FLASHBACK: Famous Case: How Gen Buhari Forced Justice Jinadu Out Of Office

Disobedience of the order of courts did not start today. This is
the story of how a judge fought the duo of Gen Muhammadu Buhari and
Odigie Oyegun in 1984 and sacrificed his job to save the integrity
of the judiciary against the Military junta’s disobedience of court
orders. Excerpts:

It was supposed to be a simple case of enforcement of human
rights, and one of the several cases that he had to attend to in
the normal course of his work. But it was the case that set Justice
Yahaya Jinadu of the High Court of Lagos State and the Supreme
Military Council under the leadership of General Muhammadu Buhari
on collision, and which the judge, rather than compromise the
integrity and independence of the judiciary, offered himself as a
sacrificial lamb, and ended his carrier as a judge.

It all started on January 24, 1983, when Lagosians and entire
Nigeria woke up to the sad news that the NET Building was up in
flames. The popular 37 storey- building was the tallest building
and the pride of the nation. It was the building that belonged to
Nigerian External Communications, an agency of government. The men
of the fire fighters were immediately contacted and they rose up to
the occasion.

At the helm of affairs of the Fire department was Alhaji Adamu
Akokhia who was the Chief Fire Officer of the Federation. He
immediately got his men under the Divisional Fire Officer in charge
of Lagos, Mr Seidu Garba and other men together and they confronted
the inferno. Although they could not save the building, that saved
more than 600 men from roasting while they lost two persons to
death.

Despite their valour, Akokhia, Garba, and 19 fire fighters were
arrested by the police and charged before Chief Magistrate A. Atiba
at the Tinubu Magistrate Court, Lagos, for the murder of the two
persons that died in the NET Building fire. Two weeks after being
in detention for murder, they contacted their lawyer, Chief Gani
Fawehinmi to defend them. On February 16, 1983, Chief Fawehinmi
filed an application for the enforcement of their fundamental human
rights before Justice Charles Bada of the Lagos High Court. On the
same date, Justice Bada, after hearing the application granted the
release of all the accused persons.

They all happily went back to their homes and resumed back to
work. However, 28 days after their release, both Akokhia and Garba
again received a letter from the Federal Ministry of Internal
Affairs, placing them on interdiction for the offence of murder
which a court of competentent jurisdiction quashed 28 days earlier.
The letter was signed Mr R.A Akanni, on behalf of the Permanent
Secretary, Mr John Oyegun (present APC Chairman).

Justice Jinadu now 90 years old

The two approached Chief Fawehinmi again. Two days later, Chief
Fawehinmi filed a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claims before
Justice Yahaya Jinadu, seeking to quash the interdiction of the two
civil servants. The cases were filed separately namely Suit No
LD/578/83 and Suit No LD/579/83 respectively. At the hearing of the
first case (Akokhia), Chief Fawehinmi and the State Counsel
representing the defendants, Mr Moshood Adio agreed before the
court that since the two cases were similar, the outcome of the
first should determine the second one.

On February 20, 1984, Justice Jinadu ordered the reinstatement
of Akokhia. However, when it got to the case of Garba, the
defendant’s counsel, Adio reneged on his agreement and opted to
contest the case. In the course of the trial, on April 11, 1984,
Garba received another letter from Mr Oyegun that he had been
dismissed.  An alarmed Fawehinmi immediately filed a contempt
of court application, seeking the court to commit Oyegun to jail.
In the application, Chief Fawehinmi said that it was wrong to
terminate the employment of his client while he was still
challenging his suspension in court. “it amounts to an undue
interference with the administration of justice and violent
encroachment on the constitutional rights of this court and the
applicant”, he argued.

He then continued: “Any attempt by any litigant in any action,
either overtly or covertly to prevent any other person, be he
litigant, or not, to exercise or continue to exercise his vested
constitutional right of resorting to a court of law for
adjudication of grievances amounts to contempt of court”.

On April 24, 2004, Justice Jinadu ordered the plaintiff to serve
Mr Oyegun the contempt application against him so as to avail him
the right to defend himself. On May 9, 2004, the matter came up
again and the defendant’s counsel asked for more time to file a
defence. Although Chief Fawehinmi objected to further adjournment,
the judge granted the application till May 16.

