Culled from Facebook by Emeka Ugwuonye

WE CONTINUE THE DIALOGUE ON THE DSS ARREST OF MANY JUDGES AT ONCE

...As we say, knowledge and love are the only two things you get more of when you share what you have. So, let us continue our debate on the activities of the DSS in relation to the arrest of judges in Nigeria. One thing I request of all participants in this debate is that we be civil with one another.
No name-calling.
No insults.
No personal attacks.
No accusations of member's motives.
Just intelligent contributions.

Let us ask some questions that will guide us in our thought processes.

(1) Does DSS have other interactions with the judges, apart from monitoring their lifestyle?

(2) Is it not true that DSS has several cases all over the country, such as the case of Dasuki, the case of Nnamdi Kanu, and DSS has been clashing with judges in those cases?

(3) Is it not true that in very recent times, two DSS cases went to ECOWAS Court and DSS lost in those cases - the case of the people the DSS killed and false accused them of shooting at them, and the case of Dasuki?

(4) Is it not reasonable that DSS would perceive the decisions of ECOWAS court as something that might embolden the Nigerian courts into making more adverse decisions against DSS, and there is need on the part of DSS to send a strong message to the Nigerian judges?

(5) Is it not correct that DSS is led by a personal friend of the President, whose party faired badly in governorship election cases in Rivers and Akwa Ibom and there is need to punish judges who were perceived to be responsible for those unfavorable outcomes?

(6) Assuming that these judges were really engaged in corruption, how can we ensure that DSS would not use this as a pretext to achieve other purposes?

(7) In other words, how do we know that in enforcing the law against these judges, DSS would not also use the situation to make sure they sent a strong message to judges all over the country?

(8.)Are you aware that since the past two years, DSS has over 100 cases where it has refused to obey court orders. Many human right cases against DSS in which the people got judgments against the DSS have been there without DSS wanting to obey the courts. Those people are looking for ways to get the courts to order DSS to obey. Now, DSS sends messages to all those courts that they are above the law.

(9) Okay, we all have been saying that the judges are NOT above the law, but is the DSS above the law?

(10) If we must hold the judges accountable to the law, why are we not holding DSS accountable to the law. Or is DSS the law itself?

(11) If you allow the DSS to chose to take down judges any time they like - just in the middle of the night like that - how do you expect a judge to give a judgement against the DSS if they kill your brother in an extrajudicial killing?

(12) Who is it that interpretes the constitution of the law? Is it DSS or the Courts?

(13) Are you absolutely sure that there was no better way to handle this incident than the drama, turmoil and confusion that occurred last week?

(14) Do you not agree that just as the extrajudicial killing of the three people that were accused of drug pushing defined Buhari's military regime, the arrest of the judges by the DSS is going to define his civilian regime? Is it worth it? Do you think it was the right decision?

I just hope there can be some objectivity. If there are other questions one may seek to ask, let's have them. Na our hand e dey finally.

freeze001:
Culled from Facebook by Emeka Ugwuonye

WE CONTINUE THE DIALOGUE ON THE DSS ARREST OF MANY JUDGES AT ONCE

...As we say, knowledge and love are the only two things you get more of when you share what you have. So, let us continue our debate on the activities of the DSS in relation to the arrest of judges in Nigeria. One thing I request of all participants in this debate is that we be civil with one another.
No name-calling.
No insults.
No personal attacks.
No accusations of member's motives.
Just intelligent contributions.

Let us ask some questions that will guide us in our thought processes.

(1) Does DSS have other interactions with the judges, apart from monitoring their lifestyle?

(2) Is it not true that DSS has several cases all over the country, such as the case of Dasuki, the case of Nnamdi Kanu, and DSS has been clashing with judges in those cases?

(3) Is it not true that in very recent times, two DSS cases went to ECOWAS Court and DSS lost in those cases - the case of the people the DSS killed and false accused them of shooting at them, and the case of Dasuki?

(4) Is it not reasonable that DSS would perceive the decisions of ECOWAS court as something that might embolden the Nigerian courts into making more adverse decisions against DSS, and there is need on the part of DSS to send a strong message to the Nigerian judges?

(5) Is it not correct that DSS is led by a personal friend of the President, whose party faired badly in governorship election cases in Rivers and Akwa Ibom and there is need to punish judges who were perceived to be responsible for those unfavorable outcomes?

(6) Assuming that these judges were really engaged in corruption, how can we ensure that DSS would not use this as a pretext to achieve other purposes?

