•Accuses NJC of non-compliance with A'Court decision • Demands that no case be assigned to reinstated judge pending S'Court’s judgement

A Non-governmental organization and social fairness and justice advocacy group, Access to Justice has deplored the reinstatement of Justice G. Olotu to the Federal High Court by the National Judicial Council, 8 years after her compulsory retirement.

In a statement made available to ASKLEGALPALACE and signed by its Convener, Joseph Otteh, the group also accused the NJC of towing the path of non-compliance to a subsisting judgement of the Court of Appeal on the matter.

In 2014, The National Judicial Council (“NJC”) under the leadership of Hon. Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar recommended the compulsory retirement of Justice Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court (“FHC”), and President Jonathan accordingly removed her from office.

Justice Olotu was removed, on grounds, amongst others, that she failed to deliver judgment in a suit eighteen (18) months after final addresses, in contravention of constitutional stipulations requiring judgments be delivered within a ninety (90) day period after hearing.

Justice Olotu challenged her compulsory retirement, and, at the Appeal Court, got a reprieve. In February 2022, the Court of Appeal ruled that her compulsory retirement was unconstitutional, given that, in the court’s view, the

Federal Judicial Service Commission which recommended her appointment did not recommend her removal from office. The court however, made no order of reinstatement and the NJC has appealed the Judgment to the Supreme Court. The NJC ordered the reinstatement of Justice Olotu in January 2022 and she has been reabsorbed into the FHC.

According to Access to Justice, “The question of whether a person can exercise judicial office is a highly sensitive one with important consequences for the justice system and constitutional rights, and this sensitivity must be borne in mind on all occasion.”

It continued, “With respect to the Court of Appeal judgment in Justice Olotu’s case, the NJC could have decided, in the absence of any specific order of immediate reinstatement of Justice Olotu;

A. To await for the decision of the Supreme Court following its appeal to that court.

B. Direct, where it recalls her, that no cases be assigned to Justice Olotu for adjudication pending the hearing and determination of its appeal. (This is the procedure adopted when the Council has recommended the removal or compulsory retirement of a Judge while awaiting the formal removal by the President or State Governor.”

These are not possibly the only options, but clearly strike a balance between the need to respect court judgments and preserve important values at the heart of the judicial function.”

They also added that the reinstatement of the embattled Judge is a violation of the Right to a “Manifestly” Independent and Impartial Court provided under the 1999 Constitution.

“Sec. 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution provides that every person is entitled to fair hearing by a court or tribunal that is “constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”

They stressed that compelling litigants to appear before, and be judged by persons found guilty of serious misconduct, or who have clouds of doubts hanging over their integrity, and who cannot therefore,

earn their trust, arguably violates litigants’ rights to fair hearing, given that the court is not constituted in ways or by persons who can provide the requisite constitutional assurances to them.

They equally noted that the reinstatement will worsen the deterioration of public perception about Nigeria’s judiciary, and classifies the action as an indication of a lack of willingness from the NJC to rebuild public trust in the Courts.

The statement reads in part, “The decision of the NJC to reinstate Justice Olotu is a poor, unimaginative one that will cause further embarrassment to the Judiciary as well as intensify and prolong the poor perception of the Judiciary by the public and

international community. The NJC’s directive in Justice Olotu’s case, follows on the heels of another recent (NJC) decision which directed the reinstatement of Justice Ofili Ajomogobia who was earlier removed for corruption.”

They stated that unrelenting decisions to recall and reinstate Judges removed for misconduct appear to give the impression that the Judiciary has turned full circle against its own idiosyncrasies, and no longer holds itself to any distinctive standard of conduct, rectitude and accountability, which are universal markers of

judicial office. In court decisions and elsewhere, the Judiciary has said, time and time again, that a court’s authority is premised on public confidence.

“Yet the NJC is doing everything it can to damage that confidence and undermine that authority!

More so, the NJC’s decisions underlie and reflect a deeper, more insidious problem – the lack of resolve and will by the Council to repair and win back badly damaged public confidence in courts of justice. In spite of the crisis bedeviling the Judiciary in recent years, leading up to the removal of a Chief Justice of Nigeria, the extensive range of indictments against Judges and Justices of courts, and relentless deprecatory commentary on the performance of Nigerian courts, the

NJC has not formulated an inspiring strategy and programme of action to re-engage the Nigerian public and show that it is getting its act together. The NJC has been on its back foot on the pressing need to make the Judiciary a more accountable and ethical institution, and its missteps are badly hurting the image of otherwise hardworking and conscientious Judges and Justices in its midst.”

To mitigate the effect of its decision to reabsorb Justice Olotu, Access to Justice in the statement urged the NJC to direct immediately that no cases be assigned to

Justice Olotu, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

In this article