Throughout the week, there were hints that the National Judicial Council (NJC), which is led by Justice Kudirat Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, would soon hold a significant meeting to discuss a number of issues, including the findings of its various committees that looked into claims of wrongdoing against a number of the nation’s active judges.

Following the new Chief Justice’s recent vow that errant judicial officers would no longer be spared, there is a noticeable sense of tension in the judiciary as a result of the meeting, which is the first quarterly meeting of the Council to be chaired by Justice Kekere-Ekun and the last for the year, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

https://www.instagram.com/godfatheraluminium1/profilecard/?igsh=dWw5YW05djR4MWNl

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558144097511&mibextid=LQQJ4d

Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution established the NJC, which has the statutory authority to choose, elevate, and punish the nation’s corrupt judges.

A reliable source close to the Council told Vanguard that once the Chief Justice returns from his current official duty abroad, a date for the meeting will be set.

It was also revealed that the nation’s top judge is uncomfortable with how the third branch of government is currently viewed and is ready to quickly bring order back to the system.

“In order to take decisive action regarding the various allegations of misconduct against the judicial officers, the Chief Justice is eagerly awaiting the reports of the various panels that were previously established to investigate them,” the source stated.

Recall that from May to August 2024, 22 petitions were filed against 27 active judges in the nation’s federal and state high courts. The NJC forwarded all of the complaints to the Preliminary Complaints Assessment Committee, one of its standing committees, for review.

After reviewing each petition, the Committee rejected a majority of 18 on the grounds that they were either without merit, had been dropped by the petitioners, or were deemed subjudice because some of the issues raised in them were still being litigated in the high courts or the appellate courts.

This is in addition to the eight panels that were previously established by the same NJC in June 2024 to look into allegations of judicial misconduct against a different group of judges.

In particular, just eight of the 35 petitions filed against 33 judicial officers from the Court of Appeal and the state high courts were deemed meritorious by the Council’s Preliminary Complaints Assessment Committee.

In addition to the eight panels that the NJC had previously established in June 2024 to investigate judges, the NJC established four more panels on August 15, 2024, to investigate judges against whom a prima facie case had been made.

By implication, the various NJC standing committees are looking into 55 petitions that have an impact on several judicial officers nationwide, of which 12 are still pending.
It was discovered that each standing panel consisted of a chairperson and two more Council members.

Additionally, it was discovered that each of the 12 panels had sent copies of the petitions to the relevant judges individually so they could provide written and verbal defences.

According to a source familiar with the NJC’s process, the impacted judges were free to choose the legal representation they wanted.

Additionally, it was discovered that each of the 12 panels had sent copies of the petitions to the relevant judges individually so they could provide written and verbal defences.

According to a source familiar with the NJC’s process, the impacted judges were free to choose the legal representation they wanted.

The NJC’s final quarterly meeting will be scheduled for the reporting of the several panels looking into the impacted judges as soon as the Chief Justice returns to the nation.
The source went on to say, “I believe that cases will be handled differently this time, and I believe that this new CJN will quickly rebalance the perception of the judiciary and its legitimacy.”

Prior to the reports’ review, leading solicitors nationwide have been applying pressure to the National Judicial Council, or NJC, about the recent crisis that broke out in Rivers State due to two high court judges of coordinate jurisdiction issuing contradictory orders regarding whether or not the state’s local council election should take place on October 5, 2024.
Respected members of the inner bar are among the stakeholders promoting the position. They include renowned scholar Prof. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, famed silk chief Samuel Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, former Imo State House of Assembly chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, and former Abia State attorney general and commissioner for justice Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN.

Lawyers who called the nation’s existing practice of serving judges vying for jurisdiction in political matters “embarrassing” stated that until examples are set, the judiciary’s integrity will continue to deteriorate, endangering the country’s young democracy.

According to Saturday Vanguard, three judges of coordinate jurisdiction—Justice Mohammed Liman, Justice S. Amobeda, and Justice Amina Aliyu—in quick succession issued conflicting orders in the Kano emirship dispute sometime in May of this year, under the supervision of the immediate past Chief Justice Olukayode Ariwoola. This not only sparked political unrest and scandalised the judiciary, but it also left the Kano emirate with two substantive emirs to this day.

