UMUAHIA—AN Umuahia High Court presided over by Justice Obisike Oji has ruled that the Abia State House of Assembly has no constitutional right to review the decision of the National Judicial Council (NJC) which had earlier absolved the embattled Chief Judge of Abia State, Justice Kalu Amah of allegation of corruption levelled against him by the state branch of the Court Registrars Association of Nigeria (CRAN). Justice Oji also ruled that the resolution presented by the House on March 24 to the Abia State governor, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu urging him to remove the Chief Judge was unconstitutional, illegal, null and void as it was done without regard to law.
Delivering a judgement on the suit instituted by the Chief Judge against the state governor, the Speaker of the House and the House of Assembly, the judge declared that Abia State legislature alone had no competence to recommend the removal of the Chief Judge from office, adding that the recommendation of the House to remove the chief judge based on the petition by CRAN was contrary to the rules of the house and therefore was ultra vires, null and void.
Justice Amah had gone to court to challenge the recommendation of the house by two-thirds majority for his removal, arguing that the speaker and the house have no constitutional right to act on a matter already decided by the NJC. While the case was pending, the House resolved that the chief judge was guilty of the allegations levelled against him and urged the governor to remove him.
Said Justice Oji: “It is a cardinal pillar of the administration of justice that nobody should be vexed twice on a matter because there should be an end to litigation. It beats one’s imagination how the house under the leadership of Speaker Stanley Ohajuruka should have entertained exhibit A (petition by CRAN) when it is obvious from the document that the appropriate body constitutionally charged with the function of investigating the allegations in that document had done its function on it. It may have been possible by extension of generosity to explain the conduct of the House of the fumbling steps of a learning process”.
He said that despite a letter of the state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice to the House of Assembly on the matter, warning it of the danger of dabbling into a matter that was pending in court, “it does appear that like a defective locomotive bound for disaster, nothing could stop the House from its mission of destruction. The judge warned that “it is such reckless disregard to the rule of law that is bound to endanger our nascent democracy”.
According to the Judge, a chief judge of a state can only be validly removed by a strict compliance with provisions of Section 292 of the 1999 Constitution, adding that for the address to be presented to the governor for the removal of the chief judge to be effective, it must contain proved facts of inability to discharge his functions or established misconduct of contravention of the code of conduct.
On the demand by counsel to the defendants for the transfer of the case to another court because of alleged bias of the trial judge based on his closeness with the chief judge, Justice Oji described the allegation as a hear say.
His words: “I feel honoured that the basis for alleging likelihood of bias is that I have good working relationship with my brother judge. That is the way it should be. Every person who is a judicial officer and privileged to serve in the temple of justice must endeavour, on the one hand, to discharge his duties to the best of his ability and on the other hand cooperate with all others in the temple to make their work easier.
We have no business bickering with one another. If a person who has this good working relationship with his brother judge is disqualified from handling the case involving that brother, the corollary will equally be true that the person who does not have a good working relationship with a brother judge should not handle that brother’s matter. We will then end up in a cul-de-sac. And a judicial officer who has a case in court will have nobody to handle his matter because his brothers are either for or against him. If the strategy of the counsel for the applicant is to leave the issue in controversy and put the court on trial, they must know that the trial will not take place here”.
During the trial, the chief judge was represented by Chief Anthony Mogbo (SAN), while Chief John Ogbonna was counsel for the House of Assembly. The governor who was joined in the suit had no counsel.
