NJC Suspends Three Judges for One Year Without Pay Over Misconduct

The National Judicial Council also cautioned eight judicial officers, issued warning letters to three and placed six on a watch list following its 112th meeting.

The National Judicial Council has suspended three senior judges for one year without pay after finding that they abused their office, ordered unlawful detentions and disregarded due process.

The decisions were reached at the Council’s 112th meeting, chaired by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, and held on Tuesday, 3 November.

Also Read: Four Top Judges Behind Conflicting Orders and Frivolous Ex-parte Motions

Beyond the three suspensions, the Council cautioned eight judicial officers, issued warning letters to three judges, placed six on its watch list, dismissed 24 petitions and cleared 28 candidates for judicial appointment.

Why the three were suspended

Justice Hannatu Mohammed Kabir — Nasarawa State High Court. The Council found that Justice Kabir ordered the arrest and detention of a litigant for 58 days over an alleged disobedience of a court order. According to the NJC, she did not initiate proper contempt proceedings and failed to serve the mandatory Forms 48 and 49, which the Council said denied the litigant the right to a fair hearing. She was also barred from nomination for elevation for three years.

Grand Kadi Mohammed Sani Salihu — Jigawa State Sharia Court of Appeal. Grand Kadi Salihu was sanctioned for reopening a judgment already delivered by the FCT Upper Area Court.

The Council found he exceeded his powers by setting up a committee to review the judgment and by assigning the case to another judge, who took fresh evidence and delivered a new judgment.

The NJC described the action as an appeal against a valid judgment, contrary to Rule 3.3.1 of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, 2016.

Justice Sobere Biambo — Rivers State High Court. Justice Biambo was suspended for ordering the arrest of litigants and imposing a N300,000 fine on each of them in a civil dispute without proper contempt proceedings. Like Justice Kabir, he was barred from nomination for elevation for three years.

Others cautioned

Related Stories

Justice Bello Kawu of the FCT High Court received a warning letter and was placed on the watch list over his decision to grant interim bail to a former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), despite a subsisting remand order.

Justice Kayode Agunloye, also of the FCT High Court, was cautioned over his handling of post-judgment garnishee proceedings in a suit involving First Bank of Nigeria Plc.

What the NJC’s sanctions actually mean

Under the Constitution, the NJC recommends the appointment, promotion and discipline of judges. Sanctions at this stage are administrative: they affect pay, posting and eligibility for elevation.

Where removal is contemplated, the Council’s recommendation goes to the President or the relevant state governor, depending on which court the officer sits in. A suspension by the Council, in other words, is a finding of misconduct within the disciplinary process — it is not a criminal conviction, and none of the three judges has been charged with any offence in relation to these findings.

Why conflicting judgments keep recurring

Nigeria’s judiciary has faced sustained public criticism over conflicting court orders, forum shopping and the use of ex parte applications to tie up matters already before another court.

The pattern is familiar. Two or more suits are filed on the same dispute in different courts, sometimes in different states, and each produces an interim order that contradicts the other. Litigants then choose which order suits them, and law enforcement is left to work out which one to enforce.

 

Bar leaders and successive Chief Justices have publicly flagged the practice. The NJC has itself disciplined judicial officers over their handling of ex parte applications and interim injunctions in the past.

Context cuts both ways. The Council’s findings are made against individual officers after investigation, and it also throws out a large share of the petitions it receives.

Of the petitions before its 112th meeting, 24 were dismissed — a reminder that allegations against judges are frequently made and are not always substantiated.