 INEC expresses this pleasure over conflicting court orders and the NJC orders probe of three airing judges. Plus, ahead of the 2023 elections, there are suggestions that ABC leaders want to lure President Goodlock Jonathan into the party. Well, this is plus politics, and I am Mary Ann The Independent National Electoral Commission INEC has expressed this pleasure over the conflicting orders emanating from the courts of co-ordinated jurisdiction, describing it as a threat to its work and democratic development in Nigeria. Also, the National Judicial Council NJC has okayed the probe of three judges for granting exparte orders that were considered an embarrassment to the judiciary. Well, joining us to discuss this is Associate Professor of Law at the River States University, Professor Richard Wokoccia and former Vice President of the Nigeria Bar Association, Mondil Bani. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for joining us. Thank you. Well, Professor, I'm going to start with you, obviously, because I'm guessing that young lawyers that are the ones who are intending to be lawyers, the ones who sit in your classrooms every day and are watching the news or reading newspapers, would really be wondering if this should be the profession they go into, because there seems to be a lot of back and forth lately within the judiciary. But let me start by doing saying this. I do not understand if maybe the Attorney General has decided to wake up, because this is not the first time we're having these conflicting court orders. It always happens before, during and even after elections. So is it that now he's being alive to his responsibility or is this a bit much than usual and hence the reason why everyone seems to be talking about it? Well, it's always been a major embarrassment, both for the Nigerian judiciary and the Nigerian state by extension, because whenever there are normalists at the judiciary, it pays the picture outside that you have a banana republic where teens are in control. It's always been a problem, is that the general just waking up. I'm not too sure that the general has anything to do with this. I think the Chief Justice of Nigeria is probably being a little more proactive this time than they were in previous times. So we're saying he'll take steps that we haven't taken on previous occasions. So I think it's a good development that one way or the other way. Try to keep in check the keepers of our gate of justice, because a lot about stability and justice in society depends on them. And the stability of society and especially of our democracy also depends on them. So I think that CJN is doing a little better than they did on previous occasions by taking steps at least to stand in the lodge of such others that are capable of creating confusion. I'm curious because the average person, the average Nigerian who might not be necessarily abreast with judicial matters would be wondering why these conflicting court orders happen. Is it as a result of interpretation of the law or is this just some form of like people who have some pundits who have said that it's because of the level of the rot in the system or corruption in the judicial system. Hence these conflicting orders. But educate us what exactly is responsible for this. I'm not too sure it has much to do with law because when the same question comes before the same before judges of the same jurisdiction or coordination, we expect some level of regularity and some level of similarity in what they say because the law is one. I know that what happens all the time is people try to give different interpretations to the prohibitions of the law but in all you expect to see some level of sanity. So when you have a judgment on an issue or not even a judgment and that's the most disturbing thing about these developments. Interim orders. Interim orders are not judgments. They are applications that are brought before courts very often with some level of some kind of agency implied or suggested in the affidavit of agency or something that they follow it and then they will seek that the court should make an order restraining a person who has not been heard from doing something. Now if you are talking of restraining them from doing something that is about to claim my life order is about to affect my right adversely and seriously that is different but to make orders asking a functionary note to carry out this function and order will be a bit too hasty for the court. The usual tradition of the court especially for some time now after complaints about this kind of behavior has been to say okay put the other party on notice and the court will at least hear the parties before making an order to maintain the status quo or anything on the contrary. But this bit of orders being made, stop work, start work, go back to work, don't go back to work. I mean it's an embarrassment to the judicial system. And so I'm curious again this is a day of curiosities. So if there are no law that restricts one court from making the same decision or contrary decisions to what another court of competent jurisdiction has made because I remember in the case of the PDP chairmanship issue it was first the river state court and then it was another one I think in Calabar and then I mean it just and it's the same issue it's not that it's a totally different issue it's on the same issue. Is there not a way that the courts can regulate themselves so that this mess does not keep happening? Can you hear me? I think we're having a connection issue but if you can hear me. Oh I think we're having connection issues there we're going to try to get back the professor and of course our second guests will join us. I think the professor is back. Professor can you hear me? Yes I can hear you clearly. Okay we had a little hiccup but go ahead. Yeah so with respect to those issues let's say the only grass I had with the first order was with the first interim order was that you were being asked to do something very serious and there was no urgency as such threatening a life or threatening a name to warrant your acting taking that