(7) In other words, how do we know that in enforcing the law against these judges, DSS would not also use the situation to make sure they sent a strong message to judges all over the country?

(8.)Are you aware that since the past two years, DSS has over 100 cases where it has refused to obey court orders. Many human right cases against DSS in which the people got judgments against the DSS have been there without DSS wanting to obey the courts. Those people are looking for ways to get the courts to order DSS to obey. Now, DSS sends messages to all those courts that they are above the law.

(9) Okay, we all have been saying that the judges are NOT above the law, but is the DSS above the law?

(10) If we must hold the judges accountable to the law, why are we not holding DSS accountable to the law. Or is DSS the law itself?

(11) If you allow the DSS to chose to take down judges any time they like - just in the middle of the night like that - how do you expect a judge to give a judgement against the DSS if they kill your brother in an extrajudicial killing?

(12) Who is it that interpretes the constitution of the law? Is it DSS or the Courts?

(13) Are you absolutely sure that there was no better way to handle this incident than the drama, turmoil and confusion that occurred last week?

(14) Do you not agree that just as the extrajudicial killing of the three people that were accused of drug pushing defined Buhari's military regime, the arrest of the judges by the DSS is going to define his civilian regime? Is it worth it? Do you think it was the right decision?

There are too many issues raise here for one to respond comprehensively... some of the points could have been aggregated. Now some of these allegations and assumptions may or may not be true. One has no way of telling for a fact that the DSS has or does not have anything against these judges, but when it comes to intimidation of the judiciary one thing that has always struck me is that this particular allegation does not add up. This is because, to effectively intimidate them in such a manner, it requires the cooperation of both the DSS and the highest levels of the judiciary. Would the judiciary turn on itself for no reason?

If the DSS was going after these judges purely to prove that they can get them, and by so doing intimidate them into doing their bidding, then it would necessary for the DSS to use another channel which does not require a recourse to the judiciary. For example, if the DSS could arrest and detain these judges indefinitely, without explanation, then we would have enough grounds to suspect and allege of illegal interference of the executive. However, since the DSS eventually intends to take them to court, then the judges are not subject to the whims of the DSS, but rather will face a separate arm of government, in the judiciary, of which they are a part.

The only reason the judges could then fear facing their fellow judges is if there is actual evidence against them. In the absence of which they will be acquitted, and probably more speedily so than the average man, i might add.

Kgdavid:


There are too many issues raise here for one to respond comprehensively... some of the points could have been aggregated. Now some of these allegations and assumptions may or may not be true. One has no way of telling for a fact that the DSS has or does not have anything against these judges, but when it comes to intimidation of the judiciary one thing that has always struck me is that this particular allegation does not add up. This is because, to effectively intimidate them in such a manner, it requires the cooperation of both the DSS and the highest levels of the judiciary. Would the judiciary turn on itself for no reason?

If the DSS was going after these judges purely to prove that they can get them, and by so doing intimidate them into doing their bidding, then it would necessary for the DSS to use another channel which does not require a recourse to the judiciary. For example, if the DSS could arrest and detain these judges indefinitely, without explanation, then we would have enough grounds to suspect and allege of illegal interference of the executive. However, since the DSS eventually intends to take them to court, then the judges are not subject to the whims of the DSS, but rather will face a separate arm of government, in the judiciary, of which they are a part.

The only reason the judges could then fear facing their fellow judges is if there is actual evidence against them. In the absence of which they will be acquitted, and probably more speedily so than the average man, i might add.

It is being in a democracy that makes it impossible for the DSS to detain judges indefinitely. They are not politicians and the public outcry is one they cannot cope with. They can get away with political, ethnic and religious detentions as in the cases of Dasuki, Nnamdi Kanu and Zakzaky. I can assure you that they would if they could.

As to the many points or questions, take anyone u feel comfy with or group em anyway u prefer. The important thing is to get meaningful engagement on the subject and no, I do not think they need the top judiciary brass to succeed in harassing and intimidating judges. All they need is guns and presidential nod approving illegality as we clearly see all in d name of fighting corruption.

We should not use rule of law as a yard stick here


They didn't think of rule of law when the recieved corrupt


Money.

Abegi

freeze001:


It is being in a democracy that makes it impossible for the DSS to detain judges indefinitely. They are not politicians and the public outcry is one they cannot cope with. They can get away with political, ethnic and religious detentions as in the cases of Dasuki, Nnamdi Kanu and Zakzaky. I can assure you that they would if they could. 1.