In order to obtain firsthand information about the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the embarrassing conflicting orders, Chief Justice Ariwoola invited the heads of the Federal High Court and the Kano State High Court to his office in Abuja. However, according to DAILYPULSE, none of the three judges approved the cases and none of them handed them off until judgement.

However, the new CJN declared that things would not be the same after taking office.
But a few days after she was promoted, two judges—Justice Chigozie Igwe of the Rivers State High Court in Port-Harcourt and Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja—issued contradictory rulings over the recent local council elections in Rivers state.
The state was on fire from the competing orders.

Logic-defiling judgements, justice flying everywhere —SAN Okutepa
Mr Samuel Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, a fiery lawyer who did not specifically name any cases, had publicly questioned why the bar’s esteemed senior statesmen were remaining silent in the face of the legal profession’s declining integrity after the shenanigans.

“There were powerful and admirable elder statesmen in the legal profession back when its members were the hope of the oppressed and disenfranchised. When any member of the legal profession displayed behaviour that could have compromised the profession’s integrity, these elders intervened to make sure that dishonest judges and solicitors did not compromise the integrity of the community.

Does the trade still employ elders with Spartan bravery and demeanour? The reason I’m asking is that the legal profession needs elders who can prevent it from collapsing. There are rulings all over the place today that have corrupted justice and reason. Many people believe that the state has taken over our legal systems. The legal profession has been influenced by politics.

Our elders are missing. “The legal profession is not at its best right now,” he continued.

These days, court orders are very “lucrative.” —Prof. Odinkalu

In response, Prof. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, observed that the joke now is that “court orders these days are so lucrative that many judges make them – in good old Nigeria-speak – double-double.” The Federal High Court bears the most of the blame for this unfortunate situation.

After a rogue Federal High Court judge chose to bring chieftaincy into the federal sphere, the historic city of Kano now boasts two Emirs: one state and one federal. Additionally, Edo State has two deputy governors.

After Chigozi Igwe, a judge of the High Court of Rivers State, issued a well-considered decision establishing October 5 as the election date, the Federal High Court also attempted to impose two different dates on Rivers State for the conduct of Local Government elections through the judicial efforts of Peter Lifu, a judge.

Sim Fubara, the governor of Rivers State, praised Peter Lifu’s efforts by referring to him as “that justice that gave that fraudulent judgement.”

This is not the first time the Federal High Court has arbitrarily established itself as an appeal venue to examine State High Court rulings without the benefit of the proceedings records and with the malice of a political hitman disguised in judicial robes.

Furthermore, it is not the first time that the Federal High Court will do so without first sacrificing a State High Court, which is the sole court with unrestricted jurisdiction under the Constitution. He said, “This Federal High Court has turned into a place where Lady Justice is repeatedly raped and the law is disgraced.”

NBA: Why should a judge forbid police from providing security?
Even if a court has ordered the police not to cooperate with the Rivers State Electoral Commission, nothing says that the police should not provide security for the peace and order of Rivers State. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which has also bemoaned the threat of conflicting judgements from the affected high court judges regarding the scheduled elections, added that the refusal to provide security was not only unconstitutional but also illegal, immoral, and a dangerous signal that invites

NJC should intervene even in the absence of a petition, a scapegoat judicial error—Ahamba, SAN
Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, a well-respected member of the inner bar, has also voiced disgust at the despised practice of judges issuing contradictory orders in an attempt to inflame the political climate and sabotage the legal system.

Even without a petition or a scapegoat judicial error, NJC should step in—Ahamba, SAN
Respected inner bar member Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, has also expressed anger at the hated practice of judges making inconsistent orders in an effort to undermine the judicial system and agitate the political atmosphere.

According to Prof. Kalu, SAN, a federal high court lacks the authority to hear issues pertaining to LG and its business.
Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN, also contributed, stating that a Federal high court lacks the authority to hear issues pertaining to local government and its activities. He also expressed his curiosity as to why a high court judge would order police to disregard their constitutional obligations.

According to the Constitution, a national industrial court, a state high court, and a federal high court are all equal. As law-abiding individuals, we anticipate that no court should elevate itself above another when you are on an equal footing. “Why should the federal high court have jurisdiction over local government elections? And once more, upholding law and order is the police’s principal responsibility. He asked pointedly, “So, why should a court order police to refrain from doing what they are supposed to do—maintenance of law and order?”