Gov Wike’s Visits To CJN

THE legislature, the executive and the judiciary are the three arms of government and the fulcrum on which democracy functions. Constitutionally and legally, they are supposed to function independently of one another in order to preserve the principle of checks and balances to ensure a healthy democracy. That is why the reported visit by the Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, to the Supreme Court office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Mahmud Mohammed, raised ethical, legal and moral questions. The Governor visited the CJN’s office on July 6, 2015 while the latter was said to be away in Saudi Arabia on the lesser hajj. He repeated the visit two days later while the CJN was in an interview session with shortlisted candidates for the award of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs). Expectedly, the two visits raised several eye brows. A fundamental question to ask is the propriety of the visits at such an inauspicious time when Governor Wike’s victory at the poll is being challenged by five opposition party candidates at the election petition tribunal.
The Governor is a lawyer and he is not unmindful of the likely insinuations that would trail his action. His explanation that the visits were to express gratitude to the CJN for sending the Bayelsa Chief Judge to perform his swearing-in is not enough justification. The other reason that the Governor wanted to inform the CJN of the need to appoint an acting Chief Judge and acting President of the Customary Court of Appeal for the state did not warrant two separate trips by a state chief executive to the nation’s head of the Judiciary. There are known official communication channels through which the same purpose could better have been handled. There is obviously nothing wrong if Governor Wike as a member of Body of Benchers pays a scheduled courtesy call on the CJN to discuss issues bordering on administration of justice in Rivers, but there is everything wrong with the timing and when the visits were not on appointment. It is against this backdrop that ulterior motives were read into the whole issue. We strongly commend the decision of the CJN to ban politicians from visiting his office and residence. Equally worth applauding is the decision that politically-exposed lawyers are now to be received by the CJN in the presence of security details. This, we believe, would not only sustain the ethical standards associated with the office, but it could shield the office holder from unnecessary influences capable of undermining his integrity. The temple of justice which the CJN personifies is a hallowed and sacred place that commands an aura which must not be violated.