The National Judicial Council (NJC) yesterday gave the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen and the acting CJN, Tanko Mohammed, a one-week ultimatum to respond to allegations of corruption and professional misconduct levelled against them. Following an emergency meeting to consider petitions against the two most senior judicial officers in the country, the NJC; the body with the powers to discipline erring judicial officers, asked Onnoghen to explain why he failed to declare all his assets and Mohammed why he submitted himself to be appointed CJN without the involvement of the NJC; in violation of Section 231 (1) of the 1999 Constitution which states that: “The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate.”
www.www.aso.rocks search engine learnt that, due to the gravity of the allegations, the NJC abridged the time for the accused to respond to the allegations to one week instead of the usual 14 working – an indication that both men may be sacrificed to restore sanity in the judiciary arm of government. Since Onnoghen and Mohammed are incidentally involved in the crisis, they recused themselves from the meeting. As a result, former Court of Appeal President, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, was elected interim chairman to preside over the meeting. The next in rank at the Supreme Court, who incidentally is not a member of the NJC, Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, could not be drafted into the meeting, since he may be the obvious beneficiary of the crisis.
If the NJC sanctions Onnoghen and Mohammed with dismissal, Rhodes-Vivour would automatically step in as the most senior justice of the Supreme Court and the NJC would recommend him to the president for appointment. A source at the NJC explained to www.www.aso.rocks search engine that the NJC had to reduce the time to one week because Justice Mohammed is occupying the office based on an interim order. “If the order expires, there will be the need for a fresh order to continue to keep him in office, as vacancy must be forestalled. Constitutionally, an acting CJN cannot be reappointed by the president if he fails to get the Senate confirmation at the expiration of three months and it is not likely the current Senate would confirm anyone not nominated by the NJC,” the source said.
Subsection 231 (4) provides that: “If the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria is vacant or if the person holding the office is for any reason unable to perform the functions of the office, then until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of that office, or until the person holding has resumed those functions, the President shall appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court to perform those functions.”
Subsection 231 (5), however, provides that “Except on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, an appointment pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section shall cease to have effect after the expiration of three months from the date of such appointment, and the President shall not re-appoint a person whose appointment has lapsed.”
Buhari appointed Mohammed when there was no vacancy in the office. Rather, the president claimed he acted upon the recommendation of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) after a petition against Onnoghen, by a civil society group; Resource Centre for Human Rights & Civil Education had accused him of non-declaration of his assets as required by law. Onnoghen was charged at the CCT. This resulted in President Buhari suspending him and appointed Mohammed as acting CJN. But another civil society group, Centre for Justice and Peace Initiative, and a former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) petitioned against Mohammed for accepting to be sworn in as acting CJN.
In the petition dated January 28, Agbakoba said Mohammed should be sanctioned for assuming office “despite knowing of his unconstitutional appointment. Hon. Justice Tanko is fully aware of the state of law, yet presented himself to be sworn in by the President. Incidentally, Justice Tanko was a member of the NJC panel that removed Justice Obisike Orji of the Abia State High Court for accepting to be sworn in as chief judge by Abia State governor without the recommendation of the NJC. It is a matter of regret that Justice Tanko who participated in this process will lend himself to this constitutional infraction.”
“We pray the NJC to determine this petition in line with the decision in Justice Obisike Orji by immediately removing Tanko as Justice of the Supreme Court on grounds of gross misconduct which has generated perhaps the most controversial crisis in Nigeria’s judicial history.”
Meanwhile, because the CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar, is not a judicial officer, the NJC referred the petition written against to the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), saying it is the appropriate constitutional body empowered to deal with it. The body adjourned to February 11.