CJN Onnoghen's Removal shows Nigerian Judiciary is not independent — EU

European union observation mission 

The European Union Election Observer Mission (EU-EOM) at the weekend says the removal of CJN Walter Onnoghen as the Chief Justice of Nigeria shows that the Nigerian Judiciary is not independent.

The EU in its final report on the 2019 general elections said the 25th January, 2019, “controversial order by the Code of Conduct Tribunal” and suspension of the CJN which threw up Justice Tanko Muhammad as acting CJN, “is subject to question”.

According to the EU: “The ability of the judiciary to work independently was questioned when, three weeks before the scheduled election day, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (Walter Onnoghen) was suspended by the President. The suspension did not follow due process, was divisive, and to some extent undermined confidence in the electoral process and opportunity for remedy”.

According to the body, “the Constitution requires any infraction by judges to first be investigated and resolved by the National Judicial Council (NJC), to the exclusion of any other body or authority, and removal requires approval of two-thirds of the Senate.

“The EU-EOM noted its concern over both the timing and process of the suspension in a statement on 26 January. The mission observed that questionable procedures were followed by the CCT.

“During on-going post-election sessions of the Tribunal, the chair was observed to behave inappropriately, with insufficient time granted to the defence team and threats made to journalists.

“On 3rd April, the NJC recommended the compulsory retirement of the suspended CJN.

“In contrast to previous decisions, the council also concluded that the acting CJN did not commit any offence when he was sworn-in without the recommendation of the council.

“The following day, the Chief Justice submitted his request for retirement to the president. On 18 April, the CCT convicted the suspended Chief Justice, who immediately submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal case was unconstitutional and without a fair hearing.

“The removal of the CJN during the elections had an inhibiting effect on the judiciary. It was seen by many as undermining security of tenure, damaging judicial independence and compromising the division of powers”.