application in that manner and severeing the functionality of a functionary a major functionary. One would have respected that perhaps you would say okay put the other party on notice and when we come back and take this application let all the parties be complete. So my only gross was the decision to grant the order at the time it was granted here in the other party but again the judge is always the master of his court and injunctions are at the discretion of the court. So if the court was convinced that the situation was so urgent that it required decapitating the other party before he can be heard then let's say that was the court's reading of how urgent the situation was. His second judgment from was it the Giga Laws and for one of those states that dealt with the different issues I don't consider that conflicting as well that dealt with an application that was brought to it concerning the regularity of the popular suspension of the the person involved and the court made an order staying that suspension pending the hearing of the case. So the two of them were in quite dealing with the same thing. The first one was dealing with the effect of suspension whether the petitioner will be restrained having been suspended by his party by his constituency. The second one is dealing with the validity of the suspension and the order was made to give the brief to the person against whom that suspension was made staying that suspension or setting aside that suspension and allowing him to function pending the hearing of the case. So those two for me are not conflicting. The second one deals with the regularity of the action on the basis of which the first order was made. So it did not review the first order as to say I'm overturning the first order. I had no conflict here. My problem, major problem is with the one that came from Calabar. How do you make that subsequent order? When a court of code nature has made a pronouncement staying the suspension on the basis of which the first order was made. How do you go back to make an order after a court of code nature is hearing the validity hearing the case on the validity of the suspension and then you reinforce the suspension. So that for me is the one that is really conflicting. I do not have much problem with the first order and I do not have much problem with the second order because they were in quite dealing with the setting. First one was dealing with effect of suspension. Second one was dealing with regularity of the suspension. So they were different. But the third one is the one that clearly went elsewhere and acted completely out of the rules. So for that, that's my take on that particular contest. And from what you've told me obviously, like you said, in this case, who's blamed because of course three judges have been invited by the CJN. And in the last case that you're pointing out that, you know, it's conflicting. Is it the judge that is to be blamed for not reviewing the first and the second case so as to know whether to back out or to know what position to take before making that kind of judgment? I think the box has to end on the judges table. Though there is a caveat there, the box ends on the judges table because he has to take that decision. And as I said, the matter of whether or not the suspension was proper was pending in some court in the north. You may raise another question whether the court in the north has the position to review action of party members in the south. That's a different question that may also constitute an abuse if it has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter that is now routine in this area. And then for the court in Calaver, the two questions we have already before two different courts, the effect of the suspension and the validity of the suspension. So there was no room for you to exercise the decision again. And the matter that is already pending in another court. But the cabinet I said we have to take is the fact that a judge is not expected to operate on the basis of a news item on a newspaper or television or radio. It is the responsibility of the parties involved to bring facts before the court. And I am sure that parties brought facts. Of course, only one party was before the court. The other party was here to come before the court. That was also an interim order. So in the second instance, it made a bit of a mockery of the judicial process. But again, yes, the judge has not had the privilege of hearing the other party and given the second instance, there was no holiday he should have made an order for the third party to be served and for the later hearing of the matter if it requires a judge. Hmm. I think we're just being joined by Dr. Monde Urbani. Dr. Urbani, sometimes I forget that you're a doctor. It's good to have you join us. All right. Let me throw the same question that I posed to the professor earlier on, because obviously the NBA is watching from the sidelines and seeing that the court, which we mostly refer to as the hope of the common man seems to be playing out right in front of us as some form of a dramatic scene in a Shakespearean novel. So as someone who is part of this very learned body, what do you stand on these conflicting court orders? Well, thank you once again. We find that our judiciary sometimes engage in some level of audities, you know, when political cases are involved. It is such a day. Most times our politicians, with their little pros and cons, have inflicted virtually every profession and they are delving into the legal profession and then trying to mess up the judicial sector. With these contradictory factors, you know, the additional right left center. Given an impression as if it is now protestable, you can walk into the judiciary and make it look as a black market where you can buy any judgment at any point in time. The happenings within that past sector is very, very... I mean, shocking. It's shocking because, one, most of these decisions are getting extracted clearly. Given Benion, the area where the matter is the Messiah, imagine going to this cabinet, these states are close to this republic. In