Concern is growing over the ongoing silence of Supreme Court and National Judicial Council (NJC) decision-makers over the destiny of a senior member of the bench of the apex court, Justice Sylvester Ngwuta.
The current status of Justice Ngwuta has become a subject of debate in the judicial circle of the nation, especially senior lawyers, who are concerned about the supposed delay in resolving the issue.
Justice Ngwuta, presently listed as the Supreme Court’s fourth-most senior justice (on the court’s website), has not been sitting in the open court since 4 November 2016 following the NJC’s instruction that judicial officers being investigated for allegations of corruption should cease to undertake judicial functions until the inquiry is concluded.
He was one of the two Supreme Court Justices, whose homes, among other judges, were raided between 7 and 8 October 2016 by State Services Department (DSS). While Justice John Okoro, his colleague, resumed his roles soon after the raid, Ngwuta was charged to court.
He was first charged with corruption-related charges before the Federal High Court in Abuja and subsequently arraigned before the CCT for his supposed inability to declare some of his property. Both charges were brought by the Federation Attorney General’s (AGF) office.
The Federal High Court upheld its challenge of the charge’s competence on March 23, 2018 and discharged it.
In a ruling, Justice John Tsoho relied on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the appeal of Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa (of the Federal High Court) and found that it was incorrect to bring Ngwuta to trial before his tribunal without first submitting him to the NJC disciplinary proceedings.
The CCT also conducted comparable proceedings on May 15, 2018 and dismissed the charges against Justice Ngwuta.
A member of the tribunal, Atedze William Agwaza, said in the decision: “In addressing the problems raised by the parties in this request, it is held that the defendant / applicant, though a public officer, is also a judicial officer, subject first of all to the NJC’s discipline and administration.
“This is in line with Section 158(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Paragraph 21 (b) of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Nganjiwa V. FRN (supra), which forms a precedent binding on this tribunal.
“Our hands are, therefore, tied in the light of the aforesaid decision. Based on the above, the application of the defendant/applicant is found merited, and hereby granted. The defendant is hereby discharged accordingly,” Agwaza said.
Since the last decision by the CCT, Justice Ngwuta has not resumed normal judicial functions. He has not been sighted sitting as a member of any panel of the court.
Enquiry at the Supreme Court revealed that although Justice Ngwuta goes to work every day, he limits his activities to his office.
He added: “You know the EFCC (economic and Financial Crimes Commission) wrote petitions against those judges it initially charged to court before the Court of Appeal judgement in the case of Justice Nganjiwa came. Some of such petitions have been treated, the latest being that of Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia.
“But, unlike the EFCC, the office of the AGF did not write petition against the judges it had charged to court. We do not know why. One of them is Justice Ngwuta. So, at the moment, and to my knowledge, there is no petition pending against him before the NJC.”
The office of the AGF, that the office decided against writing any petition against any of the judges it was prosecuting and has seen no reason to do that.
Meanwhile, it was gathered on Friday that some senior lawyers, who felt concerned that Justice Ngwuta’s issue has been left hanging, have decided to bring it to the attention of the new CJN, Justice Ibrahim Muhammad and to demand that the NJC put the issue to rest.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who is part of the plan, told The Nation that “We hope to meet before the Supreme Court’s long vacation ends, to take a position on this and communicate our decision to the new CJN.
“This issue has to be resolved. It is casting a wrong shadow on the Judiciary. His fate cannot be left to dangle. He should not be subjected to perpetual uncertainty. That is the point we hope to stress,” he said.
