It is no longer news that there has been a sustained battle to stop Hon. Justice Ijeoma Agugua, from being confirmed as not just the substantive Chief Judge of Imo State, but also having the singular honor of being the first female judge to occupy the exulted position.
History has it that the late Hon. Justice Ifunanya Udom, would have occupied the post, but she was inexplicably denied the office. Curiously, however, Udom who was not “good enough” to be the Chief Judge of Imo State, was appointed a Justice of the Appeal Court!
As it was with Justice Udom, so it is now with Justice Agugua. It is believed in some quarters that “a cabal that specializes in dictating who becomes the Chief Judge in the state”, is at work again.
Apart from sending a petition dated April 26, 2020, to the National Judicial Council, NJC, the same Hon. Justin Brown Amadi, filed an originating summons, FHC/ABJ/CS/497/2020, in the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, on May 11, 2020, through his counsel, J. Y. Musa, SAN.
Amadi, who raised other issues for determination by the court, was also represented by two Senior Advocates of Nigeria and 12 other lawyers.
On the date fixed for taking the addresses, the Abuja Federal High Court ruled that it would be more convenient to take the addresses in the Owerri Division, being closer to where the subject matter arose. That was how the suit was given a fresh number, FHC/OW/CS/84/2020.
Hearing notices were served on the parties in the suit, but when the matter came up July 22, 2020, both the plaintiff and his 14 lawyers were absent.
The presiding judge, Justice T. G. Ringim, announced that “there seems to be a copy of letter of adjournment from the plaintiff”, and asked if defendants’ counsel received copies of the letter. The question, which drew instant reactions, prayed that the matter be adjourned till after the judges’ vacation.
The first to react, was counsel the NJC’s counsel, Dr. Eljah O. Okebukola.said: “We urge the court to vehemently refuse the application on the grounds that there are flights from Abuja to Owerri every morning. I will be particular on Air Peace.
“The facts of this case are that the plaintiff is challenging the appointment of the substantive Chief Judge of the High Court of Imo State. By reason of that challenge, bodies authorized to exercise constitutional functions and roles, will take that the matter is subjudice and may be constrained not to perform their functions and roles because of this suit.
“Out of abundance of caution, we, for the first defendant (NJC), move the counter application for adjournment that the plaintiff, who fails to appear today (July 22, 2020), would have his case dismissed under Order 19, Rule 3, of the FHCCP Rules, 2019.
“Finally, we urge the court to go ahead and take our address on subject matter of jurisdiction or dismiss the suit for non-appearance of the plaintiff.”
While adopting Okebukola’s submissiins, counsel to Imo State Judicial Service Commission, D. C. De-Nwigwe, SAN, added: “By way of emphasis,what is before your Lordship, is a question of whether or not the High Court of Imo State should be duly constituted, because the High Court of Imo State is not duly constituted without a Chief Judge.
“In other words, the entirety of Imo State is being held hostage by this suit. I stress the point that the Office of the Chief Judge, is not a matter for any person to wake up and mingle with and then, ask for adjournment. We should not allow ourselves to be played into that corner.”
After making other submissions, De-Nwigwe said: “I am tempted to submit that this application for adjournment is mischievous.”
Chief C. U. Ekomani, SAN, who represented Justice Agugua, then took his turn. Apart from adopting the submissions of colleagues, Ekomani also said: “The letter of adjournment is asking for adjournment till after vacation. This exposes the mischief of the plaintiff in this suit. The court is proceeding on vacation this Friday. The interview for the appointment of the sixth defendant (Agugua) and other candidates, is fixed for today and tomorrow. Right now as we speak, the sixth defendant and other candidates, are in Abuja for the interview.
“We submit that if this application is granted, the sixth defendant and other candidates, and the entire Imo State, would suffer irreparable damage, in view of Section 271(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“By the end of the vacation, the sixth defendant cannot be reappointed as the Acting Chief Judge of Imo State. They know that the appointment has an expiration period. We may face a constitutional crisis.”