It was in the course of these adjournments that the military
government came up with Decree No 17 of 1984 on June 27, 1984 and
backdated it to December 31, 1983. The decree made it practically
impossible for any sacked public officer to challenge his sack in a
court of law. Section 3(3) of the decree stated thus: “No civil
proceedings shall lie or be instituted in any court for or on
account of or in respect of any act, matter or thing done or
purported to be done by any person under this decree and if any
such proceedings have been or are instituted before o or after
making this decree, the proceedings shall abate, be discharged and
made void”.

Despite this decree however, the case continued in court. On
July 16, Mr Oyegun again refused to appear before the court.
Justice Jinadu therefore found him guilty of contempt of court but
cautioned and discharged him on condition that he withdrew the sack
letter issued to Seidu Garba not later than 1.00pm on July 18.

The case came up again on July 23 and again, Mr Oyegun had not
complied with the order of court. Mr Dele Awokoya who stood in for
Chief Fewhinmi urged the court to deliver its judgement on the
substantive case. However, the lawyer to the defendants, Mr Adio
stood up and informed the court of an appeal he filed on July 19
before the appellate court, seeking to dismiss the case in view of
the new Decree 17. The trial judge asked Adio if the order of the
court have been complied with.

Justice Jinadu further asked whether the contemnor was in court
to which Adio’s reply was in the negative. The judge thereafter
adjourned the matter till 12 noon for his order to be complied
with. He said he would hear the application by 1.00 pm. Oyegun, the
contemnor neither complied with the order nor appeared in court. He
adjourned till the following day. Even at that, Oyegun refused to
appear in the court. The judge again asked Mr Adio the whereabout
of the defendant to which he replied despondently that he could not
find Mr Oyegun.

An angry Awokoya, who stood in for Fawehinmi addressed the
court: “The stage is now set for which the authority of the court
must be preserved. The excuses being given by my learned friend
that he could not locate the defendant is a brazen method of
scandalizing the court. The court has duty to see that its orders
are enforced. Instead of the permanent secretary obeying the order
of court, he has contemptuously and irresponsibly, without any
justifiable reason, disobeyed the orders of this court”.

Mr Adio thereafter went ahead with his application that the
court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the case. He quoted section
6(6)(a) of the constitution, section 221 and section 51 of the High
Court Laws of Lagos State. He also quoted the infamous Decree 17
that ousted the powers of court. “The effect of section 3(3) of
Decree 17 is that is dead completely. If a statute says there is no
jurisdiction in certain event, it is impossible for the court to
have jurisdiction. If the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a
matter, all proceedings on the matter are a nullity”, he
argued.

At this junction, Justice Jinadu quipped in and asked: “ If a
law says nobody should bear a child, then anyone pregnant should
not bear the child. Is that not absurd?” After several arguments,
the court dismissed the application the following day. Despite the
dismissal, the judge did not wield the big stick against Oyegun.
Rather, he summoned the bailiff to explain his efforts to serve the
defendant. The Bailiff, Mr Kayode Oduwole explained to the court
all his efforts at effecting service on Oyegun both at home and
office which was to no avail.

The next day, July 27, Justice Jinadu delivered his judgment
where he upheld the jurisdiction of his court since the matter
before him was not dismissal but interdiction. He furthermore
declared Seidu Garba’s interdiction illegal and ordered that he be
reinstated back to his job. The court thereafter still gave Mr
Oyegun till July 30 to appear before him and like earlier orders,
it was flouted. The judge thereafter asked that Mr Adio, Oyegun’s
lawyer should serve the defendant.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the Advisory Judicial Council and
the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice George Shodeinde Showemimo
called Justice Jinadu to his chambers at the Supreme Court where he
advised that he should adjourned the case till after Hajj which
Justice Jinadu was scheduled to attend and then proceed on his
leave. The CJN advised that a ditch was being dug for Jinadu and
that he should not fall into it with his eyes wide open.

Justice Jinadu’s reply was that he was protecting the integrity
and independence of the judiciary. He said to adjourn the matter
indefinitely will be contrary to the oath he swore to uphold
justice. On August 3, the matter came up in court and when asked
for the whereabouts of the defendant, he lawyer, Mr Adio in his
reply was unruly to the court. After several warnings, the court
ordered that he remove his wig and gown and step out of the bar.
However, again, maturity prevailed as the judge rather than sending
Mr Adio to prison, reprimanded him.

