Written by: Njoku Jude Njoku, Esquire
In an era when many in the legal community have chosen convenient silence, Dr. Tonye Jaja’s @TonyeJaja2 intervention on the ongoing travesty surrounding Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu (FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015) stands out as an act of both intellectual courage and constitutional fidelity.
Dr. Jaja’s commentary, titled “The Judge Is Supposed To Say: I Do Not Have Jurisdiction To Try This Case,” is more than an opinion piece—it is a masterclass in judicial ethics and statutory interpretation. He reminded the nation of the timeless judicial precept that jurisdiction is the life-blood of adjudication, and once it is absent, all proceedings become a dead letter. His analysis distilled the jurisprudence that has guided our courts since Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, where the Supreme Court warned that any decision reached without jurisdiction “is a nullity, however well conducted.”
Dr. Jaja equally illuminated the principle that a court cannot cure a fundamental defect by resorting to technicalities or post-factum justification. Once it is shown that the process itself is unconstitutional—such as continuing a trial under a repealed law or after an illegal rendition—the only lawful course is to down tools. His exposition aligns perfectly with authorities like Bronik Motors Ltd v. Wema Bank Ltd (1983) 1 SCNLR 296, Macfoy v. UAC (1962) AC 152, and NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 559) 598, all of which affirm that a court bereft of jurisdiction must decline to proceed, not attempt to improvise justice.
By situating his argument within the broader constitutional framework of Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, Dr. Jaja has performed a civic duty that transcends mere commentary. He has spoken truth to judicial power. In doing so, he rekindled the dying flame of legal conscience in a climate of intimidation and compromise.
Therefore, it must be said without equivocation that Justice Omotosho’s conduct in this trial is unconscionable. His refusal to acknowledge the jurisdictional vacuum, and his determination to proceed in spite of overwhelming legal prohibitions, amount to a perversion of justice and a desecration of the very oath he swore to uphold.
When a judge prefers procedural rigidity to constitutional rectitude, the court becomes an accomplice to illegality. History will remember that in the midst of judicial silence, it was Dr. Tonye Jaja who reminded the Bench that justice cannot be negotiated under duress and that jurisdiction is not a matter of discretion but of law.
*Writer is a legal practitioner based in London, United Kingdom and consultant to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium
0 Comments