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.


 http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/08/gov-wikes-visits-to-cjn/

Cc : Lalasticlala Ishilove Twace Sinaj

ok

To do wat na

Who told you that Wike is a member of the Body of Benchers....
Gerrarahere mehn......

Ok

Wike has not been beaten on the real issue, so he should stop behaving like a weakling. This Article is right.

Hope you now know that visiting the CJN when you had a pending case was never a good idea. I hear you are even a lawyer.
The new Nigeria we are trying to build does not condole such.

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday deliver a judgment on whether or not the Rivers State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal which nullified the election of Governor Nyesom Wike on Saturday had the jurisdiction to hear the case against the governor.

The Justice Mohammed Ambrosa-led tribunal had on Saturday nullified Wike’s election as it upheld allegations by the All Progressives Congress and its governorship candidate, Dakuku Peterside, that the election which held on April 11, 2015 was conducted in substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

But Saturday’s judgment would amount to nullity if the Supreme Court holds on Tuesday that the proceedings of the tribunal had been conducted without requisite jurisdiction.

Wike and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party, had in an appeal filed before the Supreme Court, challenged the jurisdiction of the tribunal on the grounds of its relocation from Port Harcourt, the capital of Rivers State, where the election took place, to Abuja.



The appellants argued that the tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition by the APC and Peterside in Abuja.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the tribunal which affirmed that its relocation to Abuja because of security concerns was in order, Wike had appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The governor, who lost the appeal at the Court of Appeal, took his appeal to the Supreme Court.

A panel of the Supreme Court led by Justice John Fabiyi, had on October 16, heard the appeal by Wike and adjourned till Tuesday for judgment.

President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, who exercises administrative powers on election petition tribunals in the country, had directed the relocation of the sittings of the tribunals in Rivers, Borno, Yobe, Adamawa and Taraba states to to Abuja due to security concerns in the states.

But Wike had contended that the tribunal lacked the territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition in Abuja.

Wike challenged the powers of the President of the Court of Appeal to order the tribunal’s relocation to Abuja.

The governor argued that the tribunal’s relocation to Abuja was in breach of Section 285 (2) of the Nigerian Constitution and the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010.

He urged the tribunal to relocate to Port Harcourt in compliance with provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act.

The tribunal then led by Justice Mu’azu Pindiga, who later handed over to Justice Ambrosa, had in a ruling on July 27, 2015 dismissed Wike’s motion.

Justice Pindiga held that contrary to Wike’s argument, the tribunal had not violated any provision of the law since the relocation to Abuja was for security reasons.

The judge faulted Wike’s argument that proximity and accessibility were major determining factors in deciding the venue of a tribunal.

Justice Pindiga held that proximity and accessibility could not be determined in the absence of security for the tribunal members and litigants.

He said the President of the Appeal Court acted within the ambit of the law, which emphasises the need for a proper atmosphere for the tribunal to hold its proceedings.

He held that the tribunal had not violated any provision of the law since the relocation to Abuja was for security reasons.

Source: http://punchng.com/2015/10/1385