Nabil Brown
In what stands out as a most egregious departure from judicial
ethics, certain judges in Nigeria insist on defendants before them
bringing senators, senior civil servants, other specified
high-profile figures as sureties for bails granted by them. It
doesn’t take hard reasoning to understand the exceptional abuse of
power and corruption inherent in such practice.
Why would a judge demand, as a bail condition, that the
defendant bring a senator, a traditional ruler, a senior civil
servant, a pastor, etc, as surety? What happens to the principle of
separation of power? What about the principle of independence of
the judiciary? Why insist on dragging members of the legislature or
the executive arm of government into the cases they are trying?
What is wrong with the judge simply demanding for a credible surety
without specifying the particular office of the surety? Why not
allow the defendant to bring any adult citizen with verifiable good
standing as he can find?
Nigerian judges involved in this practice have systematically
compromised the ethics of the judiciary and undermined the
separation of power, which is a cornerstone to constructional
democracy. To be accepted as a surety, the judge would vet and
verify a proposed surety and decide one way of the other whether
such surety is credible, of good standing and reliable. A judge
should never choose with undue particularity the people he wants to
subject to such controlling and intrusive vetting. To do so is a
dangerous abuse of power and influence, and thus corrupt.
Justice Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, and Justice
Hassan of the Federal High Court, Lagos, not to mention more
judges, are notorious for this practice.
Some Nigerian senators are complaining bitterly. They do not
understand why judges are dragging them into adjudications to which
they are not parties. For them, the practice is as absurd as them
dragging judges into their legislative work. Similarly, civil
servants are bothered. How can an executive agency be prosecuting a
person for a crime against the state and a judge will order that a
senior civil servant (directors and permanent secretaries) must be
the surety?
What if the defendant does not know any permanent secretary, but
knows a successful businessman ready to stand as a surety for him?
Essentially, judges who engage in this practice cannot justify
their actions on any justice rational. They act totally out of
their personal egos and possibly greed or they are under pressure
from the security agencies. And this brings up the question of the
independence of the judiciary. If a judge has no skeletons in his
cupboard, he should not be easily susceptible to intimidation,
blackmail or undue influence of any security agency, and would not
impose bail conditions dictated by the officers of such
agencies.
The ramifications of this practice are endless. In addition to
the ethical compromises involved, it erodes the principles of
separation or power and independence of the judiciary, as well as
undermines the constitutional right to liberty of those who are not
rich enough or connected enough to afford the highly particularized
surety the judge is demanding.
It is to be noted that not all judges do this. We have numerous
examples where judges reflected the right practice. For example,
the bail conditions given by Justice Nyako of the Federal High
Court, Abuja, in the case of Mohammed Adoke and the conditions
given separately in Adoke’s case by Justice Kutigi of the Federal
Capital Territory High Court both reflect the right standards.
These two judges, going by the objective terms of bail imposed,
showed they have no personal interest in the cases and were only
acting judicially and judiciously. Also, the recent case of some
Chinese charged in Sokoto for offering $50 million bribe to
officers of the EFCC is another example of the best practice.
Equally, a close examination of bails granted by Justice Liman of
Federal High Court, Lagos, reflects the right standards. Many more
judges get it right. But a few others create problems for the
Nigerian judiciary.
Nigerian stakeholders must look into this problem that tends to
erode fair administration of justice in the country. It is sad to
observe that Nigerian Bar Association is too enfeebled and too
compromised to fight this cause. A backlash from the legislature is
something the country doesn’t want. We must understand that, if
pushed to the wall, the legislature could make a law that specifies
standard conditions for bail, which the courts must follow, and
this would be at the risk of whittling down the discretion of a
judge over terms and conditions for bail he grants.
•Brown is of the Office of the Director of
Communications, DPA Foundation
Editors Note; Written by ‘Nabil Brown and
originally published in sunnewsonline.com[1]
Nabil Brown
In what stands out as a most egregious departure from judicial
ethics, certain judges in Nigeria insist on defendants before them
bringing senators, senior civil servants, other specified
high-profile figures as sureties for bails granted by them. It
doesn’t take hard reasoning to understand the exceptional abuse of
power and corruption inherent in such practice.
Why would a judge demand, as a bail condition, that the
defendant bring a senator, a traditional ruler, a senior civil
servant, a pastor, etc, as surety? What happens to the principle of
separation of power? What about the principle of independence of
the judiciary? Why insist on dragging members of the legislature or
the executive arm of government into the cases they are trying?
What is wrong with the judge simply demanding for a credible surety
without specifying the particular office of the surety? Why not
allow the defendant to bring any adult citizen with verifiable good
standing as he can find?
Nigerian judges involved in this practice have systematically
compromised the ethics of the judiciary and undermined the
separation of power, which is a cornerstone to constructional
democracy. To be accepted as a surety, the judge would vet and
verify a proposed surety and decide one way of the other whether
such surety is credible, of good standing and reliable. A judge
should never choose with undue particularity the people he wants to
subject to such controlling and intrusive vetting. To do so is a
dangerous abuse of power and influence, and thus corrupt.
Justice Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, and Justice
Hassan of the Federal High Court, Lagos, not to mention more
judges, are notorious for this practice.
Some Nigerian senators are complaining bitterly. They do not
understand why judges are dragging them into adjudications to which
they are not parties. For them, the practice is as absurd as them
dragging judges into their legislative work. Similarly, civil
servants are bothered. How can an executive agency be prosecuting a
person for a crime against the state and a judge will order that a
senior civil servant (directors and permanent secretaries) must be
the surety?
What if the defendant does not know any permanent secretary, but
knows a successful businessman ready to stand as a surety for him?
Essentially, judges who engage in this practice cannot justify
their actions on any justice rational. They act totally out of
their personal egos and possibly greed or they are under pressure
from the security agencies. And this brings up the question of the
independence of the judiciary. If a judge has no skeletons in his
cupboard, he should not be easily susceptible to intimidation,
blackmail or undue influence of any security agency, and would not
impose bail conditions dictated by the officers of such
agencies.
The ramifications of this practice are endless. In addition to
the ethical compromises involved, it erodes the principles of
separation or power and independence of the judiciary, as well as
undermines the constitutional right to liberty of those who are not
rich enough or connected enough to afford the highly particularized
surety the judge is demanding.
It is to be noted that not all judges do this. We have numerous
examples where judges reflected the right practice. For example,
the bail conditions given by Justice Nyako of the Federal High
Court, Abuja, in the case of Mohammed Adoke and the conditions
given separately in Adoke’s case by Justice Kutigi of the Federal
Capital Territory High Court both reflect the right standards.
These two judges, going by the objective terms of bail imposed,
showed they have no personal interest in the cases and were only
acting judicially and judiciously. Also, the recent case of some
Chinese charged in Sokoto for offering $50 million bribe to
officers of the EFCC is another example of the best practice.
Equally, a close examination of bails granted by Justice Liman of
Federal High Court, Lagos, reflects the right standards. Many more
judges get it right. But a few others create problems for the
Nigerian judiciary.
Nigerian stakeholders must look into this problem that tends to
erode fair administration of justice in the country. It is sad to
observe that Nigerian Bar Association is too enfeebled and too
compromised to fight this cause. A backlash from the legislature is
something the country doesn’t want. We must understand that, if
pushed to the wall, the legislature could make a law that specifies
standard conditions for bail, which the courts must follow, and
this would be at the risk of whittling down the discretion of a
judge over terms and conditions for bail he grants.
•Brown is of the Office of the Director of
Communications, DPA Foundation
Editors Note; Written by ‘Nabil Brown and
originally published in sunnewsonline.com[1]