It also holds the key to the sustenance of democratic societies by ensuring that the doctrine of the rule of law is not just mouthed by those in power, it is applied in day to day dealings. To, however, perform its role of interpreting and ensuring that the dictates of the constitution hold sway, judicial officers like Caesar's wife, must be above board. They must be beyond reproach. Their hands must not only be clean, they must be seen to be clean.
But allegations of corruption in judicial circles now dot the landscape. More often than not, judicial officers are also alleged to be helping themselves with filthy lucre. These allegations have often been found to be true. Recall the story behind the fall of Justices Wilson Egbo-Egbo and Stanley Nnaji and some of the justices that sat on the Anambra State Election Petitions Tribunal in 2003 among others.
The National Judicial Council has been busy in recent times looking into an avalanche of petitions against judges and recommending appropriate sanctions where the petitions are found to have merit. Retired and some serving judicial officers have been calling attention to corruption in the judiciary and calling for concerted efforts to battle the monster.
Former Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso spoke many times in the past about the malaise. Last week's outburst by retiring Supreme Court Justice Samson Uwaifo again was right on the bang. Those who should know told THISDAY that Justice Uwaifo had a running battle with some judicial officers over allegations of corruption in the bench. But he could not have squealed since he was still a member of the bench.
In his valedictory speech at the special session of the Supreme Court held in his honour, Uwaifo said; "a corrupt judge is more harmful to the society than a man who runs amok with a dagger in a crowded street; while the man with the dagger can be restrained physically, a corrupt judge deliberately destroys the foundation of society and causes incalculable distress to individuals through abusing his office, while still being referred to as honourable."
Justice Uwaifo's outburst on the rot in the judiciary prompted this cover story. In the next four pages, Tunde Rahman, Louis Achi, Joseph Ushigiale and Oke Epia take a critical look at the judiciary, identifying the rot in the institution and chronicling cases of alleged sharp practices of judicial officers. Of course, they also highlight the bright spots in the judiciary's embroidery of corruption. The pertinent question is how and when will the judiciary cleanse itself? On this and other sundry issues, former President of Civil Liberties Organization (CLO) and a member of the Body of Benchers, Mr. Olisa Agbakoba, also fielded questions from THISDAY...

The judiciary has been brought to public ridicule as a result of the actions of some of the officers vested with the responsibility of protecting and preserving the constitution.
Under the present democratic dispensation, allegations of corrupt practices against judicial officers have become a recurring decimal. Some of these allegations of corrupt practices ensued from the handling of cases involving politicians, particularly state governors, while some others allegations arose from the work of judges handling election petitions. In fact, the Election Petition Tribunals have allegedly been turned into avenues for making money.
Some judgements have been delivered in significant cases and these judgements were later found to have been procured through inducements.
The most celebrated of these cases was the ruling delivered by retired Justice Wilson Egbo-Egbo who was then presiding over the Federal High Court, Abuja. Egbo-Egbo entertained a petition brought before him by Chief Chris Uba and others praying that the court should restrain Governor Chris Ngige of Anambra State from parading himself as governor having allegedly resigned on July 10, 2003.
In his ruling, the judge granted an exparte injunction stopping Ngige from parading himself as a governor and ordered that he handed over to his erstwhile deputy, Dr. Okey Udeh, who had at that time been impeached by the Anambra State House of Assembly.
The ruling immediately provoked a chain of reactions across the country. Within and without the bench, there was uproar. But it was not long when what allegedly informed the decision became public knowledge. Ngige, through the State Chief Judge, Justice Chuka Okoli, petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC) and protested the ruling in which Egbo-Egbo granted Uba such sweeping relief.
Ngige argued that as a sitting governor, he was immuned by Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution from either investigation or prosecution. He said by the ruling, Egbo-Egbo had erred.
Following this protest, the NJC suspended the judge and set-up an investigative panel to look into these allegations. At the end of its investigations, NJC recommended that Egbo-Egbo be retired from service. Three months later, the Federal Government approved the recommendations, thus ending Egbo-Egbo's career on a sad note.
