Four high court judges in the Federal Capital
Territory (FCT) are currently under the radar of
the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) for allegedly frustrating the probe of high-
profile corruption cases.
The judges are said to have developed a
penchant for going soft with suspects who
approach their courts to stop their trial for
corruption by EFCC.
Their courts, The Nation gathered yesterday, have
thus become an attraction for suspects who want
to frustrate their trials.
The anti- graft agency is already mulling the idea
of a tribunal to try suspects with overwhelming
evidence of corruption cases against them.
A well placed source in EFCC said the agency’s
suspicion was aroused by spurious injunctions’
persistently coming from the judges.
“In the past few weeks, we have discovered that
almost every day, there was one judgment or the
other against us. We have been subjected to
arrangee injunctions,” a well placed source said.
“Some judges in the FCT have been bought over
by some high-profile suspects on trial for
corruption. From our findings, four judges are
involved.
“We are trying to reach out to the Chief Judge of
FCT, Justice Ishaq Bello on our observations and
the ethics of the Bench.
What these big suspects do is that they always
try to compromise these four judges. Thereafter,
they bring applications to their courts under the
enforcement of fundamental human rights to get
reprieve and frustrate investigation by EFCC.
“Even before we interrogate these suspects, the
judges would have issued orders for their
release.”
The source said that although there are
designated judges handling corruption-related
matters “maybe we will come up with a tribunal
to fast-track the trial of all these suspects who
have looted our treasury.”
The source however said that “the judges at the
Federal High Court have improved on their
treatment of corruption cases.”
The EFCC recently lodged a formal complaint of
alleged misconduct against Justice M. N. Yunusa
(Federal High Court) with the National Judicial
Council (NJC).
He was alleged to have been bribed with
N225,000 by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN),
Mr. Rickey Tarfa.
It was not immediately clear if these four judges
might be referred to the NJC.
A petition against a judge passes through four
stages in NJC as follows:
Receipt of a petition by CJN.
Sending the petition to the Preliminary
Complaints Assessment Committee (PCAC) to
determine the merit or otherwise of the issues.
Genuine complaint goes to NJC Plenary
NJC raises Fact-Finding Committee to hear from
the petitioner(s) and the defendants and their
lawyers.
The NJC and the President are empowered to
determine a judge’s fate in line with the process
outlined by the Part I, Paragraph I, Section 21(b)
of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution
(as amended) and Section 292(1)( a)(i)
Part I, Paragraph I, Section 21(b) of the Third
Schedule to the Constitution reads: “For the
avoidance of doubt, the said Third Schedule, Part
I, Paragraph I, Section 21(b) of the Constitution
provides that “the NJC shall have power to
recommend to the President the removal from
office of (the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Justices
of the Supreme Court, the President and Justices
of the Court of Appeal, and the Chief Judge and
Judges of the Federal High Court) and to exercise
disciplinary control over such officers”
Section 292(1)( a)(i) says: “A judicial officer shall
not be removed from his office or appointment
before his age of retirement, except in the
following circumstances (a) in the case of the
Chief Justice of Nigeria, the President of the Court
of Appeal, the Chief Judge of the Federal High
Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the
Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Grand Khadi of
the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja, and President, Customary Court
of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja,
by the President( of Nigeria), acting on an
address supported by two-thirds majority of the
Senate, praying that he be so removed for his
inability to discharge the functions of his office or
appointment (whether arising from infirmity of
mind or body) or for misconduct or contravention
of the Code of Conduct.”