FG , NJC And Salami’s Re-Instatement

A culture of impunity and lawlessness is gradually taking root in the nation’s body politic, which, if not checked could threaten her own democracy. It is the politicisation of virtually every issue of genuine public concern, with no longer a common ground that ought to be fostered by genuine statesmanship and patriotism.

Sadly, in no area is the trend more destructively manifest than when, it involves the judiciary, the supposed sacred institution upon which rests the power over life and death.

Once again, various interests are busy heating-up the polity over what should ordinarily be a preserve of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Presidency. It concerns the re-instatement or otherwise of the former President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Ayo Salami, who was suspended from office, about a year ago.

Interestingly, it was based upon advice of the NJC last year, that President Goodluck Jonathan approved the suspension of Justice Salami, an executive action that later attracted criticisms from a cross-section of the judicial community, especially the Nigeria  Bar Association (NBA). Since then, several court actions remain pending, some of them challenging the constitutionality of the president’s action.

Strangely, it was in the middle of all that, that the NJC  recently decided to reverse itself and recommended the immediate re-instatement of Justice Salami, a request that met with presidential reluctance. For not being hasty, many, particularly opposition politicians have continued to vilify the government, particularly, Mr President, insisting that Salami’s re-instatement should be instantly ordered by the presidency and without any pre-conditions.

It is not yet clear  what politicians stand to lose or gain by the re-instatement or otherwise of an Appeal Court  President. But not a day passes without one opposition politician ‘badmouthing’ President Jonathan for not implementing, immediately, the NJC’s new recommendation.

This is in spite of the fact that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) had explained that such hasty implementation of the latest NJC  advice would be prejudicial to cases still pending in various courts. But the NBA leadership continues to  insist that since Salami’s suspension was ordered even in the pendency of similar suits, his re-call should follow same path. The very path countless jurists described as subjudice, a year ago.

That, in our view, offends natural logic because it inadvertently lends credence to the fallacy of two wrongs amounting to one right. If President Jonathan indeed erred in endorsing the earlier NJC recommendation to suspend Salami, a year ago, is it proper to expect him to repeat the same mistake under same circumstances? Will that make the two wrongs, a right?

The Tide thinks otherwise. What happens if any of the courts still hearing on-going cases orders the suspension or otherwise of Salami, barely after President Jonathan had hurriedly re-instated Salami, as the NBA, other jurists and indeed opposition politicians will the presidency to do? Should the sacred position of President of Court of Appeal be subjected to such ridicule and political odium?

Besides, Section 153 (1): of the 1999 Constitution which establishes among other federal institutions, the NJC, also spells out the composition and powers of the body in its Third Schedule Part I (i). But section 154, sub-section 3 specifically lists the NJC among few establishments where, in the exercise of his constitutional powers, the president must (shall) consult widely. “In exercising his powers to appoint any person as chairman or member of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), National Judicial Commission (NJC), or the National Population Commission (NPC), the President shall consult the Council of State,” so says section 154 sub-section 3. Doesn’t this portend a responsibility bigger than the President?

We believe that the distinguished jurists and indeed the respected Bar ought to appreciate this demand on the Presidency and its resolve to protect the high judicial office from avoidable ridicule which wanton suspension and recall amount to. They must see themselves as defenders of the sacred status of the judiciary and not play to the gallery as some politicians are wont to do.

This  is why The Tide holds the view that the propriety or otherwise of Justice Salami’s re-instatement should await the outcome of pending litigations, the vicious politicisation of the issue notwithstanding. The presidency should not again, allow itself to be pressured into another illegality just to satisfy political exigency or achieve cheap political popularity.

The only way of discouraging the near frequent resentment to virtually every government action or politicisation of every, otherwise germaine, issue of national interest, is for government  to be firm, fair and steadfast in defence of the Constitution and the sacred judicial institution. Rushing to re-instate Salami in the face of cases still pending in courts amounts to a panic measure which is neither desirable nor presidential.

Instead, all stakeholders must keep the peace and let the litigations go their full circle. Thereafter, let those not satisfied with the outcome, consider appeals, which indeed is the legal process to follow. And not play politics with a purely constitutional issue.