,
22 tweets,
9 min read
Read on Twitter
@ayosogunro Dear @ayosogunro, let me now respond to the issues that you so thoughtfully raised in response to my tweet of yesterday, challenging your position on judges, crime, the NJC and the courts. First, let me isolate the things that we are already agreed upon from the debate. Thread...
@ayosogunro 1. We are agreed on the importance of the Separation of Powers. There’s no debate there.
2. We are agreed that the NJC is not a court.
3. We both don’t like the ruling in the NGAJIWA case, but for two completely different reasons. Let’s look at this one first.
2. We are agreed that the NJC is not a court.
3. We both don’t like the ruling in the NGAJIWA case, but for two completely different reasons. Let’s look at this one first.
@ayosogunro The NGAJIWA case says a judge should be taken to the NJC first, except in cases like Rape, Arson and Murder which have nothing to do with his functioning as a judge, in which case he can be taken directly to court without resort to the NJC.
@ayosogunro You felt that in such cases as rape, arson or murder, the matter should go to the courts but the judge must first be disrobed. To disrobe the judge means taking him to the NJC. In effect, therefore, you are saying that in cases of murder or rape it should go first to the NJC.
@ayosogunro It is for this reason that you disagree with the NGAJIWA case. You say it violates the principles and that case law may change but we must keep our eyes on the higher principles. I have quoted your tweet below for ease of reference.
@ayosogunro I dislike NGAJIWA for an altogether different reason. I believe that it creates immunity that is was not provided for in the Constitution for judges. I dislike it because it is a de facto immunity incestuously created for judges by judges, not by the National Assembly.
@ayosogunro You asked the question: what happens when a judge commits a crime? You also correctly surmised that both judicial and executive processes come into play. The issue that exercised your mind was: which one should come first? My answer would be: whichever one first commences. Why?
@ayosogunro Let us draw examples from other professions. A civil servant is subject to both the Public Service Rules and the laws. If he is accused of fraud, no one ever says he must first be dismissed before he is taken to court. You’ll say judges are different, but please bear with me.
@ayosogunro Unlike the NJC, Court Martials are full-fledged courts recognized by the Constitution. The National Assembly enacted the Armed Forces Act and gave them civil and criminal adjudication powers. It is important to note that this authority was conferred by the NASS, not the army.
@ayosogunro Now, if an Army General is caught by the police in the act of attempting to rape a woman, is he court-martialed first? No. He is charged straight to court, suspended so he can go and defend himself and then dismissed if found guilty. If caught by the army, he’s court martialed.
@ayosogunro You argue that judges are different, and I agree, but perhaps for an altogether different reason. You see, when I was learning law (long time ago), a judge’s testimony had more weight even than that of a priest. When a judge says “This is the Ibori I convicted”, it was gospel.
@ayosogunro Given the grave responsibility a judge bears that empowers him to deprive a person of his possessions, liberty, or even, life, a judge was deemed incapable of telling a lie. A Senior Advocate was reverred. They were such honorable people that they won’t mislead the court.
@ayosogunro In the almost 33 years since I was called to the Nigerian bar, a lot has changed. “This is the Ibori I convicted” no longer carries weight; NBA elections are characterized by accusations of rigging and the President of the NBA, a SAN, is being prosecuted for corruption.
@ayosogunro When I was admitted as a UK Solicitor nearly 20 years ago, the Master of Rolls said something telling: “If you catch a man on top of your wife and you kill them both in a fit of rage, we will forgive you and allow you to practice after your trial and possible imprisonment.
@ayosogunro But if you enter a bus and dodge the bus fare, we will take away your practice licence FOR LIFE!” Why? Because a solicitor has a grave responsibility to be seen as honest and trustworthy, particularly as he will handle client funds in the course of his duties.
@ayosogunro This is why I believe that My Lord the Chief Justice of Nigeria should not have even been in the situation where his lawyers are forum-shopping. He should not have asked process servers to serve his PA, knowing it was improper. He should have been far more honorable than that.
@ayosogunro Immediately he was formally CHARGED, he should have written to the NJC asking for time away from his post to go and defend the allegation against him. I will not digress into the issue of whether asset declaration is a wrongdoing in the normal course of judicial duties or not.
@ayosogunro The President was wrong on many fronts. He was wrong that security overrides the rule of law. Security must be obtained WITHIN the rule of law.🙄. He was wrong to suspend the CJN, as he had no powers to do so. If he claims to have acted in ignorance, can the CJN claim the same?
@ayosogunro The CJN indefinitely postponing the meeting of the NJC after all the members had arrived Abuja, was beneath his high office. The President unconstitutionally suspending him was beneath his own high office. That is why I blamed both parties. They’ve all damaged our justice system.
@ayosogunro You rightly said that the Constitution did not envisage this situation, you therefore sought refuge in Jurisprudence. Although, I teach Philosophy of Science, I won’t lecture you on Jurisprudence. Suffice it to say that there are many schools of thought, none superior to others.
@ayosogunro The Positivism of Austin, Bentham and Hume is not superior to the Realism of Oliver Wendell Holmes and others. J.G. Ridall said “In Jurisprudence, as in Philosophy, no one ever wins.” That is why I was surprised that a jurist like you would be so forceful in your views.
@ayosogunro A true academic, which a Jurist is, will always leave room for the opinion of others. He’ll know that all knowledge is fallible. He’ll know that if opinions did not differ, there will be no intellectual discourse. You have apologized and I respect you for it. God bless you. End.
