AJ : How has it been with you as Attorney- General? [and what is] the situation with the judicial leadership of the State?

A-G : Very well, thank you. If you look at the state of the nation in particular, the general nature of things in Nigeria you would know that to be Attorney -General whether at state or national level must be definitely challenging. It is a very challenging ... vocation- since this kind of appointment is not permanent. And that is how it has been with me. I got here in 1999 with little or nothing to work with. When I got here there were 21 lawyers to serve the entire State. Fortunately, I had worked with two Ministers of Justice, Hon. Prince Bola Ajibola and Clement Akpamgbo as Special Assistant. … I had very robust ideas about what to do and we set about doing some of those things. So from 21 we have about 65 lawyers today. From a position where we had no books at all we have a library now that a few people can come in and find what they want.

But when you look at the political climate, our experience with government lawyering is that when the law clashes with politics then there are different dimensions: not only to the decisions you take but (also) as to the choices you make. And that is how it has been. At least it is now common knowledge that the judiciary in Abia State is charged with one kind of crisis or another. We've tried our best within reasonable limits to bring the crisis under control.

“Our experience with government lawyering is that when the law clashes with politics then there are different dimensions: not only to the decisions you take but (also) as to the choices you make”

It was worse than it is at this time. So let me state for the umpteenth time that speaking constitutionally an officer of the level of a Chief Judge as a judicial officer can be disciplined at two levels: i) The National Judicial Council (NJC), ii) The State House of Assembly.
And the experience we've had, as you probably do know is that allegations were made against the Chief Judge at the level of the NJC. My office as the Attorney -General was not involved at all. Those who made the accusations forwarded the allegations direct[ly] to the NJC. The NJC in due deference to the principles of fair hearing set up a panel headed by Hon. Justice Owolabi Kolawole …to look into the ramifications of the allegations and I would say it actually gave the Chief Judge a clean bill of health - virtually, except to say that he was reprimanded on two grounds. But [on] all the allegations involving criminality the NJC did not find him culpable and it's on record. Well of course every serious officer of government has enemies. I keep saying that. Whether you are a Governor or Attorney-General or a Chief Judge or whatever you may be, once you have an office which people consider formidable, definitely you are bound to have those who would not be friendly with either you or your office.

So the allegations were taken again to the House of Assembly, again without notifying the office of the Attorney General. The Assembly then started investigations. As the Attorney General of the State I had to write the House of Assembly and told them the NJC had investigated this man and that our law frowns against double jeopardy. If they do not have any new facts, what the law says, is that they had no right to investigate him a second time. The NJC as you would expect was not very happy that after a high-level investigation of a high-level officer, then there were hawks in political feathers still preying on a high judicial office, causing embarrassment not only to the judiciary but the entire State. I simply drew their attention to the law. I said if they didn't have any fresh facts aside from those investigated by the NJC then they should at least let sleeping dogs lie. Certainly, there were people who were not happy, they thought I should fold my arms and they interpreted it as taking sides with the Chief Judge. The job we do requires courage, extreme courage. You have to protect the law; you have to protect the Constitution. That is what my oath of office says, and up till today I have no regrets. My advice was in writing. I gave reasons for so advising.

The House of Assembly did not acknowledge receipt of the letter. They did not say they were not happy with the contents. But what then happened - a lot of rumours started flying around that the Chief Judge gave me money to protect him and I now had a lot of journalists flying up and down from virtually all the national magazines asking me questions. The Chief Judge pays me money per month and on one occasion- (courtesy of your office Access to Justice)- I now saw a very strange allegation that I was given N21m (twenty-one million) in 2000. Naturally you ask yourself how was the money delivered? Was it in bank draft? Was it a certified cheque? Was it in cash? What currency was it? And to whom was it delivered, on what date, in what place, because N21m in any currency is not small money. But I have to be frank with you; it appears that a lot of people are not happy that the Chief Judge has not been removed despite very gallant efforts. But let me say on record that it is not my responsibility to remove the Chief Judge. Only yesterday another person came to interview me and said that the lawyers were not happy because they are of the view that I have not advised government to remove the Chief Judge; and that sounds extremely sad. I'm a conservative lawyer. If I deliver advice to my client, or I have conversation with my client, definitely I know that it is privileged, it is confidential. Should it then be my business to go and tell lawyers what advice I have given?

