or political interests. In insisting that there is a need for more transparency in judicial decisions and greater scrutiny of cases that involve conflicts of interest or political pressures, Falana called for the strengthening of whistleblowers within the judiciary to encourage reporting of judicial misconduct.
He called for continuous training and education for judges to enhance their understanding of the law, especially in complex areas like human rights, international law, and emerging legal trends. The rights advocate further called for reform in legal education so that new lawyers and judges are trained with a stronger ethical foundation and an emphasis on justice and fairness.
For him, the imperative of restoring public confidence in the judiciary cannot be overemphasized. This, according to Falana, can be achieved by making the judiciary more accessible, transparent, and accountable to ordinary citizens. He also supports the establishment of special courts to handle corruption and election-related cases swiftly and impartially.
On his part, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), called for the complete separation between the judiciary and the executive in terms of funding and decision-making. This, he said, will prevent undue influence from the government and ensure that judges can make decisions without fear or favour.
Agbakoba further stressed the need for accountability, adding that the judicial system should have internal mechanisms to check and discipline judges who act in ways that undermine justice. This, he said, involves creating frameworks for evaluating judicial performance, transparency, and addressing misconduct swiftly.
The former NBA boss advocated for structural reforms within the judiciary, particularly in addressing inefficiency, corruption, and delays in justice delivery. Agbakoba called for a meritbased process for appointing judges, just as he added that political influence in the selection of judges undermines the quality of judicial decisions.
In his words: “A transparent process that focuses on the integrity, competence, and experience of judicial candidates is key to curbing judicial radicalism”.
On his part, another rights activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ebun Olu-Adegboruwa, argued that while judicial radicalism can refer to judges making bold, controversial, or unpredictable rulings, reforms aimed at ensuring the judiciary acts within the law while maintaining independence and accountability should be engendered.
He called for a mechanism to review judicial decisions, especially when they appear to go against legal precedents or seem politically motivated.
He suggested that bodies like the NJC should be empowered to review judges’ conduct more effectively, ensuring that they operate with integrity and are not swayed by external influences or personal ideologies.
He emphasized the importance of judges adhering to established legal precedents. This, according to the SAN, would limit judicial radicalism by ensuring consistency in rulings, promoting fairness, and preventing erratic judicial behaviour.