Senior lawyers from across the country yesterday rose in defense of their profession against a judge described as ‘erratic’ ‘impertinent’ and ‘immature’.
The legal practitioners said the behaviours and conduct of the presiding judge of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Justice Danladi Umar, is shameful and unbecoming of a judicial officer of his status.
While reacting to the near violent commotion that occurred in the CCT yesterday between the judge and a lawyer to the defendant, Mr. Ralph Oluyede, the lawyers said respect is reciprocal between the bar and the bench, and no one of the two reserves any monopoly within the precinct of court.
In his reaction, Mr. Dumeren Umeh, SAN, said Justice Danladi, in his rush to convict Saraki at all cost breached a fundamental principle of fair hearing on Thursday without averting his mind to it.
“It is a clear denial of fair hearing and contravention of fundamental right to strike out a pending applicant in spite of the presence of the applicant and his preparedness to move it. It is the duty of the court to hear all applications filed before it, however bad and vexatious such applications are or perceived to be.”
“By throwing out Saraki’s application before even hearing it, it is tantamount to a breach of Saraki’s right to be fairly and justly heard. Such cannot stand in any reasonable court.”
Also reacting, Barr. Adam Aliu, who is a member of the defense team, opined that judges all over the world have the inherent obligations to listen and then rule on any applications brought before as long as it is brought by a legal practitioner.
“This duty is notwithstanding the perceived strength or weaknesses of such applications so brought.”
“Even if the application is perceived as an abuse of the process of the court, it is when it is moved that the court can exercise its power to so rule, otherwise, it will breach the applicant’s right to fair hearing.”
Another lawyer, who however craved anonymity, contended that, it is not allowed for a judge to ‘pre-judge’ an application that has not been moved before him, however frivolous or vexatious.
‘In Mohammed vs. Olawunmi where the judge was aware of a pending application before him and chose to ignore it, it was considered as bothering on judicial impertinence. Such an act of the court foreshadows a lack of transparency and impartially in the conduct of the case before him and any decision reached in the circumstance will be set aside on appeal.”
“Also, in the celebrated case of Newswatch Communications Limited vs Alhaji Attah, it was held that it only when a court has carefully listened to the applicant and the opposing side that he is competent to rule over such applications.”
“The court is duty bound to give its ruling whichever way. Where a court fails to pronounce on a pending motion it is aware of before entering judgment, a grave error has been occasioned resulting in miscarriage of justice.”
Sahara Reporters Rescue recalls that Justice Danladi threw out the application filed by Mr. Ralph Oluyede without first considering it. He premised this on the basis that Mr. Oluyede, who is Saraki’s lawyers was a ‘busybody’ who had no right of being heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment