Court Stops NJC from Inviting Justice Ademola over Withdrawn Petition

Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja
has ordered that the National Judicial Council (NJC) should not
invite Justice Adiniyi Ademola for investigation over a petition
written against him which was later withdrawn by the
petitioner.

Tsoho further held that Justice Ademola could not be made to
prove his innocence over a petition that was voluntarily withdrawn
by the petitioner.

Delivering judgment in a matter of judicial review in the form
of orders for declarations, prohibitions and injunctions filed by
Justice Ademola, the court held that the insistence of the NJC and
three others that Justice Ademola must appear was contrary to
Section 36(5) and (6) of the constitution, is unconstitutional,
illegal and unlawful.

Justice Ademola, also of the Federal High Court, had through his
counsel, Oladimeji Ekengba, dragged the NJC, Justice Umar
Abdullahi, Justice Babatunde Adejumo and Mrs. Rakiya Ibrahim before
the Federal High Court, seeking a judicial review in the form of
orders for declarations, prohibitions and injunctions.

In his statement of claims, Justice Ademola held that a petition
was written against him by one Hon. Jenkins Duvie Giane Gwede
sometime in 2016, upon which he was invited through a letter dated
July 25, 2016, for investigation before a three-man panel of the
NJC on August 8 and 9, 2016.

However, the applicant claimed that the petitioner on his
volition, withdrew the petition against him on July 27, 2016, on
the grounds that it was written in error and misinformation.
The withdrawal of the petition was said to have been supported with
an affidavit evidence deposed to by the petitioner himself in which
he clearly stated reasons for the withdrawal.

However, Justice Ademola claimed that on September 26, 2016,
when he appeared before the NJC panel, comprising Justice Umar
Abdullahi, Justice Babatunde Adejumo and Mrs. Rakiya Ibrahim, he
was asked to still prove innocence of allegations that have been
withdrawn by the petitioner.

Justice Ademola claimed that all entreaties to the NJC panel
that there was no petition against him any longer proved abortive
as the panel was said to have insisted that he must go ahead to
establish his innocence.
The plaintiff further claimed that his position that the NJC panel
cannot turn itself into the accuser, prosecutor and judge in the
matter, was also unsuccessful.

He, therefore, urged the court to prohibit the NJC from inviting
him for investigation in a petition that had been withdrawn on the
ground that his right to fair hearing would be violated in view of
the fact that the respondents cannot be the accuser, prosecutor and
judge in the matter.

In his judgment, Justice Tsoho agreed that the rights of the
plaintiff would be violated by the respondents on the strength of
the withdrawal of the petition and the filing of affidavit in
support of the withdrawal by the petitioner.

The judge consequently stopped the NJC and its three-man panel
from taking any further action in respect of the withdrawn petition
so as not to violate the right of the plaintiff to fair hearing as
enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution.

Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja
has ordered that the National Judicial Council (NJC) should not
invite Justice Adiniyi Ademola for investigation over a petition
written against him which was later withdrawn by the
petitioner.

Tsoho further held that Justice Ademola could not be made to
prove his innocence over a petition that was voluntarily withdrawn
by the petitioner.

Delivering judgment in a matter of judicial review in the form
of orders for declarations, prohibitions and injunctions filed by
Justice Ademola, the court held that the insistence of the NJC and
three others that Justice Ademola must appear was contrary to
Section 36(5) and (6) of the constitution, is unconstitutional,
illegal and unlawful.

Justice Ademola, also of the Federal High Court, had through his
counsel, Oladimeji Ekengba, dragged the NJC, Justice Umar
Abdullahi, Justice Babatunde Adejumo and Mrs. Rakiya Ibrahim before
the Federal High Court, seeking a judicial review in the form of
orders for declarations, prohibitions and injunctions.

In his statement of claims, Justice Ademola held that a petition
was written against him by one Hon. Jenkins Duvie Giane Gwede
sometime in 2016, upon which he was invited through a letter dated
July 25, 2016, for investigation before a three-man panel of the
NJC on August 8 and 9, 2016.

However, the applicant claimed that the petitioner on his
volition, withdrew the petition against him on July 27, 2016, on
the grounds that it was written in error and misinformation.
The withdrawal of the petition was said to have been supported with
an affidavit evidence deposed to by the petitioner himself in which
he clearly stated reasons for the withdrawal.

However, Justice Ademola claimed that on September 26, 2016,
when he appeared before the NJC panel, comprising Justice Umar
Abdullahi, Justice Babatunde Adejumo and Mrs. Rakiya Ibrahim, he
was asked to still prove innocence of allegations that have been
withdrawn by the petitioner.

Justice Ademola claimed that all entreaties to the NJC panel
that there was no petition against him any longer proved abortive
as the panel was said to have insisted that he must go ahead to
establish his innocence.
The plaintiff further claimed that his position that the NJC panel
cannot turn itself into the accuser, prosecutor and judge in the
matter, was also unsuccessful.

He, therefore, urged the court to prohibit the NJC from inviting
him for investigation in a petition that had been withdrawn on the
ground that his right to fair hearing would be violated in view of
the fact that the respondents cannot be the accuser, prosecutor and
judge in the matter.

In his judgment, Justice Tsoho agreed that the rights of the
plaintiff would be violated by the respondents on the strength of
the withdrawal of the petition and the filing of affidavit in
support of the withdrawal by the petitioner.

The judge consequently stopped the NJC and its three-man panel
from taking any further action in respect of the withdrawn petition
so as not to violate the right of the plaintiff to fair hearing as
enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution.