Exposing the
Plateau State Judiciary to Danger
It is generally believed that the Judiciary is the
last hope of the common man on the street, therefore care must be taken when it
comes to appointing persons to man sensitive positions in the third arm of
government, which the Judiciary is. This is particularly so when cognizance is
taken of the fact that the image of the third arm of government suffered severe
batter in the recent past with the arrest and trial of top judicial officers across
the country on charges bordering on corrupt practices. With this development,
the needful should be done to regain the eroded confidence which the people had
on the Judiciary.
Not too long ago, precisely in November last year,
the announcement of the appointment of Barrister Silas Bakfur as a Judge in the
Plateau State Judiciary received vehement opposition. However, as it is often
the case, this did not deter the powers that be from going ahead with the
appointment. Specifically, the former member representing Pankshin, Kanke and
Kanam in the House of Representatives, Hon. Leonard Dilkon, had approached High
Court 3 in Jos asking for an order to stop the appointment of Barr. Silas
Bakfur as a judge. Speaking through his lawyer, Barrister Francis N. Okafor,
Dilkon said it was necessary to stop the appointment because there was a
petition against Bakfur at the Judicial Service Commission.
Dilkon had said that the facts, circumstances and
ground of the petition were subject of a suit already filed against Mr. Bakfur.
He further explained by citing the case with No. PLD/J.304/2014 between Hon.
Leonard Dilkon and Danjuma Fwenji, Helen P. Gamaliel Esq., Silas Bakfur, Esq.
and 3 others which was filed on 17th June, 2014 by way of
fundamental rights procedures and assigned to Hon. Justice D. D. Longji.
However, the judge later washed his hands of the case because he was acquainted
with all parties involved. At the time in question, the matter was yet to be
assigned to another judge by the Chief Judge of Plateau State.
The particulars of Dilkon’s suit are that the
Judicial Service Commission should sack Silas Bakfur, Esq. as an unfit and
improper person to work in the Judiciary. He went on to pray that in the light
of the pendency of his suit against Bakfur, particularly with regard to the
reliefs and prayer against him, the Judicial Service Commission should suspend
and/or put on hold the consideration of Mr. Silas Bakfur for nomination and/or
appointment as a Judge of the Plateau State Judiciary until the determination
of the suit.
However, characteristically, both the state
government and the Judicial Service Commission paid deaf ears to the petition
and, disregarding the fact that the matter was still pending in court, went
ahead to appoint Bakfur a Judge of the High Court!
Again, only recently, there was uproar over the
appointment of Mr. Steve Abah as member of the Plateau State Judicial Service
Commission even when there was a petition against his appointment forwarded to
the Plateau State House of Assembly. Abah, in the petition, was allegedly
linked to a fraud committed against lawyers. Without allowing the assemblymen
to investigate the allegation and prove its veracity, Governor Simon Lalong was
alleged to have railroaded the House members into clearing Steve Abah for the
Judicial Service Commission job.
The news now making the rounds currently is that
the Plateau State House of Assembly is an appendage of the Government House, a
laughing stock; and that members are only too glad to be used as rubberstamps
to decisions taken by the governor, notwithstanding whether such decisions are
rational or irrational, and whether or not they are in the best interest of the
state.
As a fully-fledged lawyer in his own right,
Governor Lalong does not need to be told that delicate appointments such as mentioned
above ought to be made only on merit and should be devoid of sentiments of any
kind. As holders of public trust, those appointed must be free from accusations
of fraud (or any wrongdoing for that matter) and, where there are petitions
against them, such petitions should not be dismissed with a wave of the hand as
in the instant cases.
True, some petitions may turn out to be spurious
and frivolous (not to talk of vexatious), but that does not stop them from being
looked into and the genuine ones sifted from the not-too-serious ones.
In a democracy, the rule of law is sacrosanct, and
everyone should be allowed to have their say, but it appears the Lalong
administration is fast becoming a one-man show where the governor’s decision on
any matter is unquestionable. This is retrogressive and it is clearly not in
consonance with the much-chanted “change” mantra of the administration.
Post a Comment