 Welcome back to the Breakfast on Plus TV Africa. Let's now get to our first major conversation with a senior advocate of Nigeria, Mr Paul Ananambar. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. Good morning. So we're basically talking this morning about the Chief Justice of Nigeria who has summoned seven judges over conflicting judgments that you know they've given in several cases. I want to first get your initial reaction to this. How much of a national embarrassment to the Nigerian judiciary would you say this is? As the CGN, Tanku Muhammad and NBA president Ulu Midyakwata has described it. Well we cannot measure the quantum of embarrassment. I do not know whether the judges know the level of beyond embarrassment harm done to the judiciary and to legal practice. Let me summarize it by telling you uh the way I felt when I saw and the social media. You know this picture that went viral. A judge was painted to be hawking injunction and politicians and litigants were going to buy their injunction and walking away. And it's a cartoon? That cartoon. That depicts what it is. So it means that justice or injunctions and judgments and orders is a matter of highest bidder. You go and buy and you go. And you remember that today some elected officers are described as caught elected officers. So it gets to the it gets to that point again you remember June 10 1993. I'm not talking about June 12. I'm talking about June 10 at a day at an hour of the night when costs are normally not sitting. Justice Basi Peme in this country issued an expert order to stop an election and the application of ABN. You remember as a social veteran Nigerians and that order was to stop election few hours away. The electorate body then used to obey that order proceeded and again June 15 to stop announcing the results and all that. And that is the whole problem of June 12. So the judiciary also played a role in that. We are already going towards elections again and we are beginning to see expert orders to remove a chairman of a political party that is a major position political party. Set that political party on fire putting the other party on notice and then hearing to the both parties for the benefit of those who don't understand what expert order means. It is another made by a court here in one party. It is made in very urgent cases and in that type of situation it will be a situation that will be uncontrollably bad if we wait to put the other party on notice. What was the urgency about removing the chairman of a political party? I think that was not enough. Far away judge issues and others don't turn which is the condos. Ms Ananamba I want you to help us you know for people who don't understand you know the depth of this case. I want you to help us understand you know what we say it's an embarrassment. What exactly do you mean? Is it that these judges are breaching any excuse me? What it means is that the judiciary the court system is a sacred institution. It does not act in a confused disorderly manner. It doesn't have to cause confusion. Justice is to restore sanity. Now when it gets to a point where litigants now know that oh if you have money you can buy. Now if there are principles by which cases are decided why will a potter court, high court or a court in the reverse state judiciary make another another court in KB makes another other another one in Calabar makes another on in respect of one matter in law. All right Ms Ananamba and they are all expertly orders. Yeah so this is this is where I believe a lot of people are confused. Why would that be? Why is it not an embarrassment? So it means that. Can you hear me Ms Ananamba? It's possible that we start even the 2023 in the presidential elections and 10 courts issue 10 expertly orders. Stopping, stopping, stopping, stopping. That's what embarrassment is. Ms Ananamba can you hear me? We become belittled in the eyes of the world. These things are reported on the internet. They are reported in the news of other countries. Tomorrow you say a Nigerian court is they don't have a court system. The court system is confirmed. Ms Ananamba can you hear me clearly? Yes I can. Okay great. So this is what I would hope that we can you know make clearer here. Do these judges find a way to interpret these cases different after getting paid? Or are there certain details or loopholes in these cases that they can always reach out to to give a totally different you know court or injunction or order? Thank you. I don't know about whether anybody's paid. That's not the issue for me. What is being said is these orders are made expertly. You do not hear the other party. These orders are in respect of political parties. Look at Ananambara states. Now how do you explain who will be on the ballot paper in Abga now? Let me ask you. You wouldn't know. That goes to destabilize INEC with respect to that election and it could lead to restiveness by politicians and even the populace as to our candidates and there could be riots and violence and lives and property will be lost. That is the problem. Now the judiciary the courts are seen as the last hope of the common man. If that last hope is removed what will the common man, what will the Nigerian, what will people do? So what is causing this problem? Would you say that the issue here is the fact that these judges here this matter