The much-awaited judgement in a suit seeking the reinstatement of suspended President of the Court of Appeal, PCA, Justice Ayo Isa Salami, was stalled yesterday, following the nationwide strike by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria, JUSUN. Justice Adamu Bello was to deliver judgement in a suit instituted by the Registered Trustees of the Centre for the Promotion of Arbitration, for an order recalling Salami.
As a result of the strike, the gates of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, as well as the Federal High Court, were locked to prevent access by judges, lawyers and litigants. At the Abuja Federal High Court gate, there was a mass of lawyers, litigants and labour officials, all of whom discussed the industrial action and its implication on the fate of pending cases, most importantly the aborted judgement on Justice Salami. Only a sensitisation seminar for judges on the “Challenges to Deposit Insurance Law and Practice” was held at the high court.
Also, the convicted pension thief and former Assistant Director, Police Pension Office, Mr. John Yakubu Yusufu, will remain in Kuje prison, as ruling on his bail application, is now at the mercy of the strike. Yusufu, who was convicted on January 28 over “illegal act” of stealing about N23 billion pension funds meant for police retirees, has been in Kuje prison since Wednesday, January 30, when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, re-arraigned him on a fresh 4-count charge bordering on his failure to disclose his assets as they relate to his interest in a company called SY -A Global Services Limited. At the last adjourned date, a mild drama had ensued, when the convict slumped in the dock, shortly after commencement of his trial.
JUSUN’s action, National Mirror gathered, followed alleged failure by the Federal Government to issue a circular for the implementation of the Consolidated Judiciary Salary Structure, CONJUSS. Plaintiffs in Justice Salami’s case (11 in number), in an originating summons brought pursuant to the inherent rules of the Federal High Court, had prayed the court to hold that the National Judicial Council, NJC, by virtue of the 1999 constitution, as amended, has the exclusive power to mete out sanctions against judicial officers. They added that such powers by NJC included discipline and recall.
To this end, the plaintiffs want an order of mandamus compelling the NJC to recall justice Salami. In adopting plaintiffs’ argument, their counsel Mr. Jitobo Akanike, had contended that, President Goodluck Jonathan (1st Defendant) and the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, (2nd defendant) have no business in matters of discipline of a judicial officer. He pointed out that the earlier pronouncement reinstating Salami by the NJC did not need any approval or endorsement by the president for it to carry the force of law.
In their separate responses, however, counsel to the president and the AGF, Mr. Matthew Echo urged the trial judge to dismiss the plaintiffs’ originating summons on the ground that plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute the matter. Echo told the court that 1st and 2nd defendants’ objections were brought pursuant to order 26, rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Federal High Court rules.
He maintained that “the plaintiffs have not shown any sufficient interest above any other Nigerian in the matter” to warrant granting their reliefs. The court, was therefore, enjoined to “uphold our counter-affidavit and dismiss the suit as mere academic, indeterminable and a waste of the time of the court.” On his part, counsel to NJC (3rd defendant), Dr. A. A. Kanah prayed the court to arrive at a decision that will best serve the interest of justice.
But, Salami’s counsel, Chief Adeniyi Akintola, SAN, aligned with the submission of the plaintiffs, when he persuaded the court to dismiss the defendants’ preliminary objection “as not representing the current status of the law on locus standi.” Akintola told the court that the NJC had “also admitted that that it is they that have power of discipline of judicial officers. “This court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant an order of mandamus compelling the 3rd defendant to perform its constitutional duty, to save the judiciary from ridicule.
“The failure of the 3rd Defendant to reinstate the 4th Defendant by wrongly and unlawfully referring it to the 1st defendant for approval when indeed the 1st defendant lacks such power under the constitution has diminished the status and influence of the 3rd defendant in the public domain. “This Honourable court has the unique opportunity to redeem and restore the dented image of the judiciary through the grant of the prayers sought by the plaintiffs,” Akintola submitted.
Tweet
