Augie, JSC: A Judicial Amazon Raps Her Last Gavel
From the Magistracy to the Apex Court, Honourable Justice Amina Adamu Augie, JSC (Rtd), CFR, distinguished herself as a judicial officer with sterling qualities in the discharge of her duties, for four and half decades. She also tenaciously applied herself to her first love, teaching, as she impacted judicial knowledge to students at various institutions, from the Ahmadu Bello University (where His Lordship pursued her Master’s Degree) to the Nigerian Law School and subsequently, the University of Sokoto, even while sitting on the Bench as a Chief Magistrate and later, as a High Court Judge. Bowing out from the Supreme Court last Thursday, was for many, received with mixed feelings, as they desired that His Lordship stay on. But, the Constitution specifically provides that 70 is the retirement age of Justices of the Appellate Courts, the age which His Lordship attained on September 3, 2023. Onikepo Braithwaite, Jude Igbanoi and Alex Enumah who were present at the colourful Valedictory Session which held in the Main Courtroom of the Supreme Court, report, while Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, Kemi Balogun, SAN and HRH Sir David Serena-Dokubo Spiff pay tribute to His Lordship
The CJN’s Speech
Opening the session, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Kayode Ariwoola, GCON gave a rather illustrious background about Augie’s (who he fondly referred to as Justice Triple A) meteoric voyage through the complex routes of judicial and academic labyrinths, distinguishing herself in both endeavours.
The event was well attended by members of the Utter and Inner Bar, judicial officers from different hierarchies of the Bench, traditional rulers and family members and friends of the celebrant.
It was praises, encomiums and admiration from both the Bench and Bar, as His Lordship was the sixth Female Justice to have occupied the Bench of the Supreme Court. Although, Justice Augie officially left office on September 3, 2023, on attaining the mandatory retirement age of 70 years, however, the Valedictory Court Session was held in her honour on September 21, shortly after the Apex Court resumed from its annual vacation.
Speaking at the occasion, the Hon. Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, described Augie as an “Amazing Amazon” who has diligently and meticulously offered unquantifiable services to her fatherland and the generality of humanity, in different capacities for several decades.
According to the CJN, the amiable disposition and reticent outlook of Augie literally made her a gentle tigress in the temple of justice, adding that, she variously exhibited rare qualities and tenacity of strength and character to the admiration of her colleagues and admirers, especially when it comes to the administration of justice.
Besides, Ariwoola observed that the retired Justice of the Supreme Court believes strongly that a good Judge must have the capacity to hear courteously, answer wisely, consider soberly and decide impartially. He said that that strong belief has had a tenacious foothold in all her judgements; that is why she can conveniently walk tall among her peers.
“We are all here to felicitate with an accomplished judicial colossus, that has offered the best of her intellect to the advancement of the legal profession through her several years of inimitable adjudications and unprecedented judicial prowess”, he said.
According to the CJN, Augie’s judgements are not only incisive, but equally analytical and rich in content and context.
“Her robust contributions to the development of our jurisprudence, are fascinating and captivating too. Her impeccable attention to detail in every matter that came before her, is alluring and salutary as well.
“Time would not permit me to reel out her various scintillating judgements, that have become masterpieces in our jurisdiction.
“As your journey through the second phase of life unveils today, we, your brother Justices, say with one voice that we love and cherish you a great deal, and pray to the Almighty God to grant you peace of mind and graceful ageing”, CJN Ariwoola added.
The AGF’s Speech
Also full of praise for Justice Augie, was the Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN. He described Justice Amina Augie as an embodiment of a patriotic and dedicated Nigerian, who made several far-reaching legal and judicial pronouncements which have continued to generate reviews from legal commentators.
BOSAN Represented by Asiwaju Awomolo
While commending Augie for her excellent performance in the Judiciary, Vice Chairman of the Body of Benchers, Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, who represented the Body of Senior Advocates (BOSAN), stated that the current image of the Judiciary requires a great deal of sacrifice, both from the Bar and the Bench, adding that political matters in the last one year have done a great disservice to the Judiciary. Awomolo, who stated that all Judges are representatives of God Almighty, reminded them of the importance of discharging their duty with the fear of God and the Constitution, because at the end they will all give account of their conduct.
