SANs Divided Over Prosecution Of Retired Judges Indicted For Age Falsification
A debate has erupted among senior lawyers in Nigeria over whether judges recently recommended for compulsory retirement for age falsification should face prosecution.
The National Judicial Council (NJC), chaired by Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, disclosed on November 15 that two heads of court were found guilty of falsifying their ages and were recommended for compulsory retirement.
The Chief Judge of the Imo State High Court, Justice T. E. Chukwuemeka Chikeka, was one of the affected judges. Similarly, the NJC directed the Grand Kadi of Yobe State, Kadi Babagana Mahdi, to retire compulsorily after it was revealed he had three conflicting dates of birth—10 December, 28 January, and July, all in 1959—with his actual birth year being 1952.
While some Nigerians have called for the prosecution of the judges to deter others, Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) hold divergent views on the matter.
Punishment Is Sufficient, Say Some SANs
Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, former chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, argued that the NJC’s decision to retire the judges compulsorily is punishment enough.
“Being exposed for falsifying age and then compulsorily retired is a disgrace and shame that outweighs imprisonment for people of their stature. I think the punishment is sufficient,” Sagay said.
Another SAN, Lekan Ojo, noted that whether prosecution is appropriate depends on the nature of the falsification. He explained that falsification via an affidavit could constitute a crime, while errors in forms may not be criminalized. He added, “After compulsory retirement and refunding any excess money collected, those measures are appropriate.”
However, other senior lawyers have called for stricter consequences. Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, stated that while the NJC’s actions are commendable, additional measures might be necessary to uphold integrity.
Kunle Adegoke, SAN, advocated for prosecution to deter future misconduct. “The temple of justice prioritizes integrity. The NJC’s action is commendable, but since the judges will still receive pensions, prosecution is necessary to set a stronger example,” he said.
The division among legal experts underscores the complexities surrounding accountability and deterrence in the judiciary. While the NJC’s decision marks a significant step, the question of whether prosecution should follow remains a contentious issue.