expertly? Would you say it's corruption like that editorial concern that people you know talked about you know buying judgment? Would you say it's corruption or would you say it's a lack of synergy or communication within these judges? What exactly is the roots challenge here? The issue is every judge has a judicial code. You don't just come up and you are made a judge. You would have been at least 10 years at the back and you will have integrity and you will be trained and enjoy. You will be told these are rules and don'ts of this office. Now the NJC had continuously drawn into judges don't issue expertly orders particularly in political cases and then you go on to issue expertly orders. You issue one another judge counters it, another one counters it. It is the cops are not political parties. Now you are asking what the problem is. The problem is deviation from the code of conduct of judges. Yes, a judge has the right to decide the case one way or the other and will not be punished. Many judges have been removed because of expertly orders in this country in the manner they have been issued. What has been said is politicians will come and litigants will come with various skewed facts. Why you are a judge is that you look at you become circumspect. You look at the facts and then in this type of cases, removal of a chairman of a party, removal of a candidate, put the other party on notice, give an abridged time, hear all the parties and decide the matter one way of that sort is expected of a judge at the level of a high court at least. Okay, well now that seven of them have been summoned, Sandan, about what do you expect from the meeting with the CJN? How effective will this meeting be and is there, you know, expected to be a different way with which these things can be addressed either through the NBA or the NJC? Well, I'm pleased that the CJN took that step. He has acted properly in my view as the head of courts in Nigeria because the box talks with him. He's the chairman of NJC and a major hurdle to cross is being able to get any of these judges to answer because there must be a petition. So we don't know whether there's a petition or not today. If there's no petition, nothing will be done and the Nigerian will be saying these judges, this is the day, no, you can get away with all those kind of things. Now, when the Chief Justice of the Federation has the heads of court in the states where those judges issue those orders, I think it is respectful. I think it is a way to go because you can no longer say that the NJC is not aware. NJC is aware and it is from the part of the world we are from before you take the first son of the community in a distrustful manner. We normally prescribe that you let his kids may know what he has done. I think that is the style of the CJN and that is correct and that is fine. Beyond that, it's expected that the CJN will, as the chairman of NJC, take off this matter at the NJC. It is not only the judges. These cases were filed by legal practitioners and that's where I am also happy with the NBA. The president of NBA has become very vocal. Another part of NBA are vocal about it. We should not also condone our colleagues from NJC who know that these orders are not to go expertly, find them expertly. Who, at the time of arguing applications, even if they were expertly, did not rather teach children of the judges of the NJC. Mr. Anna Namba, I have to reconnect with you there because we're having technical issues with your network. While we're trying to reconnect with Mr Anna Namba, he's really made a lot of valid points and even opened my eyes to how the judicial system should actually work. Some key points that I've taken away from that conversation is to say that the judiciary should bring sanity, not cause chaos. And chaos, the latter, is what we're seeing right now when one judge in one state is saying you're no longer the chairman of this party. And then that that aggrieved party goes ahead to another state and he says, oh you're now chairman. Another court gives another judgment. You know, we've seen cases like this time and time again. Like you mentioned, it seems like a total mess in Anna Namba right now because who really are the candidates when different courts are giving different judgments? You know, you also see the case with the APC. Sometimes these judgments seem very fozzled and people do not understand. Is the court saying A or the court saying B? Some of the other judgments you see in the case in the river state. Well, the court went ahead to say that it is the state government who have the power and the constitutional rights to go ahead and collect taxes from the state. And then you see the FIRS going to file an appeal that will now put a state of execution on that other judgment. So it really seems to be a mess. But good to know we have Mr Anna Namba. Ms Anna Namba, please go ahead. You were talking about the role of these lawyers, you know, in this whole judicial mess. I was just saying that it is not only about the judges, it's also about the lawyers. Many of them are very senior lawyers. The NPA should, I also expect the NPA to, which is already doing, to go on to invite all the lawyers that got involved in these cases to explain their roles so that no more lawyers will not go on this lane of putting down the judiciary, putting down our