Salami: An unending controversy

IT is not too difficult to fathom what has kept the debate over the botched attempt to offer an unholy promotion to Justice Ayo Salami, President of the Court of Appeal on. The allegations by Ayo Salami against the Chief Justice of Nigeria in the wake of that move were just too weighty and unprecedented. It pitched the Appeal Court against the Supreme Court. 

I have read many interventions by well-meaning leaders of the Bar and retired jurists. I found the position taken the highly cerebral and respected Justice Kayode Eso very illuminating. The moral indignation is noted and the suggestions quite helpful. 

However, I have chosen rather to comment on the submissions of a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Olisa Agbakoba. Like Eso, he measured his position and wondered what was happening. He weighed in on the side of the National Judicial Council (NJC), contending that he saw nothing wrong in moving Salami to the apex court. He added that he found it alarming that Nigerian judges are usually reluctant to move to a higher Bench once they hold administrative position and gave examples to buttress his position. He even [pointed out that attempts to move Chief Judges of states to the Supreme Court are only accepted at the twilight of the careers of such men. 

These are important issues, but they are tangential to the matter at hand. The learned former NBA President avoided the germane issues probably because he is privy to them and may still have to deal with the fallouts as things unfold. 

To me, what is required is not a reconciliation of parties. We must get to the root of the issues. First, on the promotion itself, did it follow laid down procedure? It has been contended that zones have quota at the apex court. It has been further contended that there is no vacancy for the North central, the zone from which Justice Salami hails. Is this correct? Is this fact lost on Chief Justice Alloysius Katsina-Alu. 

Agbakoba said there had been assessment of would-be Justices and Salami was aware that the process had started. That, in my opinion, misses the point. What salami said or alleged was that the issue was not on the agenda of the meeting of the Federal Judicial service Commission. He further alleged that he was conveniently excused from the FJSC meeting in order to facilitate the process and probably make the “promotion” a fait accompli. Is this true? 

Agbakoba said or suggested that salami acted in haste, that he still had enough opportunity to decline the Greek gift. Perhaps. But, if, as he suspected, the CJN was up to something, wouldn’t a wise person take steps to stop it? 

The position of the respected SAN did not take due notice of the allegation that the CJN had become bitter against the petitioner following an attempt to unduly influence composition and ultimately judgment in the Sokoto governorship election appeal pending before the Appeal Court in Sokoto. It is the prerogative of salami to choose those to seat on the appeal and he had done so to the best of his ability. The CJN had no business in the matter, but, curiously, the Supreme Court found some excuse to assume jurisdiction and render the efforts of the Appeal Court a nullity. 

Even before Salami raised the alarm, not a few eyebrows had been raised by learned men and laymen alike. 

The bottom line in all this is that one of the men on whom we rely to give direction to the state, to serve as administrators of the temple of justice lied. It is either that Salami was too comfortable that he would do anything, including pulling the temple down, to keep his job. Or, the CJN is such a notorious pervert that he would stop at nothing in subverting the judicial process. As a layman, that is my reading of the situation. We must do everything to get to the root of the matter. Whoever is guilty must be fished out and punished. It is a shame that we are at a point where either proposition can even be contemplated. 

This is not the first time that issues involving such high officials have been swept under the carpet. One instance will suffice here. In 2003, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai was nominated as a minister. He alleged that some senators, and he identified them when challenged, demanded gratification from him to facilitate senate’s clearance. Of course, the three men denied. That was the end of the matter. It did not matter to the leaders that someone was a liar in the matter. It was either that el-Rufai was a liar and therefore undeserving of the high office he was appointed to occupy, or the senators were corrupt and taking advantage of their positions, in which case they ought to have been prosecuted. 

There are so many other examples. But, this is one case too many. It must not go the way of others.