Egbo-Egbo's fate was expected to serve as a deterrent to other judges. But Justice Stanley Nnaji of the Federal High Court Enugu failed to draw appropriate lessons from this.
Barely a few months after the NJC's axe fell on Egbo-Egbo, Justice Stanley Nnaji fell into a similar trap. Hon. Nelson Achukwu, an erstwhile member of Anambra State House of Assembly had filed a suit praying that the Federal High Court, Enugu should among other things remove Ngige from office because he had allegedly resigned his office.
In his ruling, Nnaji declared Ngige's seat vacant and ordered the Inspector General of Police to withdraw the governor's security details. As soon as the ruling was announced, the Attorney- General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Akin Olujinmi, to whom the erstwhile Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Tafa Balogun turned to for advice, asked him to withdraw Ngige's police orderlies.
Again Ngige protested that ruling at the Court of Appeal and followed up with a petition against Nnaji to the NJC. After carrying out its investigations, the NJC later recommended for Nnaji's sack and the recommendation were upheld by the presidency.
The Akwa Ibom Tribunal matter is another case in point. Erstwhile Federal High Court Judge, Justice Chris Senlong, was dismissed for his role in trying to influence the tribunal's ruling in favour of his friend, Chief Ime Umanah.
Curiously, it was Umanah, an All Nigeria's Peoples Party (ANPP) candidate in the 2003 election, who had petitioned Governor Victor Attah of Akwa Ibom to the tribunal alleging that Attah was indicted by the Code of Conduct Bureau for false declaration of assets, that also petitioned the NJC accusing the tribunal members of favouring Attah.
In a letter signed by the Secretary of the NJC, Alhaji Danladi Halilu, announcing Senlong's sack, the NJC said "it is significant to note that Justice Chris Senlong was dismissed for attempting to influence the tribunal and not because he received bribe as was earlier reported."
There is also the unconfirmed allegation of corruption levelled against some Supreme Court Justices in the handling of the Ex-convict case against Delta State Governor James Ibori. A faceless group known as Delta Derivation Front had alleged that a part payment of N250 million was paid to some of the justices. Afterwards came the big one and still from the same source, Derivation Front. The group alleged that a bribe of N5 billion was parceled to the Justices through one of them at a meeting with Ibori in London. The allegation had caused a lot of ripples in both judicial and political circles. The Nigeria Bar Association had said it would deal with two of the chieftains of Derivation Front, Messrs Moses Oddiri and Andrew Oru for allegedly dragging the apex court to the mud. But the duo of Oddiri and Oru stuck to their guns expressing surprise that the NBA had not ventured to investigate the accusation before passing judgement.
But so disturbed over the issue was the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Muhammadu Uwais, that while the Supreme Court was giving its' judgement in the Ibori case, he latched out at those behind the allegation against Justices of the Court.
In the speech titled-"Let the cowards come forward," Uwais expressed concern and apprehension for the independence of the judiciary in Nigeria.
"This is because a few people who are mischievous and totally misguided in their approach think they can dictate by intimidation what they perceived as the way their cause should be considered and determined by the courts."
He challenged the authors of the letter alleging corruption against the Justices of the court to be bold enough to make their identities known if they were sincere in their actions, and believe in their cause.
However instances where corrupt judges are unmasked and severe disciplinary action instituted again them by the appropriate authorities abound in the states. In Ebonyi State, the erstwhile chief judge, Justice Edward Isuama, was removed for allegedly compromising and conducting himself in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer of his status. Members of the Abakaliki chapter of the Nigeria Bar Association had in '2000 petitioned him to the State House of Assembly alleging that he was unfit to occupy the office. The State House of Assembly set up a committee which investigated and found him guilty. With the evidence before it, the lawmakers also recommended his retirement from service to Governor Sam Egwu of Ebonyi State and it was upheld.
But Isuama challenged the decision to retire him at the Federal High Court, Enugu and failed. He took the matter further to the Court of Appeal in Enugu. The matter dragged for three years before finally, Justice A. Gumel struck out the matter and awarded N6000 to the defendants for waste of time.
