The National Judicial Council has voiced concerns over a legislative proposal seeking to grant the Nigerian Bar Association authority to discipline and remove judges found guilty of corruption.
On March 25, 2025, the House of Representatives passed a bill proposing an amendment to the 1999 Constitution, which would empower the NBA to handle petitions against judicial officers, evaluate their defense, and take necessary action.
However, the NJC, through its Deputy Director of Information, Kemi Ogedengbe, has raised legal and procedural objections to the proposal.
Speaking with The PUNCH on Sunday, Ogedengbe underscored that the Constitution exclusively mandates the NJC to oversee judicial discipline, emphasizing the structured process required to establish a judge’s culpability.
“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 explained.
She further clarified the evidentiary standards, noting that accusations must be substantiated before disciplinary action can be taken.
“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,” she stated.
Ogedengbe also raised concerns about the practicality of assigning disciplinary powers to the NBA, pointing out potential conflicts of interest and avenues for misuse.
“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?” she asked.
The NJC stressed that broad consultations, including public hearings, would be essential in determining the bill’s viability.
“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,” Ogedengbe noted.
She further questioned whether such an amendment could effectively address judicial corruption, emphasizing the need to identify all parties involved.
“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?”
“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 noted.