AJ : I wanted to find out from you whether the rancorous relationship the Chief Judge has maintained with key stakeholders in the administration of justice has in any way adversely affected your functions as Attorney-General, and perhaps some of the policies you really would have liked to push through?

A-G : Let me answer your questions from two angles - first is to say that what I want to do here has little or nothing to do with the office of the Chief Judge. He runs the judiciary, I belong to the Executive arm of government and I can push through my programmes without him. But being the Commissioner of Justice I am mindful of the fact that the office of the Attorney -General is the bridge between the judicial arm and the executive arm. And so to that extent I'm aware, very, very much aware that it is not very well with the judicial arm. The judiciary is factionalised, because there are people who believe they have a stake not in the welfare of the judicial personnel but in the removal of the Chief Judge.

AJ : Yes but those people are not acting merely by malice alone, it looks like...

“The judiciary is factionalised, because there are people who believe they have a stake not in the welfare of the judicial personnel but in the removal of the Chief Judge”

A-G : No I've not even suggested malice. I'm simply saying...

AJ : From the facts on the ground that they have some reasons to want him to be out of office...

A-G : Yes but then what is then happening is that they have not found a workable battle-plan. They seem to be pulling on all strings and you don't remove somebody of that office - it's a very high office- whether we believe it or not. You don't go looking for a General as if you're looking for an infantry soldier.

AJ : But they've all but succeeded. What is remaining is for the Executive to do something and that's part of your responsibility. I mean I agree with you that you are not the one who should go around saying what you said to the Governor, but now it's entirely in the corridors of the Executive what to do with him. Have you seen the Report of the House of Assembly?

A-G : The Governor sent it to me. The House of Assembly did not deem it appropriate.

AJ : May be they should have, but what's your opinion about that report? It's very scathing and what do you think the Chief Judge's honourable response to that kind of report would have been?

A-G : I would not volunteer an opinion as to what he should do. He's senior to me at the Bar. He's a high judicial officer. He's the head of an arm of government, and I am not, and people don't want to acknowledge that fact that the Chief Judge is a responsible and mature adult citizen of Nigeria.

AJ : Do you feel embarrassed by the kind of image this is casting on the Abia State judicial system?

A-G : I feel embarrassed that the judicial system has been put into shambles.

AJ : By who?

A-G : By so many people.

AJ : Does that include the Chief Judge?
A-G : Of course! Of course it does include him. He is on one side then there are people on the other side. I do not consider it my responsibility to now say who is right or wrong.

AJ : What do you make of the Governor's rationalization that he would not go ahead to remove [the Chief Judge] because there are pending court cases? Is that sound legal advice?

A-G : As I mentioned earlier I would not tell you the advice I have given to the Governor or to the government of Abia State. There are very well - known arguments in favour of a lawyer not disclosing his instructions. But the other point that must be acknowledged is that the removal of a Chief Judge is not strictly a legal affair. It has all kinds of colouration and if you want to follow it legally, I mean if you are a strict legalist you'll know that there are existing authorities at the level of the Supreme Court that if you charge a Chief Judge with conduct smelling of criminality or an abuse of Code of Conduct, you have to go and prove them.

AJ : Yes, but if we follow that line of argument then the NJC would practically be grounded because many of the allegations they investigated and upon which they issue opinions border on crime - many of them. Many of the Chief Judges that have been removed had one criminal allegation or the other against them, which were investigated by the NJC and also some of the other judges, the Akwa Ibom situation and all that, many of them-all the crimes that were investigated against them – they all bothered on crime, but the NJC took jurisdiction to do that.

A-G : That is where the distinction now lies. You would see the distinction here because these things are not simply matters of formality. The judiciary is happier with itself because they have that responsibility. They assume it that they must act judicially. If you have somebody, for instance, as in the case of [Justice K. O. Amah] of the level of a former Justice of the Court of Appeal, I don't know which other court you're going to. At the [sitting] of the panel they took evidence from both sides, Senior Advocates appeared before them. I'm not aware of what level of investigation was conducted by the House of Assembly. That is why the NJC, even if you go back to historical records in the archives you would find that the judicial officers themselves have been fighting for a body such as the NJC; so that you don't now have that dual function of first going to a court of law before you come back to do an administrative inquiry...