The case came up again on August 3. Oyegun as usual was not in
court. Justice Jinadu again asked Mr Adio if he had filed a return
he ordered. Adio became unruly and replied the judge in a very rude
manner. : “I don’t understand what a return means, I am not a party
to the order. I will not carry out any order..” At this juncture,
the judge had had it to the brim. His patience stretched beyond
limit. He ordered Adio to remove his wig and gown and step out of
the bar. Adio complied and moved to the dock.

It took all the maturity in him not to commit Adio to Prison
that day. In a short ruling, Justice Jinadu wrote: “It has never
happened in all my experience at the Bar and on the Bench, for a
legal practitioner to behave in such a defiant, arrogant, and
outrageous way in which you have behaved this morning. I shall
therefore adjourn this matter till Thursday, August 7 to enable you
carry out the order of this court as explained to you by the
registrar”. The judge allowed Adio to go free despite the insult on
the court.

At this juncture, the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice
Adetunji Adefarasin who had been watching from the sidelines,
decide to intervene. He summoned Justice Jinadu to his office and
called two senior judges to the meeting as well. They are Justice
Candide Ademola Johnson, and Justice Charles Bada. At the meeting,
the Chief Judge revealed that he was in receipt of a letter the
Federal Ministry of Justice forwarded to Dodan Barracks complaining
about Justice Jinadu. The three judges after reviewing the case
agreed that Justice Jinadu should have known that there were unseen
hands behind the conduct of Adio. That being the case, he should
know what to do in the next adjourned date.

However, when he got to the office, he found out that Adio had
filed the returns the court ordered. Shortly after, The Chief Judge
called him on phone to come to his office with the case file. He
complied and returned the file. The Chief Judge again called him to
minute on the file: “I have no personal interest in the matter and
I do not want to handle it any more”, Justice Jinadu complied. The
following day, August 7, the trial judge announced in court that
the file has been returned to the Chief Judge.

Chief Fawehinmi was shocked: “I am worried about the rule of law
in this country. All the orders made are being ignored. The rule of
law is being bastardised and brutalized! This is a dangerous
precedent!”, he said. The following day, all newspapers carried the
story in their front pages. The Sketch in an editorial condemned
the withdrawal of the case from the trial judge. “The truth is that
the rule of law is being bloodied with marked consistency by the
authorities in this country.. When decrees are made ousting the
jurisdiction of ordinary courts, when trials are being conducted in
secret, when judges trained to administer justice are subordinated
to military laymen, what respect can the authorizes say they have
for the rule of law?”, The Sketch asked.

From this moment, administrative intrigues took over. The Chief
Judge, Justice Adefarasin, who initially asked Justice Jinadu to
return the casefile to him denied he did so, saying that Justice
Jinadu voluntarily returned the file. Justice Adefarasin’s rebuttal
came when Justice Jinadu was out of the country on holy pilgrimage
to hajj. Justice Ishola Oluwa who just retired issued a press
release on the unfairness of the Chief Judge in making his comments
when he knew Justice Jinadu being out of the country could not
reply. “I wish to emphasize that Justice Jinadu is now on Holy
Pilgrimage to Mecca and therefore not in a position to remind the
Chief Judge about the exchange of correspondence between him and
Justice Adefarasin on this matter. I have as a friend of Justice
Jinadu’s a duty to say that If I were the Chief Judge, I would wait
for him to be back from Mecca before reading a statement to the
open court wherein it is not mentioned that Justice Jinadu had
without reservation written the Chief Judge to maintain his stand
that the file was indeed withdrawn by Justice Adefarasin”, Justice
Oluwa stated.

Chief Fawehinmi also filed a suit in court challenging the
withdrawal of the case from Justice Jinadu by the Chief Judge.
Justice Adefarasin however dismissed the case as “misconceived and
an abuse of court process”. He later transferred the case to
Justice Abdulraheem Bakare.

On September 12, 1984, the Advisory Judicial Council, in a
letter summoned Justice Jinadu to appear before it to answer to
some queries viz:

Addressing a state counsel of the Federal Ministry of Justice in
January, 1984 that he was drunk,and
Disrobing a Principal State Counsel during the proceedings of a
case in the court.
He was to appear before them the following day, September 13,
1984.

