CAN OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TRY JUDICIAL OFFICERS FOR ANY FORM OF MISCONDUCT?

Section 153 of the 1999 constitution provides for the establishment of the National Judicial council (NJC). The functions of NJC are set out in paragraphs b & d of Item 21 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution and includes the exercise of disciplinary control over judicial officers. This is the umbrella upon which the NJC frequently subjects judicial officers to disciplinary processes which may lead to reprimand, suspension, freeze of promotion or dismissal in some cases. However, section 158 of the same constitution does not allow the NJC’s activities to be subject to the control or direction of any other authority or person.

NJC’s 2014 Judicial Discipline Regulations describes misconduct as one prejudicial to effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts or any conduct described as misconduct in the Constitution and Code of Conduct of judicial officers.

Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution provides for the Code of Conduct of public officers. Paragraphs 6 & 8 prohibits public officers from receiving gifts for something done or undone in the discharge of his duties and no one is entitled to bribe them to discharge their duties. Public officers covered by the said Code of Conduct includes all judicial officers as contained in part 2 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution. The Code of Conduct Tribunal is set up to punish those in breach of any of the provisions of such code.

Apparently, flowing from its disciplinary powers, NJC is positioned to deal with a breach of the Code of Conduct by judicial officers arising from their job. One of such is bribery in any form. Since the Constitution vests the power to discipline judicial officers on both the NJC or Code of Conduct Tribunal, either of them can exercise this power over serving judges, although it appears more convenient for NJC to do so on account if its greater preparedness for such activities.

Allegations bothering on bribery of judicial officers flow from the discharge of their duties. They are not ordinary crimes. They bother on breaches of the code of conduct and oath of office contained in the constitution. They have to be dealt with in accordance with the method prescribed by the constitution.

It does not mean that a judicial officer duly dealt with according to law and dismissed cannot be prosecuted by appropriate authorities for the crime of bribery under our criminal justice system. Judicial misconduct is sue generis and being in a class of its own, cannot be treated like any other crime. This is not peculiar to Nigeria. Some countries even have the The Court of the Judiciary where such matters are dealt with. The state of Tennessee in the US has such a court for dealing with judicial misconduct. In Canada, the the court of the judiciary investigates allegations of misconduct and recommends to parliarment, which has the ultimate power of removal as discipline.

There is no doubt that the dominance of judges in NJC may lead to a perception that judges are getting off. This can have an adverse effect on public opinion confidence. Notwithstanding this,
many judges have been nailed by NJC. The most important thing is for victims of judicial misconduct to have the courage to send petitions to the appropriate body and be guaranteed that they would not be victimized directly or otherwise by the judicial system.

This is a personal opinion.

Dr. Ehiogie West-Idahosa.