More knocks for judges, lawyers over conflicting court orders

By PASCHAL NJOKU, Abuja

The summon handed down to six Chief Judges (CJs) in the country by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Muhammad, to explain the circumstances surrounding the conflicting court orders that emanated in their various states in the last one month has contin­ued to elicit divergent reac­tions from major stakehold­ers in the justice delivery sector.

The Chief Judges, sum­moned by the CJN who dou­bles as the Chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC), are those of Rivers, Kebbi, Cross River, Anam­bra, Jigawa and Imo States.

The CJN, it was learnt, had expressed dismay over the embarrassment caused the country’s judiciary by the actions of the Judges who issued the conflicting orders upon ex-parte appli­cations by some political parties.

More so, many believe that forum-shopping by law­yers should be discouraged as this is one of the major factors causing conflicting judgements.

Before now, the CJN had cautioned judges to be cir­cumspect before granting ex parte orders.

In view of the uproar caused by the conflicting orders made by courts of coordinate jurisdictions, which necessitated the invi­tation of the six Chief Judg­es, some legal practitioners who spoke exclusively to our correspondent insist on sanction for those found lia­ble and complicit.

Lawyers To Blame – Daagba

An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Innocent Daag­ba, opined that courts on their own cannot abuse its process.

“Judges on their own don’t abuse court processes. It is the lawyers that push them and later turn around to ac­cuse them. Forum shopping should be seen as an abuse of court process and must attract punishment.

“As a lawyer, you know that the PDP leadership matter before a Rivers State High Court had been adjudi­cated upon rightly or wrong­ly; while accepting a brief to head to Kebbi to file anoth­er suit on the same subject matter?

“Also, you know that the plaintiff/applicant and the matter are in Rivers state, what jurisdiction do you have in taking another matter to Kebbi state? If the matter was filed in Abuja, we can understand that.

“The national chairman­ship stool of PDP is in Abuja, not Kebbi or Bauchi. Even if the case was filed in Abuja, the fact that it was first filed in Rivers State shuts all other courts outside Rivers State of jurisdiction to hear the matter.

“So, it was a clear abuse of the process of the court, the lawyers are the master­minds and engineered and presented by judges.

“Judges must understand and know when a court pro­cess is about to be abused and take necessary action.

“That is why I am happy that the CJN invited the six Chief Judges of the various states to come before him, before facing the National Judicial Council.

“The CJs alone, and no­body else, have statutory powers and sole jurisdiction to assign cases to judges.

“So, a CJ is expected to go through a case file to know the content and nature of the case before assigning to a judge based on experience and other criteria.

“It does not lie in the mouth of a CJ to claim being unaware of orders granted by judges under him. If such happens, it means the CJ is incompetent and therefore should be removed.”

In view of the recent sum­mon handed to six Chief Judges over conflicting interim orders emanating from courts under their ju­risdictions, Daagba said it was not a subtle way of try­ing to gag or intimidate judg­es ahead of 2023 pre-election matters.

“No, it is not a move to in­timidate judges but to make them to sit up and be wary of lawyers who take to forum shopping.

“Most of the problems in the polity are caused by pronouncements by the judi­ciary at the election petition tribunals, Federal and State High Courts etc.

“The judiciary must hold its ground and avoid pro­nouncements that may rid­icule it, Daagba posited.
The Court Is Not Father Christ­mas – Ajulo
Speaking from London, Barrister Kayode Ajulo, submitted that not all court orders constitute an abuse of court process, particular­ly when procedures, guide­lines, rules etc stipulated by law are followed.

“Court has extant juris­diction to use its discretion judiciously and judicially,” he said.

Ajulo argued that ex parte orders are most times made to secure the res (subject matter) of a case.
Basically, before such ex parte orders are granted by a judge, certain conditions must exist and which must be met.

“A judge must consider the urgency of the applica­tion, when monetary com­pensation cannot solve the matter, ex parte orders are tenuous, in other words, they are temporary.

“I have moved several ex parte applications as a law­yer, and sometimes they are granted, sometimes reject­ed.
Irrespective of whether or not a motion ex parte is granted, the essence is ba­sically to protect the res of the matter, that is why it is tenuous.

“This issue is coming up now because of the removal of the PDP national chair­man, Uche Secondus. But, it is instructive to note that he was not removed forever, its temporal.

“Court is not a Father Christmas, it is what you ask from a court that you get.”

In the wake of the recent conflicting court orders from courts of coordinate jurisdictions in the coun­try, Ajulo questioned why it must always be in a political matter that the judiciary is accused of one thing or the other.

“It is during political mat­ters that people read mean­ing into any opinion of a court. In industrial, com­mercial, property etc cases, nobody raises any alarm or summons judges.