Justice Jinadu complied and defended himself before the panel.
The following day, September 14, 1984, the Advisory Judicial
Council, in a letter signed by Justice Sowemimo as chairman AJC,
reprimanded Justice Jinadu, asking him to apologise to the Chief
Judge of Lagos State, Justice Adefarasin publicly in a letter. He
was also to appear before a panel comprising of the acting Chief
Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, Attorney
General of the Federation, and the Chief Judge of Lagos State, to
tender his apology orally to them and then await disciplinary
action that would be meted out to him. What this means in short, is
to totally humiliate him before an eventual dismissal.

Rather than apologise, Justice Jinadu opted to proceed
immediately on retirement. He immediately forwarded his notice of
retirement to the Military Governor of Lagos State through the
Chief Judge of the State. He gave a six month notice to enable him
conclude the part heard matters before him. He then wrote a reply
to the Advisory Judicial Council where he explained thoroughly the
facts of the case. In concluding his letter, he said:

“I believe the judiciary has an important role to play in this
country as it is the last hope of the common man. The Judiciary has
to be firm, fair, and courageous and must not employ any form of
double standards. It is not right in my view to regard or treat
courts of justice as extension of the Federal Ministry of
Justice;

Above all, your letter asked me to apologise in writing and in
addition to appear before you, the President of the Court of
Appeal, and the Attorney General of the Federation to apologise
verbally. This verbal apology appears to me to appease the lawyers
in the Ministry of Justice through the Attorney General of the
Federation, otherwise what is the necessity of a verbal apology
after a written apology. I cannot be a part of this humiliation and
disgrace to the judiciary and as no condition is permanent, I have
done the only honourable thing for a reasonable, upright, and
disciplined judge to do. I categorically deny the allegation made
in your letter against me that I lied;

I wish to emphasize very strongly that I did not tell lies.
Accordingly I cannot see how how I can continue to serve as a judge
under such a system. I have already given notice of my retirement
from service. I cannot condone any attempt to destroy the judicial
system in this country using me as a scapegoat”.

Rather than allowing the judge the six months’ notice that he
gave, the Supreme Military Council under General Muhammadu Buhari
directed him to proceed on his retirement immediately, not minding
the part heard cases before him.

The matter subsequently went before the Court of Appeal where a
three man panel that consisted of Justice Adenekan Ademola, Justice
Idris Legbo Kutigi, and Justice Owolabi set aside the judgement of
Justice Jinadu and decared that Saidu Garba was lawfully fired. Not
satisfied, Garba proceed to the Supreme Court.

On October 26, 1986, the Supreme Court, in a lead judgement
delivered by Justice Kayode Eso declared that Decree 17 has no
effect on the case of Seidu Garba. The apex court thereafter set
aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal, and reinstated Garba,
thereby vindicating Justice Jinadu. Other members of the panel
included Justices Andrew Otutu Obaseki, Saidu Kawu, Abdul Ganiyu
Olatunji Agbaje, and Philip Nnaemeka Agu.

Celebrating the courage of Justice Jinadu, The Guardian
Newspaper, in its editorial of November 1, 1984 titled “Justice
Jinadu: A tribute to courage” said: “Not many men ever utter words
so power-packed or so profound that they recommend themselves for
perpetual remembrance. But then, not many men qualify for
remembrance. Mr Justice Yahaya Jinadu, formerly of the High Court
of Lagos State, shines like a hundred diamonds on both accounts.
Said he as he bowed out of the nation’s judiciary: I cannot condone
any attempt to destroy the judicial system in this country using me
as a scape goat;

Those eternal words may one day go down as the epitaph of this
remarkable Nigerian. Remarkable because he is one of the few in
public life ever to demonstrate that the exigencies of bread- not
to mention the butter on top of it-will never corrupt them into
desecrating the sanctity of a respected principle”

Justice Jinadu is still alive, hearty, happy and well. He is 92
years old. General Buhari is back as President of Nigeria, while Mr
John Oyegun is the current Chairman of the All Progressives
Congress (APC), the ruling party, and the judiciary…….

Source: Salute to courage. The Story of Justice Yaya
Jinadu by Richard Akinnola