COURT
“This matter was transferred from the Federal High Court, Court 3, Abuja, to this court, on the strength that the cause of action arose in this Division.
“Prior to the transfer of the 3rd July, 2020, there was the subsisting order of the court, made by my learned brother, Hon. Justice A. I. Chikere, that parties were to address this court on the issue of jurisdictional competence of the court, to entertain this suit. The addresses of the parties were to be adopted on 7th July, 2020, before the transfer of this matter to this court.
“Upon receipt of the transfer, this Honourable Court issued hearing notice and the business of this court today, would still have been the adoption of the addresses on such essential and fundamental issues of the court’s jurisdiction, before proceedings of this court, may go on with the case.
“It appears today that defendants are in Court, while neither the plaintiff nor any of his counsel is in Court. It then, appeared to the court that there was a letter of adjournment from the plaintiff’s counsel, seeking adjournment to a preferred post vacation period.
“In spite of the total objection to the application for the adjournment, as made by all the 1st – 6th defendants, indeed for the obvious reason that the plaintiff never cared to oblige them with a copy of the letter nor communicate to them and sought their concession, yet I still feel that the plaintiff is at liberty to seek the adjournment for his convenience.
“It is, however, trite that the exercise of grant of adjournment, is made in consideration of the interest of both parties. If I may then ask, would any grant of the instant adjournment sought, balance the interest of both parties? I answer this in the negative.
“First, the letter of the adjournment itself, appeared not only defective in form but its content smack at the records of this court for the following reasons:
(a) It is dated 22nd July, 2020, that is today’s date, indicative of the fact that its dated today, delivered today and, as rightly put by the Learned Silk for the 6th defendant, if such letter as signed today, can get to the court today, the plaintiff who lives at very close vicinity of this court, will equally be in court,if he so wishes.
(a) In the letter, the plaintiff acknowledged having received the hearing notice of today’s sitting at about 12pm of 21st July, 2020, I.e yesterday. This is contrary to the records of this court in File B, in which the affidavit of service of the hearing notice of today’s date, indicates that the plaintiff’s counsel was served at 17:04hrs of 20th July, 2020. So, the plaintiff or any of his 14 learned counsels, as submitted by the learned counsel to the first defendant, have a clear day of 21st July, 2020, or at least, this morning, to arrive at the court.
(3) The letter succeeded in suggesting date of adjournment at large, when it merely sought adjournment to “another date preferably after court’s annual vacation”. This suggestion was rightly observed by all the defendants as not rhyming with the peculiarities of this matter, which require urgent attention to be dealt with, particularly as it relates to the functions and roles of public agencies, in which the appointment of occupant to the exalted seat of the Chief Judge of the High Court of Imo State, is in issue.
“Secondly, if any of the counsels in the chambers of Ahmed Raji, SAN, would be excused for not appearing today, the absence of the plaintiff, who no longer has any counsel in court today, is not excusable. He has nobody to speak for his non-appearance, nor is he here to speak for himself and neither is any of his counsels appeared or wrote to excuse the absence of the plaintiff.
“I firmly believe that the absence of the plaintiff today, when all the defendants are well represented in court, coupled with the absence of the counsel to the plaintiff for such flimsy reasons, which may not sway the court’s discretion in favour of any adjournment in this matter is fatal from the records in this case, facts and arguments of parties in myriad processes, which I am entitled to take judicial notice of. Under Section 122(2)(m) of the Evidence Act, there seems to be stark absence of diligence in the way and manner the plaintiff prosecute this matter. This court can hold the defendants no more in the absence of active plaintiff.
“This matter is, in the light of the foregoing, is hereby struck out under Order 19 Rule 14 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2019, for want of diligent prosecution.”
