NBA faults CCB’s summon of Chief Judge Tsoho, says it lacks the powers
By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has faulted the reported summons issued to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Honourable Justice John Terhemba Tsoho, by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) over alleged undeclared bank accounts, warning that such actions threaten judicial independence, violates the constitutional role of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the doctrine of separation of powers.
In a strong-worded letter dated March 2, 2026, addressed to the Chairman of the CCB, the NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe, (SAN), contends that the Code of Conduct Bureau lacks constitutional authority to summon a sitting Chief Judge.
In the letter, NBA asserted that only the National Judicial Council (NJC) is empowered by Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) to investigate or discipline any serving judicial officers.
The NBA noted media reports indicating that Justice Tsoho had been invited to appear before the Bureau to respond to allegations that he failed to declare several bank accounts in his asset declaration form, allegedly in breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.
Describing the development as constitutionally worrisome, the NBA cautioned that any investigative or disciplinary process initiated against a serving judge without prior recourse to the NJC, would amount to violation of the doctrine of separation of powers and constitutional role of NJC.
The letter cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Nganjiwa (2022) 17 NWLR Pt 1860 407, which clarified that the NJC must exercise disciplinary authority over judicial officers before any criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings can be initiated.
Similar rulings/judgements which premised on the authority of NJC to exercise its investigative and disciplinary powers over judicial officers include FRN vs Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, FRN vs Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen.
According to the NBA, the Apex Court established that the NJC is “the ultimate guardian that guards the guardians of the Constitution” and that a serving judicial officer cannot face prosecution for alleged misconduct related to official duties without prior NJC sanction.
“Any criminal proceedings initiated without NJC involvement are unconstitutional, null and void”, NBA stated
The Association also cited opinions of Justices Ogunwumiju and Agim, who held that executive attempts to summon, arrest, or prosecute judges without recourse to the NJC erode judicial independence, intimidate the judiciary, and violate constitutional safeguards.
NBA described the summons reportedly issued to Justice Tsoho as far more than a mere administrative interaction, stating that it constitutes the commencement of a process capable of culminating in sanction.
The NBA noted that while allegations arising from purely private conduct may be handled directly by law enforcement, but where the allegations relate to the exercise of judicial functions or professional misconduct connected to office, the NJC must first determine the matter.
“Any prosecution or investigative action against a serving Chief Judge without prior NJC consideration, is premature and unconstitutional”, the NBA warned.
The NBA further highlighted the Supreme Court rulings thus:
“A serving judicial officer cannot be prosecuted for allegations of crimes… unless the NJC has first exercised disciplinary sanctions as a condition precedent,” and that
“No court in Nigeria can commence the trial of a serving judicial officer… unless the NJC allegations are first subjected to disciplinary sanctions.”
In Supreme Court decision in FRN v. Nganjiwa (2022) 17 NWLR Pt 1860 407, which the NBA cited, the Apex Court held that:
“It is the primary prerogative of the NJC to exercise disciplinary control over all judicial officers. Thus, the exclusion of the prior involvement of the NJC in any form of the exercise of disciplinary control (including criminal prosecution) over judicial officers negates the doctrine of separation of powers.”
Emphasising the risks to judicial independence, the Association quoted Justices Ogunwumiju and Agim who said: “The institution of criminal proceedings by an executive agent of government against a serving judicial officer without first recourse to the National Judicial Council is unconstitutional, and the proceedings would be null and void and of no effect… The NJC acts as the buffer to protect serving judges from the whims and caprices of serving Presidents, Governors, and other principal Officers of the executive arm of government.”
The letter further stressed:
“Where allegations arise from the performance of judicial functions or amount to professional misconduct connected with official duties, the NJC must first determine the matter before any further process can be validly undertaken.”
The Lawyers body cautioned that:
“Permitting the CCB or even the Code of Conduct Tribunal to proceed independently to investigate, summon, or even try Honourable Justice John Tsoho would therefore undermine the constitutional balance by allowing an external institution to initiate processes that properly fall within the supervisory domain of the judiciary.”
Consequently, the Association urged the CCB to “withdraw the summons issued to Justice Tsoho and instead refer any concerns or any allegation against him to the National Judicial Council for investigation and any necessary action to ensure that the independence of the judicial arm of government is not trampled on.”
Besides, the NBA letter which copies were sent to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the Chief Judge Justice John Tsoho and also obtained by TheNiche, it urged the Bureau to “Accelerate the digitalization of its asset declaration system to enable seamless updating of prior declarations through a secure electronic portal to allow public officers update prior declarations seamlessly….. create an auditable trail of declarations and updates, minimize errors, reduce inadvertent omissions, provide automated reminders for periodic declarations, enhance transparency while safeguarding data integrity… and minimize administrative disputes over compliance timelines.”