matters that may have probably arisen down south. And has no thing to do with those territories. And they go there and then, meanwhile, they obtain most of the others as a party. A party means that the other party is not put on notice. You know, that was because relies on the fact of only one party without the evidence of the other party, you know, contradicting or agreeing or affirming whatever has been said by the other parties. It's clearly, clearly a bit strange. And I'm very happy the reaction of the CJN over this, you know, and then promising that these primary measures this time around will be taken against the air interests. On our own part, too, as lawyers, we're also examining what the lawyers who filed these processes noted. Is it clearly ethical? Is this something that we deserve recommendation for this primary measure? So I think that idea that people are not happy, you know, that there is this concerted effort now being made by both Ben and Bench in order to address these issues. Well, it's something that is very confounded, meaning that from now on, it's not going to be business as usual. Bar Sabani, you said at the beginning, when you were trying to make your point that that you said we and we there meaning the judiciary have allowed politicians to come and play and and not causing you directly, but that you said something like that. So it's more like a black market of source. So it means that the judiciary has opened itself up because when you say they have come into it means that somebody opened the door for it to be done. And like I said, at the beginning of this conversation, it's not the first time we're hearing these kinds of conflicting orders. So obviously, we have lawyers who have actually allowed themselves to either be played by the politicians or they themselves are now somewhat of politicians. So how what do you start even in sanitizing the system? We see the CGN and what she's doing. But some of these lawyers are very highly placed lawyers. Well, the hammer of the law because, you know, when I was growing up, my grandfather used to say that the justice system is blind to all and sundry, but that the one in Nigeria has an open eye, one eye open and sees the child of this person or that person or the man who's rich and the man who's poor. Do we see what we'll be seeing in the future, the strong arm of the law coming down on these airing judicial officers or not? This report refers to the high and mighty people in Asia within the legal circle. I mean, we have had senior advocates of Nigeria who was stripped of his rank. He's not only one person up to two or three now. We've seen the rank of senior advocate of Nigeria. We have had instances like that. Being a senior advocate does not grant anyone an advantage to do a manner of things within the profession and get away with it. I don't think in fact, the more senior you become, the more responsible you should be in the profession, the more you get the money. And in coming to a privileged position of being a senior advocate of Nigeria is a privilege that also entrusts upon you additional responsibility apart from being a lawyer. You are now a leader of the bank. So the best practices, the kind of character and integrity that you should expect, it must be above all. It must be like Caesar's wife, being in that position. So I don't think that any lawyer will argue about it because it's a senior advocate of Nigeria being too wealthy or too big that he cannot in any way face these very measures when he offends the basic code of professional conduct. So I think we'll have to discard that idea that being big in the profession gives you a grant and immunity. Also within the bench, we have seen many judges who have actually been punished. Remember under OHSIS OAS, who was the CJN then, many lawyers who were dishing out expert orders, got clearly disciplined. Is there any record? Those people have been dismissed in the job because of certain things they or certain orders they dished out that were clearly, clearly unlawful. So I don't have this belief that anyone can become so big in this country, especially within the legal profession and do anything and get out of it. And then the grant is so big and so large and has large pockets, then it will now exclude them from being punished and all that. I don't believe in that. And I don't think anyone should entertain any fear concerning punishment, you know, being methoded out to air in lawyers or judges. I really have, I feel the urge to push you further on this issue of not believing. You not believing and it being a reality are two different things. You may not believe that there are people who can go scot-free, but in reality there might be people who can go scot-free. But I'll leave it there. That's not a question that you need to answer. Let's talk about what Inek is speaking about here. And I'm going to go back to the professor right after you. Inek has said that they are displeased with this, you know, conflicting court orders. Professor MacMulia Kub talked about the fact that he knows about cases that, in fact, I'd like to quote him directly, that there are still cases that are still in court. He's aware of them and they're therefore subjudiced. He even says that some of these cases are making the work of Inek very difficult and that they've been crying out loud for a long time. I quote him, in particular, some pre-election litigations relating to the nomination of candidates for elections were not determined until after elections. And here we are again, getting ready for 2023. In fact, the case that has cost all of this conflicting orders is also movements within a particular political party gearing up for 2023. So if we cannot sort these things out now, one might come in 2023, won't it? Certainly. If you don't stop what is going on now, you're definitely going to have a repeat of 2019 in 2023. I'm a bit happy he's starting a big LA this time. But the fact that he's starting early does not guarantee that it can end early. Neither does it guarantee that it can create confusion that will affect the electoral