NBA Urges Restraints, Decorum in Criticism of Court Judgments

•To probe ruling nullifying Section 84 (12) of Electoral Act

Alex Enumah

In what seems to be a defense of the nation’s judiciary, the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has called on Nigerians including politicians and legal practitioners to exercise cautious and apply decorum in their reactions to judgments of courts.

The President of the NBA, Mr. Olumide Akpata, in a statement yesterday, lamented what he described as, “unsavoury remarks made about the judgment and the person of Justice Evelyn Anyadike, by some Nigerians, including members of the bar.”

While warning against the use of, “intemperate language to characterise judgments and/or judges of courts”, Akpata reminded that the Rules of Professional Conduct and the ethics that regulate the legal profession enjoin them to treat courts and judges with the utmost respect.

“We must reiterate that there are legal and constitutional avenues to challenge unfavourable judgments and lawyers and indeed the generality of Nigerians are therefore enjoined to explore these avenues rather than resorting to unwarranted and counterproductive attacks on judges and the judiciary.

“In this regard, I have already spoken to one such senior Lawyer who, in the wake of the Judgment, issued and published certain deprecatory statements that cast aspersions on the person of Honourable Justice Evelyn Anyadike and he has since retracted the said statements”, he said.

The NBA, however, stressed that all courts in Nigeria must act in accordance with the dictates of the law and having regard to justice in order to forestall a situation of breakdown of law and order which is certain to occur when the generality of Nigerians ultimately lose confidence in the court system.

The NBA said it noted that some of the complaints about the judgment included not just the substance, “which critics accuse of conflating that cadre of government officials referred to as political appointees – and the subject of the vexed Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act – with public officers within the meaning of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), but also the somewhat usual circumstances surrounding the case especially the blistering speed with which the case, filed on 8th March 2022, was heard and determined on 18th March 2022.”

Akpata added that, “while it is a truism that justice delayed is justice denied, and that we have long complained about the delays that ordinary litigants face in the determination of their rights and obligations before our courts, it is also correct that justice rushed is also justice crushed, especially in cases of public interest such as the case at issue.

“The utopian balance between these twin constraints continues to occupy the attention of stakeholders in the administration of justice.

“Consequently, the NBA will immediately apply for the certified copies of the judgment, the process filed, and the record of proceedings in the case, from the Federal High Court, Umuahia and thereafter decide on the next appropriate steps.

“In the meantime, we once again call on Nigerians in general, and lawyers in particular, to exercise restraint and decorum in commenting on these significant legal developments.

“If we must fulfil the arduous task of nation building, we must continue to protect the sanctity of the Judiciary and defend the integrity of our judicial officers, especially when it is seemingly difficult to do so.”

Recall that Justice Anyadike of the Umuahia Division of the Federal High Court, had in a judgment delivered on March 18, 2022, nullified Section 84(12) of the recently passed Electoral Act 2022 and ordered the Attorney-General of the Federation, the sole defendant in the case, to delete the said Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act with immediate effect.

The judge held that the said portion of the Electoral Act was illegal, null and unconstitutional and of no ffect whatsoever, adding that the section ought to be struck down because it violates the clear provisions of the constitution.

Justice Anyadike in the Suit marked FHC/UM/CS/26/2022 held that Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(f) and 182(1)(f) of the 1999 constitution already stipulated that appointees of government seeking to contest elections were only to resign at least 30 days to the date of the election and that any other law that mandated such appointees to resign or leave office at any time before that was unconstitutional, invalid, illegal null and void to the extent of its inconsistency to the clear provisions of the constitution.

The judge accordingly struck down Section 84(12) of the newly amended Electoral Act with an order on the Attorney General of the Federation to delete the said provision immediately.

Recall also that the AGF within hours the judgment was delivered assured that the federal government would comply immediately comply with the order by gazetting it and directing the government’s printing press not to include the said section in the printing of the amended Electoral Act.