practice. As a legal practitioner, I have nothing more to do, nothing else to do than this job. So when the society loses confidence in the court system, they don't patronize me, they don't patronize the next lawyer. So what are we going to do? It wouldn't happen in England, it wouldn't happen in the U.S. We must uphold the sanctity of the legal profession. So the ban should get to work, the bench is already getting to work, the invitation of the CJN is to the heads of courts, they are to the chief judges of those states, so that they can harmonize how to deal with this expert orders that have been issued and they know what to go about with the judges that issue the conflicting orders. Great thing you started by talking about the 1993 case. So I was going to ask if this is something that has always been in existence, conflicting court orders and injunctions for sale. I went to 1993 because it was when it came to limelight to use expert orders to truncate democracy. So has this always been in existence with the Nigerian judiciary system? No, not expert orders in particular, but conflicting court judgments here and there, has it always been in existence and is it just simply getting worse now? And why am I asking about the history of this is also because I need to understand from your perspective if we can actually put an end to this. Yes, it happens often but not in a calculated and premeditated manner. Of course, you could have conflicting orders of the court of appeal and sometimes the Supreme Court. The point about this is that this is not the squeezable parts. Whatever human beings have done also have some imperfections. But this set of Hanambrer and in politics is premeditated because there's already a warning. These are courts of caught in jurisdiction based courts, not the higher courts of the court of appeal or the Supreme Court. Now, it has gotten worse because politicians are now exploiting it. And perhaps trying as 2323 is coming about, maybe some may be thinking of using it in a more debased manner. Now, should we watch it and just do nothing? No, that's what I've been saying. How do we stop it? Now, the NJC should restate, aside from dealing with those who have gotten into it now, restate zero tolerance for use of court orders and judgments. Not only ex-party orders, even interlocutor orders, even judgments of tribunals, I mean election tribunals. For those of us who are frequent to election petition tribunals, we cannot explain all that we see. That's some judgment to see. You see judgments that you cannot understand how you can justify it. So let the judges and the lawyers give to the requirement of meeting our justice. That is what will make people not to riot after an election because they know that the courts will correct every wrong. That is the point. And then we cannot now see our democracy that we're built over the years truncated because of judges' decisions. Having said that, the Chief Justice of Federation should also begin to look at how technology will be helpful to us by having an electronic information to all judges, which every judge can link to, to know if there have been ex-party orders or orders with respect to any question before they issue any order. That really links to my... If a judge finds out that he has made an order which is wrong, the judge that should not be allowed, at the point he gets to know even if it's in his house, he can issue an order setting it aside on his own. So we begin to have some sanity. I said that links to my earlier question where I was asking if one of the challenges is lack of synergy and communication between these judges, but you've now gone ahead to say yes, that's something that could be improved on. So I wanted to ask you, based on your legal expertise, Mr Anna Namba, how do we draw the line between these conflicting court judgments and the rights of a party to appeal because they have that judicial right to appeal? If you're aggrieved by a court judgment, you can go ahead and appeal to a higher court. So how do we make a distinction? Where do we draw the line between when these judges go ahead and break the professional rules of conduct, breach those rules of conduct, and then when people can go ahead and appeal and get a deferring judgment from the court? That line is drawn by what we call forum shopping. Come again? Forum shopping is when litigants go from court to court to find the court that will fail to them. So what you see in these conflicting orders, there's forum shopping underlining it, which is like a class of user process. You may find out that before the judge in KB gave that order, the litigants, the politicians may have gone to several other courts and they were being refused. Where they are refused, you will not be reported. You may not be reported. So you can shop and any judge that agrees, he gives you an order, any judge, rather than appealing that expertly order, rather than appealing that expertly order. The rate of appeal is the proper way to go, even though the current rules of court do not encourage or permit appeal over expertly orders. Now, if an expertly order is made, the property to do yes appeal but not appeal immediately is to bring an application to set aside that expertly order. If it's in the federal record within 14 days of applying to set aside that order, that order expires