As to the many points or questions, take anyone u feel comfy with or group em anyway u prefer. The important thing is to get meaningful engagement on the subject and no, I do not think they need the top judiciary brass to succeed in harassing and intimidating judges. All they need is guns and presidential nod approving illegality as we clearly see all in d name of fighting corruption. 2.

1. You can't say or imply that these cases are purely cases of ethnocentric or sectarian persecution. That is not factual, and i believe what you stated that you are after here is objectivity. In each of those examples you mentioned, there is overwhelming proof of breakage of the law in a very serious manner that could destabilize the wider society. So if you are saying those men were wrongfully targeted for no just cause and without justification, you are wrong. In each case there is an overwhelming body of evidence that points to breach of the law.

Note also, that they are empowered within the law, to hold these men. That is what is important here, as opposed to fundamentally unprovable allegations of ill-feelings. Even if it maybe proven, Should a thief be set free simply because it is proven that the arresting officer hates him because he slept with his wife?

2. Abstractly speaking, yes all that is needed to harass judges is arms and approval of the executive. But this is the case in every single country in the world. It is in fact, a fundamental problem area of democracy. ie, who will guard the guardians?

In practice, however, this is not the case today in Nigeria. The arrested judges, according to the DSS, are to be charged to court, and in addition to that, the DSS did obtain search warrants (which are issued by the judiciary), prior to their raids. So while, yes the executive can misbehave, it has not yet done so.

Based on the real facts of the case (as opposed to theoretical possibilities), here is why the executive in Nigeria, today, require the judiciary to cooperate:

1. Search warrants are issued by the judiciary
2. The affected judges will be taken to court where they will face fellow judges

So my point was, to intimidate judges, based on the facts of the case we are dealing with today, the process can only commence with the approval of the judiciary in the form of search and/or arrest warrants, and can only conclude with the participation of the judiciary in the form of judgment and sentencing.

Had it been the courts were excluded from the process, then you could talk about intimidation, but since the courts have not been excluded from the process, then the DSS cannot intimidate the affected judges, since they have no power of their own to arbitrarily search and arrest them, nor pass judgment and sentence them. Any other thing does not stop the judges from carrying out their duties.

Reacting specifically to your points:

1-5, yes the DSS may very well have a grudge against certain judges. Does this stop them from investigating those judges? You could only cry foul if the DSS were to be the ones tasked with passing judgment on the judges. The only body to pass judgment here, will be a court or courts;

6, 7 & 8, The law deals with allegation and reasonable proof. In the presence of these elements, are you saying that the guilty should be excused on the basis on the fact that the person who caught them does not like them?

With regards to 8 in particular, the only message sent here is that the DSS is above, not the law, but corrupt judges;

9 & 10, the DSS is not above the law, and there is a procedure for dealing with them when they act ultra vires. Let the relevant watchdog do it's job. You cannot ask the DSS to clip it's own wings.

11, this is massive exaggeration. a "take down" implies that these judges were eliminated by some means. This is hardly the case. They were simply detained for a few hours and released. Since you have failed to establish for a fact that these actions occurred as payback for unfavorable rulings in court, we must accept the word of the DSS (innocent until proven guilty), that they raided the judges because they are corrupt. More so given the preponderance of the evidence stacked against the judges.

So, to prepare for the day when your brother may be killed, extra-judiciously, by the DSS, you should fight for a clean judiciary, against whom incrimination may not be brought. Look at it this way, if a judge is known to be corrupt, even if he rules correctly in favor of your extra-judically executed brother, the society may not be able to trust his judgment, and when people lose faith in the justice system, society is in trouble. Our first problem is not an unruly DSS, it is an untrustable judiciary.

12, Both. for the executive to perform it's function of executing the law, it must necessarily interpret the law, while the judiciary exists to provide corrective and final interpretation where the executive and it's bodies may have erred. That is why the DSS must investigate and arrest, and the courts must judge and sentence.

13; No. desperate times call for desperate measures. Since civilian rule came to Nigeria almost 2 decades ago, the judiciary has reigned unchecked. Now it is time for that body to also realize that there is a limit to how far it may do and undo to the benefit of it's members and the rich, and at the detriment of the average man.

14. No. And if it does, it will be a good thing. The detained judges will have their day in courts who will decide on their innocence or guilt and the legality or illegality of the procedures used by the DSS.