The suspension of the embattled Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, last Friday, January 25, by Nigeria’s President, Muhammadu Buhari, has expectedly attracted numerous comments, both in favour and against the action.
In fact, if for nothing else, discussions so far have placed keen followers of the entire issue in better stead regarding the power of the office of the CJN, what the Rule of Law means to the leadership, and the extent leadership can, and is capable of going to attain set goals. By extension, it also makes it clear when leadership doesn’t have the will to do something.
In the midst of the various contributions to the issue, two schools of thought stand out: those in favour of the President’s decision, and those against it. Understandably, those who pitch their tents under these two are guided by either their personal, political, or group interests, which ultimately downplays the interest of the people, and hence the essence of democracy, which they all claim to protect.
Beyond these two categories of commentators, however, there is an almost infinitesimal few, who truly qualify as critics of the entire political melodrama scripted and acted by those who ordinarily should be the protectors and defenders of the kind of democracy Nigeria needs at this point of her self-rule. It is this few that truly critiques the issue.
Rather than stand and enforce what is right for a true change from the status quo, and therefore can stand the test of time as is done in the developed climes, all in the majority first two categories are esoterically busy advocating for a repeat of what they had always claimed to abhor.
To the discerning mind, the truth is that as events play out, these majority categories only end up hanging unto what in the real sense can be described as strands of straws in their quest to record perceived political victories. Even when doing this meant nailing the coffin on Nigeria’s fourth attempt at democracy, they do not seem to give a damn. As far as they are concerned, it’s all about just winning and losing in the now.
In all of the contributions so far, there are salient areas in which all seem unanimous about the good or bad of it. One of such areas is the fact that Justice Onnoghen was wrong to have not declared all his assets. The other is that if he is found to be guilty, he should face the wrath of the law, as stipulated by, and in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
As easy and simple as it is to appreciate these two points of unanimity between the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the opposition, led by the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), the level and extent of acceptance of these two points of agreement is also the bone of contention.
First, going by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), both parties agree that the President does not have the sole power to suspend the CJN. If he must, it has to be on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC), and with the support of two third majority of the National Assembly.
Specifically, the Nigerian Constitution requires in Section 292 that a serving judge must first be investigated and indicted by the NJC before dismissal or trial for misconduct in open courts.
The disagreement here is that while those against Onnoghen’s suspension say the NJC has not tried him, those in favour say the matter cannot be taken to NJC because Justice Onnoghen as the CJN is the Chairman of the NJC, hence he cannot superintend in his matter.
They do not even want to risk the moral fact that legally, no one is allowed to be a judge in his own matter, and that the membership of the NJC will have to ask Onnoghen to step aside as Chairman of the NJC while hearing takes place in the matter.
Meanwhile, those in favour of the President’s action also justify their stand by citing what they believe to be a similar judgement in which former President Goodluck Jonathan was said to have sacked the then President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Isa Ayo Salami.
But the opposition wasted no time in correcting this, saying that the NJC under the Chairmanship of then CJN, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, duly investigated the allegation of lying on oath against Salami, found him guilty and gave him options, one of which was for him to apologise to the CJN, who he lied against, and the NJC. He was found guilty by two separate panels set up by the NJC.
But, rather than apologise, Justice Salami went to court. He was subsequently sacked on the recommendation of the NJC, and with the required two third support from the National Assembly.
More so, the opposition further faults President Buhari’s hasty decision in suspending Onnoghen and immediately appointing and swearing in Tanko Muhammed as Acting CJN, and making him commence his functions almost immediately, with his appointment of 250 election tribunal members, without recourse to Section 290 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
 Section 290 (1) states: “A person appointed to any judicial office shall not begin to perform the functions of that office until he has declared his assets and liabilities as prescribed under this Constitution, and has subsequently taken and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance and the judicial Oath prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution”.
 While Tanko has taken Oath of Office, he has not declared his assets as required by Section 290 of the Constitution, yet he has performed a function of the office he occupies. Herein lies the soul of the political underpinnings of the matter.
While explaining why Justice Onnoghen is not likely to have justice in this matter, before his suspension, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) stated as follows:
“There was no way the Chief Justice of Nigeria (Onnoghen) will get justice from the hand-picked Code of Conduct Tribunal appointed and reorganized structurally by the Presidency shortly after the Chairman of the Tribunal acquitted the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki of all charges of failure to declare his assets.
“The CJN headed the appellate panel that finally nailed the coffin of the Presidency’s plot to sustain a case against the main political rival of the current President in the person of the Senate President.
“This politically-motivated war against the CJN is a payback for his principled stand to discharge and acquit Saraki of all charges as framed up by the Executive through the Federal Attorney General”.
Critics have deduced that it is clear that the Executive branch of the Government has desired the ouster of the CJN from office. To actualise the objective, it chose to work closely with a shadowy NGO to dig up Onnoghen’s infractions of provisions of the Code of Conduct for public officers, many of which predated the appointment of Justice Onnoghen as the CJN in 2017.
Thus, the motive for using the infractions now against Onnoghen is the feared harm the Judiciary, presided over by the CJN could do to the political interests of the ruling party, especially regarding pre-election cases and election petitions.
Ordinarily, going by the Nigerian version of politics, which in local parlance is christened politics of ”do me, I do you”, President Buhari would have owed no one any explanation, morally, that is.  But the President’s Achilles’ heel is in his determination to still flaunt his integrity in the entire unfolding do me, I do you, even after he had promised Change from it from the onset.
The followership of the ruling party are always hasty to say as a slogan that fighting corruption must start from somewhere: “if Buhari decides to start with his opponents in his tenure, let another person do so in his own tenure”, they would easily say.
Impliedly, the “do me, I do you” continues, with the country’s democracy paying the price, and the people being worse off at the end of the day, which explains why Nigeria is still learning to crawl after 58 years.
For all it’s worth, it can only insult the psyche of the populace, as it were, to tie the removal of the CJN to the quest to institute the rule of law, especially given the manner the Executive has gone about it. What the Executive is doing amounts to an inconsiderate abuse of power, with no consideration, whatsoever, of its negative effect on the polity, which is not only a dangerous precedence, but also capable of portending ill wind.
At best, it will momentarily create the intended fear in the Judiciary, and sundry selected sections of governance. It may also give the Executive the free hand to do whatever it deems fit, if the people are so carefree enough to live in the so-coined totalitarian democracy. But there’s no doubt that the people are wiser, and they require democratic governance.
For the new Acting CJN, Justice Tanko Mohammed, he spoke well when he charged the 250 members of election tribunals he appointed, being his first function in the position.
“The Judiciary”, he said, “is in a trying time. You must, and, I repeat, you must stand to protect and uphold the integrity of this arm of government. If any other person is trying to destroy it, we should try to protect it. If we don’t protect it ourselves, no one else will protect it for us. Therefore, it is our bounding duty to see that we protect the Judiciary wherever you find yourselves”.
It’s only time that can tell the sincerity, or otherwise, of the statement.

Soibi Max-Alalibo