Robert Clarke: Kekere-Ekun will Sweep Away Bad Eggs in Supreme Court, Sanitise Judiciary

Alex Enumah in Abuja

An elder statesman and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Robert Clarke, has assured Nigerians that the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun will bring about the much-needed sanitisation of the judiciary, especially at the Supreme Court.
Tinubu, on August 23, swore in Kekere-Ekun as the 23rd acting CJN at the Council Chamber of the State House, pending her confirmation by the Senate.
She succeeded Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, who assumed office on June 27, 2022 and bowed out last Thursday upon attaining the mandatory retirement age of 70 years.

In an interview with ARISE NEWS Channel yesterday, Clarke stated that while he cannot guarantee that Kekere-Ekun would be able to “make any drastic change” in the judiciary, “one thing I’m sure of is that she is very keen in sweeping off all bad eggs in the Supreme Court”.

According to Clarke, “There are so many of them there and I passed through many of them and I can point to many of them”.
He cited his last case at the apex court where his appeal to a five-member panel to vary the court’s consequential order was misjudged as an appeal emanating from a tribunal judgment, as a sad decision by the apex court.
“So, I am assuring you that the situation will not arise under Kekere-Ekun. She is a stickler to honesty and I have seen her grow in the judiciary. I can speak of an experience of over 50 years; I can tell you that I have not seen any other character like Kekere-Ekun. I pray God in his infinite mercies will give her more courage and I assure you that she will do her best,” he said.

Speaking on the need for reforms in the judiciary, Clarke who observed that the over-burdening of the apex court is a self-inflicted injury, however, said that the issue can be corrected in two ways – either by restoration of the provisions of the Constitution that terminates gubernatorial election at the Court of Appeal or creating a Constitutional Court that would decide appeals emanating from the governorship tribunals to free the apex court to handle other matters.
The senior lawyer explained that the apex court brought the burden upon itself during the tenure of late Justice Katsina-Alu when the Constitution was amended to allow the apex court’s intervention in governorship election petitions.

“Now the former CJN is crying over spilled milk when he said that the Nigerian judiciary is the most overworked in the world. That is wrong, it is a self-inflicted injury; they inflicted the injury themselves, they wanted power”, he said.
“I have said it and will continue to say it; until that part of the Constitution is restored – and the only way to restore it is to have a Constitutional Court that will have the duty for all gubernatorial matters so that the Supreme Court will not be bothered,” he added.
He questioned what the apex court would be deciding in a concurrent-findings of the tribunal and Court of Appeal since election matters are matters relating to facts.

Clarke also argued that Tinubu was right to swear in Kekere-Ekun as the acting CJN without being screened by the Senate, adding that the action was not infringing the constitution.
Clark further explained that the Constitution did not specify the time for confirmation of the acting Chief Justice, adding that her swearing-in is legal.

He said: “What you are suggesting now is that what people are saying- that they should have asked her to wait until the Supreme Court confirms before she was being administered under oath to take over the post. If that did not happen, she would still be acting as the most senior judge on the bench. She will still be acting as the acting Chief Justice of the Federation. All these are semantics, as far as I’m concerned.

“There is no impediment to any constitutional provisions that say a CJ cannot be sworn in by the president. After all, the president is the appointing – under the constitution, the president is the appointing officer. The Senate is only to confirm or reject, and if they reject, it will still take another term. She will be brought back. So, I don’t see any fundamental infringement of the Constitution,” Clarke added.