“Be mindful of the future” he said, “one day everybody will be called to answer”. He specifically appreciated Augie for bowing out of the Judiciary with her head held up high, adding that, she has really made the Law School Class of 1978 very proud.
Hon. Justice Amina Adamu Augie’s Response
Meanwhile, in her Valedictory Speech, Augie appreciated all who had contributed one way or the other to her career, growth and success, stating that she would not have achieved anything without the help of others.
She thanked the Almighty God, her colleagues both serving and retired, her support staff especially, “my indefatigable Secretary, Madam Andrea Henrietta Mowah, for her duty, loyalty and professionalism, in running my chambers. Her commitment to ensuring that everything was ship-shape and in perfect order, made it easy for me to focus on my work without distractions”.
Besides members of the Bench, Augie also extended her appreciation to members of the Bar, her aged Mother, Hajia Hauwa Eva Graham, who flew in all the way Chicago, USA, to grace the occasion, as well as other members of her family.
Summary of Justice Triple A’s Personal Journey
Hon. Justice Amina Adamu Augie, a Law graduate from the University of Ife, now Obafemi Awolowo University, was born on September 3, 1953, to late Mr Patrick and Hajia Hauwa Eva Graham in Lagos.
She had her primary and secondary education between 1958 and 1971, across some States of the Nigeria. After her Call to Bar in 1978, Augie took up appointment with the Legal Aid Council, Sokoto, before a stint in the academic world as a Lecturer.
She later worked as a Senior State Counsel in the office of the Chief Counsel to former President Shehu Shagari. His Lordship moved back to Sokoto State with her husband and children, and subsequently, became a Chief Magistrate in Argungu, and then High Court Judge. Augie was later elevated to the Appellate Court Bench in 2002, and that of the Supreme Court on November 7, 2016, where she spent the next seven years before her retirement earlier this month.
Some of Justice Augie’s Landmark Judgements
ANI & ORS v OTU & ORS (2023) LPELR-59602(SC)
Latin Maxim – “NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA” – Meaning and nature of the Latin maxim “nemo judex in causa sua”
“Nemo judex in causa sua” is a Latin phrase, which means – “no man should be a Judge in his own cause”. It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case, in which he has a personal interest or involvement – G.E.C. v Akande (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1327) 593 SC. This rule of natural justice is, therefore, not confined to the cause in which the person is a party, but it also applies to a cause in which he has an interest or he is involved in. It underlines the doctrine of reasonable apprehension of bias, which is not permitted in law because a taint of bias would destroy the integrity of the proceedings conducted in such a manner – see Duhaime’s Law Dictionary.” Per Augie, JSC (PP 74 – 74 PARAS C – F).
Case Summary
Facts: The Appellants filed a suit at the High Court of Cross River State, challenging the selection of the 1st Respondent (the 4th Defendant) as the Obong of Calabar. They alleged that the 1st Respondent, who was the Chairman of the Screening Committee, improperly placed himself as the sole candidate for the Obong position, and was selected by the 3rd-5th Respondents’ Council.
The Appellants contended that the 1st Respondent was not qualified for the position because he had been the Chairman of the Screening Committee, and his family was unaware that he was being presented as a candidate for Obong.
The Respondents argued that, the right to produce the Obongship was for all qualified Etuboms of Western Calabar, and the 1st Respondent met all the requirements for becoming Obong of Calabar, including resigning as Chairman of the Screening Committee.
The trial Court ruled in favour of the Appellants, but the Court of Appeal partially allowed the Respondents’ appeal. Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination: The appeal was determined on the following issues thus:
1. Whether capping/induction was or is a requirement under the Constitution of the Etubom Council (Exhibits 1/20) to select an Obong of Calabar, and if so, whether it was waived for the 1st Appellant?
2. Whether the finding by the lower Court that the 1st Respondent is of agnate descent and so qualified to contest for the throne of Obong of Calabar, is not contrary to the evidence properly evaluated by the trial Judge?
Decision/Held: In a unanimous decision, the appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit, and the judgement of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.