AJ : (cuts in) are you saying the NJC is now a court of law?

A-G : The NJC is not a court of law but those who are in superior courts that the matter would have gone to originally man it. Whether you believe it or not it is very significant in the way they act on those that they have to, if you have to take the Chief Judge's case for instance to a Judge of the High Court over which he presides, you would know that certainly there would be far more obstacles. I'm in this system.

AJ : Let's look at what the ICPC is doing with some judges who were indicted by the NJC. I think what that development says to us is that NJC is not enough. You know, you can go ahead with your own investigations but there are parallel investigations we can conduct...

A-G : (cuts in) history will vindicate that conclusion if you're right. I'm an opponent of the ICPC if you want to know. I took them to court - for good reasons; and the reasons for which we took them to court are becoming very obvious. In fact I spoke to some Supreme Court Justices immediately after their judgment in that case and I said as long as all of us are alive you will see that there are legitimate reasons. One of the Justices in his judgment said, “it is because of fear.” It is not because of fear. Thirty-six Attorneys-General don't go against one Attorney- General out of fear. We had legal problems to worry about and those legal problems are manifesting; namely - the point you have made- whether after the NJC has looked at a case constitutionally then the ICPC comes again. The Akwa Ibom Chief Judge has made a statement and he said ICPC is a “threat to democracy.” We are worried about overheating our democracy [which] is very fragile. It is also nascent, to use the language of politicians. When you begin to give the impression that there are elements (that) you're after, it would not be well with this country, it would not be well with the judiciary, it would not even be well with the corruption you seem to want to fight.

If you look at the statement made by the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom he talked of cowardice. He said when the Chief Judge of so and so state was freed by the NJC, ICPC did nothing; now you come to Akwa Ibom…. I happen to be an Attorney -General and I've had very many years of experience on this job. The minute you give the impression that you cannot be even-handed you put the entire process into question. And that is the fear we had about the ICPC when we went to court, and that fear is being manifested. If you are not a high political office holder ICPC does not go against you. But even though this is not a central issue we're pursuing, we raised a very critical issue before the Supreme Court. The question is very simple- if I have a houseboy who has lived with me for twenty years, he takes a piece of meat from my pot and I look at it and I say I can live with him, and my neighbour insists that I must punish my house boy. The Federal Government is not a Supervisor- General, it is simply one government out of thirty-seven and we're saying that if there is a crime bordering on corruption at State level, let the State handle it. The machinery of the Federal Government is very vast. The bureaucratic machinery of the Federal Government is far beyond that of all the States put together and the point we made is [that] by the time the Federal Government finishes looking at corruption it will not have time to be looking at the local governments-very remote. How does it work? And that is why I find it funny the Chairman of ICPC saying they have sixty- five cases in a country of 120 million people! We have to get it right.

AJ : All right Sir I just thought I should...

A-G : (cuts in) you're in the private sector so you may not appreciate the level of corruption to understand our point at the State level – what we're saying is that let us forget the kind of Federal Government we're practicing. It is negative where the Federal Government feels that it must have a finger in every pie. Corruption is serious, nobody will deny it but as long as you have central machinery you can never get to the root of the problem. Never!

AJ : I believe that's for policy makers like you to deal with. I was just going to take you back to the issues - CRAN (that is Court Registrars Association of Nigeria, Abia State branch) seems to have a perception of your role in some of the issues that concern them, and that perception is not entirely a very salutary one. They think that you're actually one of their persecutors...

A-G : (cuts in) then they've never told me...

AJ : …and they point to a number of things that indicate this, and in trying to fight back they accuse you of collecting money from the judiciary and I wanted to clear this with you because it's on record. Did you at any time collect or learn or get information that someone collected money on your behalf in July 2002? Someone-maybe the Chief Registrar?

A-G : It is very simple. These matters are on record. The judicial branch generates for this ministry far too many cases. In fact it's challenging. What I recall- because I never knew about that until one voucher was published and I began to see how it could possibly have come about- because if you look at tthere is not mine.he voucher certainly the signature there is not mine. But I do acknowledge that on one occasion I wrote the Chief Judge. We had to go to Abuja to fight a case that had been instituted in the Federal High Court there. There were two cases. We dealt with those two cases satisfactorily, then a third one...