The allegation of bias against some justices of the Court of Appeal in the Ondo PDP governorship ‘candidates’ tussle is the thrust of this piece by VIVIAN OKEJEME.
It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied, but most time, justice delayed may not necessarily be denied.
There has been an outcry that the country’s judiciary is heading towards a dangerous trend where litigants who feel they will lose a case will make bogus allegation against judicial officers to tarnish their image, and this have been a call for concern,
The governorship election in Ondo state which is about two weeks from now, has been a subject of litigation among the candidates in the Peoples Democratic Party, in the state.
This followed the factionalisation of the party which produced two candidates for the party in the November 26 governorship election. The Senator Ahmed Makarfi-led group has Barrister Eyitayo Jegede, a senior advocate on the one hand as its candidate, and Senator Ali Modu-Sherrif’s faction has Barrister Jimoh Ibrahim on the other hand.
Justice Okon Abang of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on October 14, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to recognize Ibrahim as the party’s candidate for the election without delay, and the commission followed suit by handing the party’s ticket to the business mogul.
And dissatisfied with the decision, Jegede proceeded to the appellate court to contest the decision to strip him of the ticket which he earlier had. When the appeal came up last week, it however assumed a new twist when the party chairman in the state, Prince Biyi Poroye, accused the Justice Hannatu Sankey- led panel of receiving N350 million bribe from the state governor, Dr. Olusegun Mimiko and Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State.
Following the petition, the panel withdrew from the case, and a new one inaugurated by the court’s President, Justice. Zainab Bulkachuwa. But the Southwest PDP leaders are asking for reversal of Bulkachiwa’s decision, alleging that the new panel, comprising Justices Ibrahim Salauwa, Ignatius Igwe Aguba and George Mbaba, was set up in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing guaranteed under section 36 of the constitution.
In the earlier petition, which has now stalled the hearing of the appeal, dated 31st October, 2016 and addressed to Justice Bulkachuwa, the petitioner alleged Mimiko had publicly boasted that Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers state and himself, have settled the Justices with N350million.
The petition was copied President Muhammadu Buhari, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the panel itself.
Poroye, who swore to an affidavit of evidence to buttress his allegations, said he believed Justices were compromised because the presiding Justice Sankey had been sick for the past five years and as such “became very poor and prone to corruption.”
Poroye further alleged in the petition that Justice Sankey was transferred from Yola where Jegede, the appellant, was practicing law for the past 15 years and that when she arrived in Akure, Governor Mimiko boasted that he catered for her to the tune of N100million.
It was on these grounds that the petitioner demanded the disbandment of the panel on the ground that his side will not get justice from the panel. The PDP factional chairman also faulted the composition of a special panel to hear a pre-election matter, adding that there was no reason for the President of the Court of Appeal to have done so since the appeal was not time bound.
In her reaction, Justice Sankey said, “conscience is an open wound, only truth can heal it. Why did he run out of court when he has the audacity to append his signature on the shameless petition and the affidavit?
“Let me say here that 99 days is for the thief, only one day is for the owner. It is painful that the petitioner uses my ailment predicament to insult me, to allege that I am a poor judge, sick for five years and prone to corruption.
“I am ready to carry my illness on my shoulder, but it is unfair for the petitioner to make my sickness an issue in his petition.”
In her ruling, Justice Sankey said: “Ordinarily, since no fact had been put forward before the court to establish a case of likelihood of bias and since lawyers in this matter have all denied knowledge of the petition, we would have minded to ignore the petition! But it is a settled law that when a case of likelihood of bias has been raised in a petition, it has to be looked into, even if the petition is frivolous.
“We consider it necessary to disqualify ourselves from all petitions in respect of Ondo PDP governorship matters. We hereby step down from this matter and the case files are to be returned of this court for re-assignment to another panel,” she said.
In his reaction, Counsel to Jegede, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), said he was taken aback by the development and that he was not copied.
He described the petition as most embarrassing, unfair, unfortunate and un-godly because the Justices have not taken any step to suggest any likelihood of bias.
Olanipekun expressed that if any party should complain, it is his client, whose right was aborted because of the removal of his name as a candidate of the PDP on the list by the INEC.
He therefore warned politicians not to destroy the judiciary for their narrow-minded interest, saying the judiciary remains the only institution that is the corner stone and foundation of Nigeria’s democracy.
The silk urged the affected justices to refer the petition to the appropriate security agent for investigation and appropriate action.
In the same vein, Counsel to the petitioner, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN), was astonished about the development, stating that he had no inkling of the petition and was not consulted by his client before writing same.
He asked the court to invite the petitioner to the court room to explain the reason behind his petition and also make clarifications.
“Let me say it here that I have been caged by my client in his bid to make caricature of the court’, he said, and added that the court must be protected and allowed to do its job.
“I have come here to do my job in accordance to the law, I do not know how the court will react to this petition but I stand by you, justices of this court because I do not have any evidence that you have been compromised.
“I am not a party to the petition and I am ready to go ahead with the case. This petition is an embarrassment to me. It is a slight to me and I do not stand by the petitioner.”
However the NJC is set to investigate the allegation and has also vowed that Prince Poroye must also be available to back up his claim with evidence.
Since the allegation was made, lawyers and other stakeholders have applauded the Justice Sankey led panel for withdrawing from hearing the appeal, but warned that the country is heading toward a dangerous trend where litigants who feel they will lose a case will make bogus allegation against judicial officers to tarnish their image.
Some lawyers who reacted to the allegation see it as a ploy to stop an expeditious hearing of the appeal. In this group is Leke Akingbaojumo.
“If he is unable to substantiate his claim, I think he should be used as example to serve as deterrence to others who will just wake up one day and make bogus allegation against innocent judicial officers who are doing their lawful duties,” he said.
Sharing similar view, another lawyer, Nonso Amadi Ikwueche, said the allegation is part of the antics of politicians to stall the matter, and urged the new panel to also expedite action on the appeal so as to determine it before the election is conducted on November 26th.