Another remarkable case was in Oyo State where 23 out of 24 members of the bench signed a petition for the removal of the chief judge of the state, Justice Isaiah Olakanmi and the Chief Registrar, Mrs. Gloria Akinrinmade for alleged financial impropriety.
On receipt of the petition, a judicial panel of inquiry, headed by Justice A. Adesina, was set up to investigate the allegations. The recommendations of the panel were adopted by the State House of Assembly which recommended his sack. Based on the recommendation, the state government relieved the chief judge of his position and appointed Justice Ruth Oyetunde to the position in acting capacity.
In Anambra State, the chief judge, Justice Chuka Okoli and another judge in the state Justice Nri Ezadi were petitioned by the Onitsha branch of the Nigeria Bar Association for alleged age falsification. The petition signed by P. O. Balonwu and Chuka Obote-Chuka alleged that Okoli was from the original records filed some years ago expected to retire by June 15, 2002, a period that he would have attained the statutory and mandatory retirement age.
The petition was also supported by the Federal Government which challenged Okoli's continued stay in office through Chief Philip Umeadi (SAN). To drive home their point, judicial workers in the state also embarked on a three-month strike and it was only suspended after assurances were given that Okoli would be removed.
And in Plateau State, the chief Judge, Justice James Atsi was also removed for alleged gross incompetence. His travails started with a petition by the state branch of the NBA to the State Assembly accusing him of interfering with judicial proceedings and complacency all of which cumulatively amounted to gross incompetence. The lawmakers investigated and found him guilty and in turn sent its findings to the state government for his sack. In announcing the sack, secretary to government, Mr. John Gobak said the government was acting in line with the recommendations of the State House of Assembly by sacking Atsi. In Abia State, the matter involving the chief judge, Justice Kalu Amah is another case in point with all the drama.

The Bright Sides
While some judges were dismissed for the weighty allegations of corruption and perversion of justice leveled against them often by litigants, other judges were let off the hook when nothing incriminating was found against them.
In Imo State for instance, the NJC was petitioned to investigate allegations that Governor Achike Udenwa of the state had paid huge sums of money to influence the election petition filed against him by his All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) opponent, Dr. Ezekiel Izuogu, at the Election Petition Tribunal that was then sitting in Port Harcourt .
The NJC investigated the matter and exonerated the tribunal members. The same “not guilty” verdict was returned on the Appeal Court President, Justice Umaru Abdullahi and nine others who were petitioned by the duo of Senators Ugochukwu Uba and Ikechukwu Abana for complicity in the alleged favouritism in the handling of the appeal file at the Appeal Court Enugu challenging the verdict of the Anambra State Election Petitions Tribunal.
The investigative committee headed by the Jigawa Chief Judge, Justice Tijani Abubakar, in exonerating them said "we find that none of the petitions has any merit and we recommend that the President of the Appeal Court be informed accordingly."
Whereas the judiciary has come under fire for both the identified and perceived corrupt acts, the same institution has also given certain landmark rulings that rekindle hope that it has not irretrievably derailed from its traditional role as an impartial arbiter and moderator of the socio-political process. A most recent example is the face-off between the Federal and Lagos State governments over the seized over N15 billion allocations of local councils in Lagos State.
This was apparently conclusively settled when the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier position, ordering the FG to unconditionally release the local council's funds. The fund was put on hold by the federal government in the wake of the creation of additional councils in the state. Last week, the Supreme Court struck out the latest suit filed by the Federal Government which sought the apex court's interpretation of its own December 10, 2004 ruling over the with-held fund.
The Lagos State Government had proceeded to the Supreme court to challenge the action of the Federal Government withholding funds due to the state for its local councils. The Federal Government was of the view that the 37 new local councils created in the state (bringing the total to 57) were illegal. In its first ruling on the matter, the Supreme Court held that though states were constitutionally empowered to create new local councils, but these will be inchoate until they are listed in the constitution by the National Assembly.
Other instances where the Supreme Court had displayed exemplary courage in its judgement included the court's ruling on matters concerning the National Parliament and State Houses of Assembly, the tenure of local councils; ruling on the case between political associations and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on registration of new parties; ruling on offshore/onshore dichotomy abrogation or resource control among others.