The National Judicial Council has expressed reservations over a recent proposal by the House of Representatives to empower the Nigerian Bar Association to sanction and remove corrupt judges.
On March 25, 2025, the House of Representatives passed a bill seeking to amend the 1999 Constitution by introducing provisions for the NBA to receive petitions against judicial officers accused of corruption, consider the defence of the petitioned officer, and take further action if necessary.
However, the NJC raised concerns about the feasibility and legality of such a proposal, highlighting potential constitutional conflicts and procedural challenges.
In an interview with The PUNCH, the NJC’s Deputy Director of Information, Kemi Ogedengbe, argued that the Constitution specifically entrusts the responsibility of disciplining judges to the NJC, not the NBA.
She stated, “The constitutional requirements place the discipline of judges in the hands of the NJC, and it doesn’t just come with the NJC—it has procedures that must be followed. If a judge is deemed to be corrupt, you can’t just put up a statement that a judge is corrupt. It must be backed up with evidence.”
She further explained that disciplining a judge requires concrete proof, such as being caught in the act or possessing verifiable evidence. “Either the judge is caught in the act or you have evidence against the judge. Once it happens that way, the dictates of the Constitution will now be followed to deal with such a corrupt judge. That’s what the Constitution says,” Ogedengbe added.
Ogedengbe also questioned the practicality of assigning the NBA the role of disciplining judges, noting the potential for conflicts of interest. She highlighted the complexity of corruption cases involving judges, where multiple parties could be involved, including lawyers themselves.
She queried, “The question is, who are those corrupting the judges? A crime does not occur in isolation; there are always accessories. Who are these accessories? Are they members of the public, lawyers, or medical doctors? Or are they lawyers themselves?”
The NJC emphasised the importance of public hearings and stakeholder engagement before any constitutional amendment could be implemented. Ogedengbe pointed out that the legislative process requires the bill to pass through the Senate and the 36 state Houses of Assembly, accompanied by public consultations.
“The House of Representatives’ bill will not just end there; it will pass through the Senate and the 36 state Houses of Assembly. They are going to ratify it; there will be public hearings on it. So, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
“Whether it will be able to curb corruption is what I don’t know because one person cannot perpetuate corrupt practices. There must be accessories. So, who are those accessories? Or will a judge just sit down, and they will charge him for corruption?” she questioned.
Addressing the potential for abuse if the NBA were to take over the role, she remarked, “It is those accessories that we have to identify. From there, we will now know if the NBA taking over sanctioning judges will be abused or not.”
Ogedengbe concluded by stressing the need for due process and adherence to constitutional provisions when addressing judicial corruption. She reiterated that any constitutional amendment would require thorough public scrutiny and input from all stakeholders.
“This is just the beginning of the conversation. Whether this bill can effectively curb corruption remains to be seen. For now, we must adhere to the Constitution, which already provides a framework for disciplining judicial officers through due process.
“There is no constitutional amendment that does not involve public hearings. Every stakeholder will come to say if they support it or not. That is when we will know if this type of amendment will succeed or not. A law is not a good law until it is made perfect,” she said.