ZAKIRAI v MUHAMMAD & ORS (2017) LPELR-42349(SC)
LEGAL PRACTITIONER – COUNSEL/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP – Whether Court can interfere with counsel-client relationship
“To start with, the issue of representation by counsel is a matter of counsel-client relationship, which this Court cannot get involved in – see the case of Chief M.K.O Abiola v F R N (1996) LPELR-40 (SC), wherein this Court, per Belgore, JSC (as he then was) said as follows – “The best person to decide who represents him … is the Appellant, and that is his constitutional right. … Time honoured practice is for this issue of representation to be decided by counsel after consulting the Appellant, or the Appellant writing to intimate his choice of counsel … It is always a privilege, the matter of counsel-client relationship, and I do not believe it is right to involve the Court in this. What is more, where there is no averment that the authority of the counsel to conduct the case on a party’s behalf has been withdrawn, it is accepted that counsel had general or apparent authority to so do – see Afegbai v A-G., Edo State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 733) 425 SC.” – Per Augie JSC (PP 12 – 13 PARAS E – C).
Case Summary
Facts: The Appellant and the 1st Respondent both participated in a primary election conducted by the 2nd Respondent (APC), for a Kano State House of Assembly seat. The 1st Respondent won the primary election, but the 3rd Respondent (INEC) recognised the Appellant as the party’s candidate. The 1st Respondent challenged this decision in the Federal High Court, which ruled in favour of the 1st Respondent and directed INEC to recognise him as the party’s candidate.
During the trial, the Appellant raised an issue regarding non-compliance with Section 97 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act. The Appellant, who was served within the jurisdiction and not affected by the purported non-compliance, filed this issue after all processes had been served.
The Appellant appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeal, while the 1st Respondent cross-appealed on the issue of the Appellant raising the non-compliance issue. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal and allowed the 1st Respondent’s cross-appeal. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination: The Appellant formulated 5 issues in his Brief of Argument thus:
1. Whether the lower Court was right to have held that leave to issue the Originating Summons, leave to serve the Originating Summons and leave to mark same for service outside jurisdiction are not necessary, not mandatory, has been waived by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent, and cannot be raised by the Appellants at all.
2. Whether the lower court rightly held that issue of substituted service and personal service was not raised both at the trial court and before the lower court, and indeed the issue of mode of service is phantom, esoteric and not real?
3. Whether the lower court rightly ignored the failure to mark the summons as “concurrent” and trial court’s non-consideration of the “Further and Better Counter-Affidavit in this Suit”?
4. Whether the lower court was right to hold that the trial at the Federal High Court was competent, and did competently assume jurisdiction in this case?
5. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the Suit was rightly commenced by Originating Summons and the lower court rightly found on the Affidavit before it, including issues of forgery.
Decision/Held: In the final analysis, the Supreme Court held that the Appeal lacked merit in its entirety, and it was dismissed. The Judgement of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.
LAU v PDP & ORS (2017) LPELR-42800(SC)
LATIN MAXIM – “UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM” – Meaning and nature of the principle of “ubi jus ibi remedium”
“This brings to mind the Latin maxim – ‘Ubi jus, ibi remedium’ where there is a right, there is a remedy. The law ensures that if the Plaintiff has a right, he must have the means to vindicate that right, and a remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment or exercise of it – see Bello v A-G Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 45) 828 SC. In this case, the Appellant had the right to participate in a level playing field with other aspirants at the primaries, and if he was wronged in any way, he is entitled to a remedy, and nothing can stop him from getting it.” Per Augie JSC (PP 60 – 61 PARAS E – B).
Case Summary
Facts: The Appellant contested the primary election conducted by the 1st Respondent (PDP) for the Taraba North Senatorial District seat, along with two other candidates. The Appellant was duly screened and cleared by the party, but the 3rd Respondent was neither screened nor cleared for the Senatorial contest, as he was originally running for the Gubernatorial election. After winning the primary, the 3rd Respondent withdrew from the Senatorial race, leaving the Appellant and another candidate, Jolly Nyame, as possible replacements. However, the 1st Respondent nominated the 4th Respondent for the Taraba North Senatorial District.
