Legal Experts Debate Impact Of Court Of Appeal Ruling On Ex-CJN Onnoghen’s Case
The recent Court of Appeal ruling, which overturned the conviction of former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), has sparked widespread discussion among legal experts on the implications for judicial independence and whether Justice Onnoghen should be compensated for damages to his reputation.
On November 4, 2024, the Court of Appeal in Abuja nullified Justice Onnoghen’s 2019 conviction, citing procedural missteps by the CCT, which tried the former CJN without referring the matter to the National Judicial Council (NJC). The ruling, based on a settlement between Justice Onnoghen and the Federal Government, resolved the dispute but left some lawyers dissatisfied due to the lack of a merit-based ruling.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mrs. Titilola Akinlawon, emphasized the importance of a jurisdictional ruling over a settlement, arguing that the CCT lacked authority to try a sitting judicial officer without NJC involvement. “The proceedings were devoid of jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity,” she stated. Akinlawon also doubted that Onnoghen could claim compensation due to the case’s unique conclusion.
Similarly, Professor Mike Ozekhome (SAN) supported compensation, labeling it “restitution” for the reputational harm caused to Justice Onnoghen. However, he acknowledged that the recent ruling complicates compensation claims as it was reached through mutual settlement, which likely precludes further claims.
Professor Damilola Olawuyi (SAN) highlighted the reputational damage caused by the public nature of Onnoghen’s trial. He suggested that the Court of Appeal ruling could prompt further review of procedural standards in judicial trials. Olawuyi stressed that disciplinary actions should be taken against any tribunal members found responsible for procedural lapses to restore public trust in the judiciary.
Senior lawyer Mofesomo Oyetibo (SAN) remarked that the settlement effectively resets Justice Onnoghen’s status, restoring his benefits but limiting further legal actions for reputational damages. “The decision restores the status quo, entitling him to his full benefits, but it also closes the door to further claims for damages,” Oyetibo said.
Abiodun Olatunji (SAN), however, argued that the case’s handling demonstrated serious flaws in Nigeria’s judicial process. He noted that Justice Onnoghen’s initial dismissal was procedurally flawed, allowing political motives to overshadow constitutional safeguards meant to protect judicial officers. He suggested that Justice Onnoghen’s ordeal, marked by public humiliation and political overreach, highlights the judiciary’s vulnerability to external interference.
As opinions diverge on the Court of Appeal’s approach, legal analysts assert that the case underscores the need for clearly defined boundaries between judicial independence and executive influence. Many believe that reforms to strengthen procedural safeguards for judicial officers are necessary to prevent similar controversies in the future.
Culled from The PUNCH
