Retiring Justice Muhammad Dattijo has a scathing parting shot for his colleagues on his way out of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
Mr Dattijo, who retires on October 27 as he clocks 70, lamented the tragic turn of fortune for Nigeria’s highest court, saying it has become a body chocked by bribery and perversion of justice because many of those on the court have no clear understanding of what it meant to deliver justice to the Nigerian people.
Mr Dattijo was born on October 27, 1953, in Niger State. He was formerly a court clerk before becoming a judge. He was appointed to the Supreme Court on July 10, 2012, by President Goodluck Jonathan. Despite being the second most senior justice on the court, he said he was not given any official roles or allowed to contribute on issues bordering on critical decisions of the court.
“Public perceptions of the judiciary have over the years become witheringly scornful and monstrously critical,” Mr Dattijo said at a farewell ceremony held in his honour in Abuja on Friday. “It has been in the public space that court officials and judges are easily bribed by litigants to obviate delays and or obtain favourable judgements.”
Mr Dattijo indicated he was not the only justice with an unflattering review of the judiciary while on the way out, citing a similar observation made by a former justice of the Court of Appeal, Oludotun Adefope-Okojie, who retired in May 2023 at 70.
Mr Dattijo said Mrs Adefope-Okojie, while retiring, lamented that justices at the top levels of the Nigerian judiciary have failed to amend their corrupt way even as the public anger intensified.
“Pleas are expressed every day by the generality of the public begging the judiciary to be just, to be truthful, and to save the country from collapse,” the justice said.
While further citing Mrs Adefope-Okojie more extensively, Mr Dattijo recalled other parts of his retired colleague’s observation of the court’s descent from grace.
“My question is whether the judiciary needs to be begged or cajoled? What is it that qualifies any person to bear that exalted name ‘Honourable Justice’? Is it not for him to administer justice without fear or favour?
“Unfortunately, it has been severely vilified with the Apex Court so denigrated and called by a social commentator as a voter gaggle of useless, purchasable judicial bandits.
“How did the judiciary get to this level? Why is the whole country on edge for fear of what the public regards as unpredictable judicial pronouncements? There must be a rethink and a hard reset.
“If the people we have sworn to defend have lost confidence, there is a problem that must be addressed,” Mr Dattijo noted in his emphasis on Mrs Adefope-Okojie’s remarks.
The statement comes as Nigerians intensify criticism of the Supreme Court over its decision to allow President Bola Tinubu to remain in office despite his violation of the Constitution with his decision to present a forged academic document to the electoral office INEC.
Section 137 (1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution (amended in 2010) specifically states that no one would be legitimately elected president of Nigeria if the person “has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.”
Mr Tinubu had, on June 17, 2022, submitted a certificate that he claimed was issued to him by Chicago State University in 1979. The school later said under oath that the document Mr Tinubu presented did not emanate from its offices and there was no record of him applying to get a new certificate.
While most Nigerians expressed little confidence that the court would follow the Constitution and remove Mr Tinubu from office to save Nigeria’s reputation, the justices’ decision to sidestep the forgery by claiming the evidence came too late was nonetheless seen by many as further evidence that the judiciary had been captured.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by John Okoro, said Atiku Abubakar, Mr Tinubu’s main challenger who obtained the evidence of forgery from the United States, was late in procuring the evidence, even though the court had several precedents in which it allowed additional evidence to be tendered in a case, especially if such evidence could potentially tip the outcome of a case upon admission.