“The judiciary should not allow politicians to mess up the courts for us.”

On insinuations in some quarters that the recent summon of six Chief Judg­es by the Chief Justice of Nigeria is a calculated at­tempt to intimidate judges ahead of the 2023 general elections, Ajulo said, “The CJN cannot summon a Chief Judge.”

“I saw that report, but I know it is only the Nation­al Judicial Council that has the statutory power to do so.

“Of course, the CJN can invite you to a meeting. But, when it comes to offi­cial matters or issues that have to do with official con­duct, it is the NJC that can summon a judicial officer or legal practitioner.”

Ajulo insisted that before a judicial officer or legal practitioner is summoned,
there must be a complain. NJC cannot sumoto (on its own) issue a summon.

CJN’s Summons Should Be Backed With Action – Anu­mudu

Reacting on the conflict­ing orders, Barrister Anu­mudu said the actions of the judges were “clearly an abuse”.

However, he ex­pressed concern that the Chief Justice of Nigeria’s summoning of six Chief Judges of some states should not be a lip service.

“There was clearly abuse. But, my main concern is, let the CJN’s invitation not be window dressing.

“There has to be a defin­itive action on his part as Chairman of the National Judicial Council to set a machinery in motion for the actual identification of the culprits with a view to hand out a severe sanction on them to put an end to such judicial rascality.”

“That is, if it is not oc­casioned by actual direct instance of corruption,” Anumudu said.
At the moment, let us look at the suit of situations and circumstances arising from Port-Harcourt, Rivers State.

“Prince Uche Secondus is from Rivers. His ward is in Rivers, the PDP that sus­pended him is his ward in Rivers. The party that filed the action is from Rivers, and Secondus has a house in GRA, Port-Harcourt. That action was taken out in a Port-Harcourt High Court, Rivers Sstate.

“So, whether the suit was proper or not, you cannot punish the judge because it is within his jurisdiction to handle the matter and grant an ex parte order pending the hearing and determina­tion of the motion on notice.”

Anumudu stated that the order by a High Court in Port-Harcourt was not conclusive.

“The court only made a preservative order pending when the parties will come back to argue the motion on notice.

“If anybody has an issue with the order, the issue should be laid before that particular judge, or at the Court of Appeal. There is a vacation judge in Port-Har­court.

“The next day, you could have gone to the Court of Appeal, the same way you rushed to Kebbi High Court to file a motion on notice. You could have asked the Appeal Court to set aside the order of the Port-Harcourt High Court based on the grounds you will give.

“But to leave Port-Har­court and go as far as Kebbi State to go and file an origi­nating process, because if it was not, there was no basis for the court to grant an ex parte injunction restraining anybody from removing Secondus.

“The Chief Judge that assigned the case to the judge should have asked the following questions: Does this Secondus live in Kebbi State? Does Secondus have an office in Kebbi? Does the PDP have an office in Kebbi? Even if it has, is it not the same issue in Rivers State that a court has ruled upon? Is Kebbi High Court superi­or to that of Rivers state, certainly not?

“Can the Kebbi High Court sit on appeal over a Rivers High Court, no; Can this Kebbi Court make a contrary order, no.

“The CJ ought to have re­fused assigning that matter to a judge.

” Let us assume that the CJ was busy and there is an administrative officer he ap­pointed to assign the case on his behalf, and that person was also busy, and did not look at the nitty gritty to determine the competency and validity of territorial jurisdiction of that matter in Kebbi.

“Upon being assigned to a judge who had time, be­cause for him to make an order, he must have read all the processes from wherein he made the order.

“So, when the matter came to the judge, he should have looked at it and said be­cause of this and that, this matter should be returned back to the Chief Judge and parties advised to go back to Port-Harcourt to pursue their case.

“The judge ought to have declined jurisdiction and not to have gone ahead in spite of the reasons I listed to make conclusive final or­ders like, Secondus go back and resume office as PDP national chairman. The court also made an order restraining anybody from trying to remove him.

“I think that is a conclu­sive order. These are final orders a court ought not to have made at an ex parte in­stance. I chose to be mild to call it judicial rascality but others may give it a closer interpretation that it is an outcome of well orchestrat­ed high level corruption and judicial gerrymandering.

“What oever it is called, it is sanctionable and the ear­lier the NJC sanctions those judges, the better, so that oth­ers will learn.

“Even the Bible and Qur’an, have provisions that, ‘offenders be rebuked openly’ so that others will fear.

“Now that we are ap­proaching the eleventh hour with Anambra state governorship election, other states and 2023, pre-election political adjudications, etc, there is need for the NJC to be decisive and wield the big stick against judicial offi­cers, and legal practitioners found wanting in the line of duties.” (Sunday Independent)