process and the work of Inek. It certainly will affect the work of Inek because there will be a lot of indecision based on what is prevailing, what the courts have said, what they should do and what they should not do, who they should accept and who they should not accept. So definitely we are on the same route. We're heading to the same market and unless something happens differently, even the long time we have now between now and the election won't amount to much because it can still end up dragging until it affects the electoral process. So I think Mahmood is right. But Sabani, we also know that the election calendar is the way it is right now because obviously of certain cases that lingered, I mean we no longer have general elections in terms of governorship elections right across the country at the same time. And a clear example is the fact that we're going to the polls in Anambra come November. I think November 6th if I'm not mistaken. And then it's almost the same for some other states and that's because of these same lingering court cases. But will there ever be a synchronized calendar for elections in the future if we can one way or the other regulate our judicial system and the processes that come with it? Even though there are people who are also advocating, even I think the president had been advocating for election judiciary of sorts that would help to sanitize the system right after elections. This is very disturbing. I'm talking about the intervention of the judiciary in a fair process. And that's why we must do everything humanly possible to guarantee the fairness and credibility of the process. If mandate is given at the polling unit, at the polling votes, it reduces in a fair manner. It reduces the court community sometimes to engage in disruptive process that now make the election time table to be skewed. Anambra has really pointed out the election is taking place in November, where the general election took place in 2019. I think there is a good place either before then or before that time because there was a disruption. So many other states are also involved in that. So the fairness of the system is what we should strive. And that is where INEC comes in. INEC has some of their problems too. Most times they also come from might that is not to work out. But sometimes the fairness of the process also is questionable. So we must start by getting our electoral process to be fair. When we get our electoral process to be fair in such a manner that the mandate is given at the polling booth or the polling unit, it will reduce the level of interference of judiciary. And when judiciary is not coming to determine the mandate of people who are politically honest, we may begin to have confidence being bestowed upon the electoral process. So we must try as much as possible to guarantee the fairness of the electoral process. And that means that even the electoral law itself must start by removing some of the defective clauses or provisions that have made the electoral fairness particular. And one of which is the issue of electronic deployment of, I mean, technology in our electoral process. One of which is that we must begin to vote electronically. We must also transmit our result electronically. I don't know what is the state of the law with regards to what the house is doing with that regard. They have not told us they have gone on break and they have not probably concluded on that. And INEC is willing to actually conduct election with deployment of technology, including transmission of electronic results. So we should begin to look in care with our legal framework, look at the fairness of the process, ensure that our mindsets towards having free and free elections, if we do all that the judiciary will play little role in trying to change the mandate or do anything that will actually appear destructive. Okay. And finally, because we have to go, Professor Wakocha, lastly, there are people who have the opinion that the judiciary has had too much power over the electoral process and the court should not be determining who sits in what office. And that means that we need to, like Baris Albani said, sanitize the electoral process. But how do we get the judiciary to hands off? Because many have complained, especially in the case of the Zamfara State Governor, where he was not supposedly the winner per se, but the courts installed him. And this is detailed for so many other people. Is that even realizable in the future that the courts or the tribunals will not have the power to install a person as opposed to the ballot? Well, let's remember our first, the courts do not jump in on this topic. They get invited. As Mr. Albani has said, if we get the processes to be fair, if you have an election contest in which parties are fairly treated and results clearly and as clearly as possible represent the outcome of the courts, you will have less contestation. And so first, we will eliminate some of the cases by ensuring that the process is fair and that those who are taking it will have less cost to complain about the outcome. Once we do that, and we ensure that every misconduct carries a price, both for the practitioner or politics, he also said that, and that's extremely important. Those who engage in the improper behaviors should face a threat that is stronger than the benefit they get from engaging in the lawlessness, because it is where there is less or no punishment for misconduct, misconduct, trends, and blunts. And so if we address those parts, it will reduce what goes to the courts. The courts are helpless. You take the cases to them and once the case is filed, the courts will have to make a pronouncement one way or the other on the facts presented before it. Professor Richard Waklacha, Dr. Mondo Bani, thank you very much for being part of this conversation. We appreciate it. All right. Thank you all for staying with us. We'll take a short break. And when we return, political pundits suggest the all-progressive Congress APC leaders are keeping an eye on the former president. Good luck, Jonathan. We'll get to find out after this break.