COSTS
Counsel to the NJC, Dr. Okebukola not only asked for N500,000 as travel expenses from Abuja to Owerri, but urged the court to hold that it should be “paid before any subsequent step is taken by the plaintiff”.
The other defence counsel asked for N10 million. They told the court that they were compelled to charter aircraft to attend to this matter in Abuja at exorbitant cost.
On account of this, and the hurdles they suffered, they asked for N10 million, to cover one of the charters they made, stressing that this will serve as deterrence to such frivolous litigants.
Having listened to the prayers of the defence counsel, Justice Ringim said: “I have considered the plights of the defendants, most particularly the financial and physical cost of travelling from Owerri in Imo State, to Abuja, at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, when the lockdown persisted. I note the submissions of the counsel to the defendants that price of a single fare of chartered aircraft cost about N10 million.
“Since cost follows event, this court hereby award the cost of N300,000, payable by the plaintiff to the first defendant (NJC) and the cost of N10 million, payable by the plaintiff to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants jointly. The payment of this cost is conditional to any further act of the plaintiff in this instant suit.”
REACTIONS
For the traditional ruler of Awaka autonomous community, in Owerri North local council area of Imo State, Eze Akujuobi Osuagwu, the plaintiff is being used by some powerful and influential people in the Judiciary.
The royal father said: “From all I gathered from Justin Brown Amadi, he is being used by some people he refused to call their names, but refers to them as being powerful and influential in the Judiciary.
“He equally confessed to me that aside the people he was dealing with, he knew nothing about the Judiciary. No knowledge of the working or the individuals, either in the Ministry of Justice or the High Court.”
In his own reaction, an Owerri-based social crusader and elder statesman, Prince Bob Kay Njemanze, said “it is palpably curious that none of the 14 lawyers, who were representing the plaintiff, appeared in court, on the scheduled date of hearing in the matter, and not even the plaintiff, who claimed to have an interest in who becomes the Chief Judge, was present in court.”
Njemanze was also miffed that Amadi’s petition, which was addressed to the NJC, stating fallacies, could not have ordinarily come to the knowledge of such an ordinary village man.
His words: “The petition came at a time the appointment of an Acting Chief Judge of Imo State, was to be made. It was a timely petition, but Justin Brown Amadi has no business knowing and does not know when the Chief Judge would be appointed. The question is: Who told him?
“If Amadi had been informed by his powerful friends that there is a body called NJC, and if he had been lectured on subjudice by his powerful friends, then, he must have been lectured on the length of time for confirmation of a substantive Chief Judge.
“Who is playing for time? Should the NJC allow man who refused to obey the judgment of a Court, to frustrate, forestall and truncate a legal process to succeed and ridicule the entire judicial process?
The answer is no.” Njemanze’s passing reference to Amadi’s refusal “to obey the judgment of a court”, points to the N1 million bill, slammed on Amadi, over a case of defamation of character, instituted by Mrs. Ogechi Osuagwu, vide HOW/490/2017, which was yet to be obeyed, as at the time of going to press. Amadi had in 2017, published a libelous article, wherein he described Mrs. Osuagwu as “a way ward woman”.
Meanwhile, a very reliable source said that the same Justin Brown Amadi on whom Mrs. Ogechi Osuagwu is levying execution for a N1 million judgement on a defamatory suit, has rushed to pay the N10.3 million condition precedent, to stop NJC from interviewing Justice Agugua pending the appeal and ferventlyhoping there will be an effusion of time on her acting period.
It should not be lost on Imo people that in Justice Ifunanya Udom’s fight for justice, she had a very reliable ally, a young Judge, who today, has grown to face the same onslaught. Can it be said that this ugly scenario will continue to be the lot of female judges in Imo State?
Having gone this far, it would be apt to recall that we recently published a piece, “ Saving the judiciary from itself “. Today, it will also not be wrong to appeal that concerted efforts must be put in place now, to save save Imo judiciary from irreparable damage.
Vanguard
