Ozekhome said Ofili-Ajumogobia should not be blamed for seeking justice through the constitutionally-guaranteed medium.
By Jeffrey Agbo
Legal luminary Mike Ozekhome has described the reinstatement of Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia as a judge of the Federal High Court as justice served.
In a statement made available to The Niche on Thursday, Ozekhome said the only voice of dissent against her reinstatement appears to be that of a civil society organisation, the Access to Justice (A2J) which he described as one of the few credible CSOs still available in the country.
Ozekhome said he was surprised to read a press release, titled “A brutal agonizing stab on the soul and body of Nigeria’s Judiciary”, made by A2J.
“The respected organization in the said statement frowned at NJC’s action in reinstating Justice Ajumogobia, a refreshingly welcome act, which it described as: unfortunate”; given what it called, “serious and damning accusations against Justice Ajumogobia,” he said.
Explaining the circumstances around Ofili-Ajumogobia’s trial, Ozekhome said she was first dragged before Hon. Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the High Court of Lagos State on 28th November, 2016, alongside a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Godwin Obla.
He said, “They were arraigned on 30 counts, in which the latter was accused of offering Justice Ajumogobia the sum of N5 million as gratification allegedly to influence her decision in a Suit marked FHC/L/C/482c/2010. Furthermore, Justice Ajumogibia was accused of receiving the sum of $793,800 in several tranches from different sources between 2012 and 2015 “so as to have a significant increase in your assets that you cannot reasonably explain the increase in relation to your lawful income.” That trial went nowhere and Justice Ajumogobia was reprieved after she was discharged.
“Not satisfied, however, the EFCC re-arraigned her before Hon. Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court, who in a ruling delivered on the 19th day of November 2021, brought her ordeal to an end, as the court accepted her counsel’s application and quashed all the 18 counts against her, which had alleged unlawful enrichment, bribery and money laundering. In the words of the court: “An order is hereby granted striking out or quashing the charge against the applicant in its entirety for being incompetent and this court lacks the jurisdiction to try same.” If the public thought that the ruling had far-reaching implications for the Judiciary in terms of obedience to court orders, more hair-splitting was to arise as to how the learned trial Judge arrived at his judgement.
READ ALSO:
Ozekhome mocks el-Rufai’s threat to engage mercenaries in fight against terrorists
“The answer lies in a subsequent judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal on the 11th of December, 2017, in the case of FRN vs Hon. Justice Nganjiwa. The court in that case held that a serving Judge cannot be prosecuted by the EFCC or any prosecutorial agency unless the Judge had first been probed by the NJC, found guilty and dismissed. Justice Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, who delivered the lead judgement which was unanimously endorsed by other members of the panel, declared that “the NJC is the sole body empowered by the Constitution to determine allegations of misconduct against judicial officers even on criminal allegations of bribery and corruption made against them.”
“Continuing, the intermediate court held that “NJC is created by the Constitution to solely regulate affairs of the appointed judicial officer without interference from any authority, and that it is only when the NJC has given a verdict and handed over such judicial officer (removing his toga of judicial powers) to the prosecuting authority that he may then be investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate security agencies”. This judgement was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court earlier this year on 27th May 2022.
“It was against this background that Hon. Justice Allagoa, upon being presented with the true and correct position of the law, discharged and acquitted Justice Ajumogobia, on the 21st day of November 2021, as aforesaid.”
Ozekhome said Ofili-Ajumogobia should not be blamed for seeking justice through the constitutionally-guaranteed medium.
He concluded that the A2J needs to apologise to both the NJC and Ofili-Ajumogobia.
On the NJC, he said, “The role of the NJC in all this also deserves some commentary. This is because, as a constitutional body, its role should be no more than to dispassionately investigate allegations of misconduct against Judges and, where unproven or disproved, it should unhesitatingly and promptly reinstate such Judges, in the event that they had earlier been interdicted. Under no circumstances should NJC go so far as appealing against a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction which exonerates a judicial officer as it is currently doing with respect to the cases of Hon. Justice Gladys Olotu and Hon Justice Agbadu-Fishim. This, with all respect, due deference and full humility, is patently wrong. I hereby humbly appeal to the NJC to immediately discontinue and withdraw those appeals. They are as unnecessary as they are persecutory. The NJC should admit to errors and fallibility. It is not God.
“The NJC should only indict Judges in the clearest of cases. It should never allow itself to be used or misused, wittingly or unwittingly, by the other arms of Government (particularly, the intolerant and unaccountable Executive), to hound, hunt, or persecute hapless Judges doing their legitimate work. That would be grossly unfair and amounting to a flagrant affront to the Constitution. Those arms of Government should first cleanse and deodorize their stinking Augean stables – where confirmed cases of corruption-on-steroids abound – before turning to the Judiciary – Alexander Hamilton’s weakest of the three arms of government (Federalist Paper No 78 ). This is because, compared to these other arms of government, the Judiciary – as a body – is a Saint occupying mother earth. Please, let Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia, a brilliant and fecund quintessential Jurist, be.”