The Appellant filed an Originating Summons, challenging the nomination of the 4th Respondent. The 1st and 4th Respondent filed Preliminary Objections, questioning the competence of the action. The trial court eventually ruled that the action was incompetently constituted, due to the presence of the 2nd Respondent (INEC), which deprived it of jurisdiction. The case was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which also dismissed the appeal. Now, the Appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination: The Appellant formulated the following issues, for the determination of the appeal:
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Appellant’s action is not justiceable (sic) under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
2. Whether the Court below was right in holding that the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellant’s Suit, because of the involvement of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as a party to the Suit.
3. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in the decision that the election having been held and the winner declared, the pre-election matter filed by the Appellant had become academic or hypothetical.
4. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in their decision that the trial court having found that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellant’s case, there was no need to proceed further to determine the Appellant’s substantive Originating Summons.
Decision/Held: The appeal was unanimously allowed. The judgements of the lower courts, were consequently set aside. The Supreme Court then invoked its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Act to determine the substantive Suit, and made a consequential order that the Appellant, who had scored the second highest number of votes in the primaries, was the candidate of the 1st Respondent at the general election.
These are just, but a few of His Lordship’s locus classicus decisions, which have greatly enriched Nigeria’s jurisprudence.
Lawstitics by LawPavilion
According to the Managing Director of LawPavilion, Mr Ope Olugasa, concerning His Lordship: ‘She shaped the jurisprudence in Nigeria in many practice areas. Some listed below:
1. Evidence – 266 notable pronouncements;
2. Appeal – 241 notable pronouncements;
3. Criminal Law & Procedure – 132 notable pronouncements;
4. Practice & Procedure – 123 notable pronouncements
Among so many other ones;
Number of Notable Judicial Pronouncements – 1,397 in 622 Judgments.’
Amina Augie JSC (Rtd): Courageous and Forthright
Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN
Amina Augie was certainly a very courageous and forthright Judge and finally, Justice of the Supreme Court. Clearly, above the ordinary measures of the Judiciary, Amina paid great attention to speed of justice in relation to pending cases. She will be remembered, for her work at the Enugu and Lagos Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal. We of the Diamond class of 1978 are extremely proud of her achievements!! It is in her case, that one regrets that Justices of the Supreme Court must retire at 70. I personally believe that Justice Augie had only just started, and her statutory retirement is a great loss of judicial expertise, so clearly possessed by Justice Augie.
Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, Past President, Nigerian Bar Association
Augie’s Odyssey through the Hallowed Chambers of Justice
Kemi Balogun, SAN
His Lordship assuredly left indelible marks in Nigeria’s judicial history, through uncanny courage exhibited in rulings, and judgements, which inevitably helped to deepen our jurisprudence.
Sifax (Nig.) Ltd v Migfo (Nig.) Ltd
I am constrained by the space, however, I must commend my Lord’s determination to ensure substantial justice over technicality, even on the somewhat settled issue of jurisdiction, in Sifax (Nig.) Ltd. v Migfo (Nig.) Ltd [2018] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1623) 138. The parties had dragged a dispute resulting from a memorandum of understanding to jointly bid for the concession and joint management of Terminal C, Tin Can Island Port, Apapa, Lagos, which was concessioned by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) and Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA). It was agreed in the memorandum of understanding that if the bid was successful, a joint venture company would be incorporated by the joint venture partners to manage operations of the Port. The bid was submitted, and the joint venture partners emerged as the preferred bidders
However, the Respondents later discovered that the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Appellant had secretly incorporated the 5th Appellant company without them; and that the Port had been handed over to the 5th Appellant by BPE and NPA. The Respondent also discovered that only the 1st and 3rd Appellant were shareholders and Directors of the 5th Appellant company, contrary to the terms of the memorandum of understanding. After all efforts to resolve the issue failed, the Respondent filed a suit at the Federal High Court and judgement was entered in favour of the Respondents which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. However, on further appeal, the Supreme Court struck out the Respondents’ suit on the ground that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over the suit, being an action arising from simple contract as opposed to an action under the Companies and Allied matters (CAMA).
The Respondents then commenced a fresh action at the High Court of Lagos State wherein its alleged fraudulent breach of trust and concealment by the Appellants, and sought declaratory reliefs, injunctive orders, and specific performance of the terms of the memorandum of understanding by the Appellants. In response, the Appellants applied to have the suit struck out on the ground that the action was then statute-barred, amongst other grounds. The High Court dismissed the challenge to its jurisdiction, and held that time did not run between 2006 and 2012 when the Respondents were in the wrong Court. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the High Court.