automatically. So the law has provisions for ways to deal with these issues. But because the politician or the litigant does not want justice really, but just to steal a match, just to have a win, he would rather prefer working with his or her lawyers to go through the way of expertly orders, shopping in other jurisdictions to get some orders. That is what is wrong in the process. That's where the line is. Nobody is stopping a party from exercising constitutional right, but you exercise your constitutional right within the rules and laws of the country. And not being mischievous to beat the system, to debase the system. The only thing standing today is the courts in this country, I can be sure. The legislature, you see, members of the assembly, more or less flow with where their governors are. The ESCO do what they want, executive committee. The judiciary is made from the onset to be independent and the hope of everybody. That is the last man standing. We must not allow it to go down. All right. I want your thoughts on the current cases that have become popular, and that is the Anambra State elections and, of course, May Malabu will need different court orders. How do you see this eventually playing out? Some of these expert orders stand at the end of the meeting with the CJN, or will they be squashed? And which of them do we eventually, although the people involved, eventually take serious? Well, there's a difficulty because there are courts of unnaturalization at the base level. I mean at the high court. Now, if it were the Supreme Court or court of pre-decision, the rules of practice, there are precedents, there are decided cases on what should be done. If it is a conflicting Supreme Court decision or court of pre-decision, the position of the law is that the last decision, the last order, should be the one obeyed. Because the law looks at it that the courts may have thought more in subsequent orders. Now, in this particular case, the invitation of the CJN is not in the way of discipline and conduct, not on the order itself. Those orders may still need to be set aside with an informal application or appeared against, unless an appellate court makes a pronouncement, or the court that made those orders set them aside, they continue to be orders valid orders. But, like I said, the orders of the Federal High Court once there's an application to set it aside will expire after 14 days. So if the Federal High Court order, it goes that way. If it's a State High Court order, where you do not have the same provisions as the rules of the Federal High Court, then there is need for that court to set aside that order. Or an appellate court intervenes. The CJN, even though it's the end of court in Nigeria, cannot set aside a valid order. Or it can deal with the judge that made the order, and NPA can deal with the lawyers that brought the application. Fantastic. That leads me to my final question. When you talk about dealing with the judges, dealing with the laws involved, what sort of punishments can we expect? What sort of punishment can we expect by the CJN or the NPA on these judges that have gone ahead to cause this national embarrassment? In the country for the judges, the judge can be dismissed, who is suspended, can be cautioned, and may be found not to have done anything wrong. We have precedents across these lines. Same with the lawyers. The rules of professional conduct 2020 met provisions also for that. The lawyers can be struck off the road, suspended from practice, cautioned, or set free. Would you advise that Nigeria goes beyond just meeting with the CJN? Should that be further investigations for some of these judges? Because I remember in 2015 or 2016, when some doors were broken down at 1 a.m., there was a lot of people who said that was completely wrong. But would you advise that it would be a little bit more? The young ones, the CJN and the NJC, journalists should do their work. Find out whether there are some other things that happened. The security agencies in this country should do their work. The bad incidents where similar things happened in a lecture petition and the NJC got evidence that backs of money were taken to those judges' houses. It was proved and those judges were dismissed. Like you said, I would advocate that after the dismissal, such people should be prosecuted or sued. All right, Mr Paul Ananamba, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, that's a good place to leave the conversation this morning. We thank you for coming on to provide your legal expertise on the CJN's invitation of these judges and who have issued conflicting court orders. Before I sign off, I would like you, the NBA will be having a webinar on this point on Tuesday. It will be good for Nigerians to hook on. We're bringing in retired judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Senior Advocates, former presidents of the band, and the current president of NBA. We're putting them on the stage to discuss these issues as a further way to find a solution to this problem. I will be hosting, NBA speeder will be hosting, I will be coordinating that discussion. All right, we definitely will connect with that and thanks also for inviting us officially and for sharing with us. Thank you. Absolutely. All right, let's take a break here. We'll be back to talk Guinea and their politics.