Home:: Publications

Site News --> More

Oyo State Judiciary: Pawn in Executive Intrigues

The framers of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary stipulated, as a matter of principle, that “The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and… It is the duty of all government and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary”. This principle is premised on the understanding that judicial autonomy is a means towards a strong judicial institution, which is an indispensable component of constitutional democracy. However, recent happenings in the judicial landscape in Oyo State, particularly the unorthodox and questionable patterns of appointment, removal and reappointment of judges to the office of the state Chief Judge, by the State executive, belie this age-long concept of judicial independence.

Since the 1999 transition to democratic rule in Nigeria, Oyo State has been in the news albeit for the wrong reasons. Oyo state has become a terrain notorious for political muscle-flexing and skirmishes. Unfortunately, these political power plays have been extended to the state’s judicial province. The rumbles in the judicial branch in Oyo State take its root from the controversial removal in 2005, of Hon. Justice Isaiah Olakanmi as Chief Judge (a matter which is being litigated on account of which there has been no substantive Chief Judge in the state since then). Following the said event, Hon. Justice Afolabi Adeniran was appointed the acting Chief Judge in March 2005, and held the position until March 2007. He was removed and replaced by Hon. Justice Olagoke Ige, after former governor Rashidi Ladoja resumed his incumbency, and although the erstwhile governor claimed that Justice Adeniran had served out his tenure, it is believed that Justice Adeniran was removed for the role he played in the impeachment of the former governor. It was Justice Adeniran, who constituted the controversial investigation panel that indicted the former Governor Rasheed Ladoja on account of which he was impeached as governor.

Otunba Alao-Akala , who succeeded Rasheed Ladoja as the Executive governor of Oyo State in May, instant, upon assumption of office, reportedly summoned the then acting Chief Judge of the state, Hon. Justice Olagoke Ige, to his office. The meeting, it was reported, was to prevail on Hon. Justice Ige to use his office to facilitate the expeditious hearing and favourable outcome of a lawsuit the Governor was preparing to file to challenge his indictment by the out-gone administration of the State for fraud and abuse of office. The indictment was one of the grounds upon which political opponents were challenging his election at the Tribunals and the Governor appeared to reckon that if he successfully quashed the indictment against him, it would take the sail out of the case of those contesting his election.

Hon. Justice Olagoke Ige reportedly answered the “summons” of the Governor but however refused to comply with the “executive direction”. Consequently, he was removed as acting Chief Judge by the governor on 6th June 2007, and immediately replaced with Hon. Justice Afolabi Adeniran within the context of a widely perceived design to ensure the quashing of the governor's indictment. Barely three days after his reappointment, Justice Adeniran assigned a fresh application to quash the Governor’s indictment to himself and despite strong opposition and criticism, heard and granted the application. The NJC, in what obviously was a rather late reaction, set up a panel of inquiry to investigate this embarrassing development, but just before any definitive action was taken, Hon. Justice Adeniran retired from the Bench on Wednesday August 15, 2007.

However, on Tuesday August 14 2007, the Oyo State House of Assembly reportedly reinstated Hon. Justice Isaiah Oluyide Olakanmi with full benefits. Immediately following the decision of the House, Hon. Justice Olakanmi was named the Chief Judge by the state governor, Otunba Adebayo Alao-Akala. It would be recalled that Hon. Justice Olakanmi served in the capacity of the Chief Judge of Oyo State until 2005, when he was unceremoniously removed by the State House of Assembly under Governor Rashidi Ladoja, following a petition signed by 23 of the 24 judges in the state accusing him of financial impropriety. When Justice Olakanmi was removed alongside the then Chief Registrar, Mrs. Gloria Akinrinmade, for alleged misappriopriation, not a few persons were suspicious of the circumstances leading to the removal. Justice Olakanmi, on his part, proceeded to the Federal High Court and later the Court of Appeal to vindicate himself and annul his removal. He also petitioned the newly constituted State House of Assembly to set aside his removal.

Though Hon. Justice Olakanmi’s reinstatement as Chief Judge of Oyo state, after nearly 3 years, is perhaps, a triumph of reason and justice, his sudden reinstatement and reappointment as Chief Judge, on the heel of the retirement of Hon. Justice Adeniran, however, accentuates a rhythm of strategic reappointments which raise a lot of questions as to the true underlying motive behind the State executive’s chess-game-like maneuvers in making appointments to the office of the Chief Judge of Oyo state.

The Constitution is crystal clear as to how and who should fill the office of a State Chief Judge where a vacancy exists. Although the governor has the constitutional powers vested in his office to appoint the State Chief Judge, it clearly does not leave that choice to chance, political preference and partisan motivations. By Section 271 (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution, where there is need to fill the office of the Chief Judge, the governor can only appoint either the most senior Judge of the High Court to function in acting capacity or a substantial Chief Judge on the NJC’s recommendation or confirmation.

However, the scenario in Oyo state appears to imply that the State executive has found a carefully crafted method of appointment by which it could circumvent these constitutional provisions and make invidious maneuvers that are clearly aimed at serving its own political interests. A review of the tenure of the three abovementioned judicial officers, who have each occupied the office of Chief Judge of that state, all within a space of six months and, as it were, at the behest of the incumbent governor, would be very instructive. When Ladoja was governor of Oyo state, he sacked Justice Olakanmi, for allegedly refusing to interfere in the adjudication of a case involving a disputed local government chairmanship election, and appointed Justice Adeniran in his stead. Unfortunately, Justice Adeniran set up the panel that impeached Ladoja and made way for Otunba Alao-Akala to step in as Governor. Upon Ladoja’s return to office, Justice Adeniran was shown the way out and Justice Ige was appointed as acting Chief Judge. All this while, Justice Olakanmi was seeking redress through the courts but nobody looked his way.

Then Otunba Alao-Akala finally steps in as elected governor, and when he found that Justice Ige was indifferent to his efforts to quash his indictment for corruption and abuse of office, he sacks him and reappoints Justice Adeniran, who quashed the indictment 3 days after his reappointment. Unfortunately, Justice Adeniran’s tenure on the bench was short and when he retired, Justice Ige was next in order of seniority. But it is believed that Justice Ige’s indifference and lack of sympathy for the incumbent governor is the reason why he was not appointed the Chief Judge, upon Justice Adeniran’s retirement, being next in order of seniority. The judge after Justice Ige is believed to be of the same stock, with no sympathy for the governor and he was therefore not, in the political calculus, eligible for appointment. So the governor reportedly reached out to Justice Olakanmi.

There are thus very strong concerns that Justice Olakanmi’s reinstatement to office, is not because he gallantly fought his removal, but rather because it is believed that he would be more sympathetic with the cause and interests of the incumbent governor. It however behoves him to dispel these fears by performing his functions, as Chief Judge of Oyo State, independent of systemic influences from other arms of government. He should judiciously guard his office, as Chief Judge of Oyo state, from undue interference by the state executive and legislative arms, as such political incursions would hinder the impartial administration of justice and further undermine the integrity of the Oyo state judicial department.

As the Chief Judge, he must ensure the independence and impartiality of his office and the judicial branch in Oyo State. An independent judiciary is integral to upholding rule of law, therefore the Chief Judge and indeed every judicial officer must remain impartial, realizing that the legitimacy of the judicial branch ultimately depends on its reputation for impartiality and nonpartisanship. The preservation of public confidence in the impartial and independent administration of justice is a vital element in the judicial function. Loss of confidence in the system whether due to its inefficiency or, more particularly, due to perceptions and credible indices of a want of independence or impartiality on the part of the judiciary is extremely damaging to the effective working of the justice system. The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law.