On further appeal to the Supreme Court, my noble Lord must have realised that the Appellants were out to take undue advantage of the law and if allowed, would have set the wrong precedent that would affect many lives and properties in the nation.
My noble Lord declared “the earlier suit filed by the Respondents cannot be dead; it is alive, and so it can be resuscitated, which is what the Respondents achieved when they filed this suit at the trial Court with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and the time spent at the wrong court cannot be counted; it was suspended.” My Lord ensured that justice was served, and seen to have been served.
Nwosu v APP
Profoundly, my noble lord has successfully shaped politics in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, both on pre-election and post-election matters; and of note is the case of Nwosu v Action Peoples Party (APP) & Ors [2020] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1749) 28 at page 79 to 80 where my noble Lord construed and interpreted the import of Section 37 of the Electoral Act, 2010; that it was enacted to forestall a situation where the rich and powerful will imposed on the nation the culture, or the dictatorship, of single party ‘democracy’, that is, the prohibition of a situation where the high and mighty will impose himself on all the political parties by buying up the candidature by whatever means, howbeit nefarious, in order that he would be the sole candidate on whom the cap fits.
Amina Adamu Augie, JSC Rtd, CFR; a towering figure at the Apex Court and in the judicial circle, is a beacon of integrity and wisdom. Her sharp mind and vast knowledge of the law, were only matched by her unwavering dedication to justice for all.
As his Lordship bows out of the hallowed chambers of justice, there is no doubt that my Lord has earned his well-deserved rest, although her colleagues in the epochal Law School Class of 1978 have urged her to spend more time with her grandchildren, and do a little more writing and teaching, impacting legal knowledge.
Amina Adamu Augie, JSC (Rtd ), CFR, still has more.
Kemi Balogun, SAN, Senior Partner, Oluwakemi Balogun LP
Encomiums for Hon. Justice Amina Adamu Augie, JSC (Rtd), CFR
HRH Sir David Serena-Dokubo Spiff
It is not many, who would combine the qualities of intelligence, beauty, friendliness, with strictness and mordacity in interactions with people. Most, would buckle, come crunch time. Honourable Justice Amina Augie, CFR, wears all these qualities with dignity, panache and fierce efficiency.
I was privileged to be classmates and callmates with MeLord, at the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) in the seventies, and then, got called to the Bar with her on the same day in July, 1978, alongside some all-time greats in the Legal Profession. Among these are Walter Onoghen, Ejembi Eko, Helen Moronkeji Oguwumiju, Suleiman Galadima, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, OCJ Okocha, SAN, Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, Bayo Ojo, SAN, Udoma Udo Udoma, Awa Kalu, SAN, Kola Awodein, SAN, Chike Osanakpo, Paul Erokoro, Aimi AbdulRazaq, Musa Danjuma, and many others.
AnneGee was everybody’s friend, and emblazoned any gathering she found herself in. However, beneath this facade of nice-person, easy-going-friend-to-all personality, is a character of toughness, resilience and fortitude. When it comes to principles, AnneGee is rock-solid, unshakable, unbending, unbendable and uncompromising. These qualities served her well in her judicial odyssey, as she catapulted to the apogee of the hierarchy. That she rose that far, is a source of great pride for us all, her class mates, callmates, friends and acquaintances ; a fountain of inspiration for the younger generation; and a template of success for generations yet unborn!
A thoroughbred Nigerian with international coloration (pun not unintended), friends from across the country, hails from the South East, Married from the North, core friends and co-sojourners from the South west, buddies (like my humble self ) from the Niger Delta!
Amina the jurist, was just what the doctor ordered for top judicial service in a country of such bewildering diversity, as our beloved Nigeria. Honourable Justice Amina Augie CFR, has fittingly adorned our judicial space for decades with admirable professionalism, patriotism and an unquenchable desire to do the right thing at all times. Bravo MeLord, we are most proud of you !
HRH Sir David Serena-Dokubo Spiff, former Secretary to State Government, Bayelsa State; Chief Executive Partner of Serenity Legal Union & Partners; Paramount Ruler of Ada Ama (SPIFF TOWN) Twon Brass.
