National Judicial Council & Ors. V. Hon. Mr. Justice C.P.N. Senlong & Ors. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal by the 1st, 4th to 7th Defendants against the judgment of Adah J. of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered on 2nd August, 2007. By the said judgment, the trial court granted in favour of the Plaintiff reliefs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 which in their full terms read as follows:-

Reliefs granted 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8.

“1. DECLARATION that the proceedings and recommendations of the investigation committee set up by the 1st Defendant at its meeting held on the 6th and 7th of October, 2003 comprising Kehinde Sofola Esq. SAN, CON (Chairman), Hon. Justice I.A. Sotuminu, T.J. Onomigbo Okpoko, Esq. SAN, and Hon. Grand Kadi U. Y. Abudullahi (Members) together with the deliberations of the full council of the 1st defendant on the matter recommending to the 2nd defendants the dismissal of the Plaintiffs are unconstitutional, illegal and therefore null and void.

2. A DECLARATION that the purported removal of the Plaintiff as a judge of the Federal High Court by the 2nd, conveyed to him in writing by the Chairman of the 1st defendant, in as much as it was based on the proceedings of the Investigation committee and the recommendation of the 1st defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
3. A DECLARATION that the tenure of the plaintiff as a judge of the Federal High court is still subsisting.
4. AN ORDER setting aside the proceedings and recommendations of the Investigation committee set up by the 1st defendant at its meeting held on the 6th and 7th of October, 2003 comprising of Kehinde Sofola Esq. SAN, CON, (Chairman), Hon. Justice I. A. Sotuminu, T. J. Onomigbo Okpoko, Esq. SAN, and Hon. Grand Kadi U.Y. Abdullahi (members) together with the deliberations of the full council on the matter recommending to the 2nd defendant the dismissal of the plaintiff.
5. AN ORDER setting aside the removal of the plaintiff, as a judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria by the 2nd defendant, which fact was communicated to him by the chairman of the 1st defendant through a letter dated the 16th of March, 2004.
6. AN ORDER reinstating the plaintiff to his office as a judge of the Federal High Court forthwith.

The learned trial judge dismissed Plaintiff’s reliefs 4, 5, 9 on the grounds that they were not proved.

INTRODUCTION:

1. The appellants are (1) the National Judicial Council (hereinafter referred to as the NJC (2) Hon. Justice I. A. Sotuminu, (3) Mrs. T.J. Onomigbo Okpoko and (4) Hon. Grand Kadi U.Y. Abdullahi. The NJC is a creature of the 1999 Constitution by virtue of the provisions of Section 153 and paragraphs 20 and 21 of the 3rd Schedule of the said Constitution. While the other appellants are council members who took part in the disciplinary proceedings which led to the removal of the 1st respondent who was dismissed from judicial service by exhibit 13, a letter dated 16th of March, 2004 under the hand of the then chairman of the 1st appellant Hon. M.L. Uwaise GCON formerly Chief Justice of Nigeria. Before the aforedescribed exhibit, the NJC had by exhibit 6 admitted in this lower court invited the plaintiff to appear before ‘the investigating committee’. In this regard, the report or petition of Hon. Matilda Adamu J. and other annexure were forwarded to the petitioner by the committee for the purpose of entering his representation and or defence when he appeared before the committee.
2. In a nutshell, the complaint or report of Hon. Matilda Adamu J. was to the effect that while carrying out her assignment as Chairman of the Akwa-Ibom Governorship Election Tribunal, the plaintiff made efforts to persuade her to favour ‘his friend’ one Dr. Samson Umanah in the resolution of the election petition filed by the latter before the said Tribunal. However, the Investigating committee of the NJC was also in the same process or transaction adjudicating over another petition or report, this time submitted by Dr. Umanah alleging that in the determination of his petition, his opponent, the incumbent governor of their State gave all the members of the Tribunal large monetary bribe, which they received (collected) and acted upon, to his detriment. 3. The NJC set up an Investigation Committee in commencement of the disciplinary procedure against the 1st respondent, the committee sat, took evidence and presented its report to the full body of the NJC. After deliberations, again with the 2nd – 4th appellants’ participating, the NJC recommended to the 2nd respondent the immediate removal from office as a judge of the Federal High Court which the former ie. the President accepted. Being aggrieved by these actions, particularly, his removal from office, the 1st respondent commenced action by way of a writ of summons and pleadings in the Federal High Court for declarations and injunctive orders to set aside his removal from office.

The learned trial Judge in a considered judgment granted the plaintiff’s reliefs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 and in effect nullified the 1st Respondent’s removal as a judge of the FHC and ordered his immediate re-instatement

The 1st Respondent cross-appealed as Cross Appellant being dissatisfied with some aspects of the judgment. This will be dealt with later after consideration of the appeal.

The Notice and Grounds of appeal with their particulars are as follows:-

NOTICE OF APPEAL:

Take notice that 1st, 5th to 7th Defendants being dissatisfied with that part of the decision of the Federal High Court Sitting at Abuja contained in the judgment of Adah J. dated 2nd August 2007 particularly stated in paragraph 2 doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing of the appeal seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4. And the appellants’ further state that the names and addresses of the persons directly affected by the appeal are those set out in paragraphs.

2) PART OF THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT COMPLAINED OF: That part only granting 1st Respondent’s relief 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the amended statement of claim.

3) GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

i. The learned trial Judge erred in law in nullifying the proceedings of an investigating panel of the 1st Appellant on the ground that nominees of N.B.A. in 1st appellant participated in the panel investigation when: