By Eyimofe Atake, SAN
It began as a straightforward contempt proceeding against a senior government official accused of repeatedly ignoring court orders. Within months, however, it had become one of the most extraordinary constitutional confrontations in Nigeria’s judicial history—drawing in the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Attorney-General of the Federation and senior judicial leaders, before ending with a High Court judge voluntarily leaving the Bench rather than, in his words, submit to “the humiliation and disgrace of the judiciary.”
More than four decades later, the dramatic encounter between Justice A.A. Jinadu, John Odigie Oyegun and government lawyer Moshood Adio continues to provoke difficult questions about judicial discipline, executive influence and the limits of judicial authority. Recounting the episode from his 1992 book, Contempt in the Face of the Court, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Eyimofe Atake argues that while the judge erred in summarily disrobing counsel, an even greater constitutional wrong lay in compelling a serving judge to account for his judicial conduct before a panel that included the nation’s Attorney-General.
On Justice Jinadu and Mr. Adio, permit me to give the accurate account, for the case is treated in full in my book, Contempt in the Face of the Court by Eyimofe Atake, published in 1992, where it appears as Re Oyegun, unreported; the contemporary record is The Lagos Guardian of 4 October 1984. What follows is from the book.
The orders of Jinadu, J of the Lagos High Court had been defied five times by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Mr. John Kenneth Oyegun, known to a later generation as John Odigie Oyegun, who became Governor of Edo State and, later still, national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Oyegun had been ordered to reinstate a fireman, Mr. Saidu Garba, pending the determination of Garba’s case of unlawful dismissal; despite five summonses to appear and show cause why he should not be committed for contempt, he failed to appear. Representing Oyegun was Mr. Moshood Adio, a legal adviser in the Federal Ministry of Justice; and here let me add a fact within my own knowledge: Adio had in earlier years worked under Jinadu himself in the Ministry of Justice. It may well explain the judge’s anger at what followed. Asked by the trial judge whether he had filed a return to the order summoning Mr. Oyegun to court, Mr. Adio replied that he did not know what was meant by filing a return: a lawyer trained under the judge’s own eye, professing not to know what a return was. The trial judge then asked Mr. Adio to step out of the Bar and take off his wig and gown. Jinadu, J later explained that Adio was disrobed for no other reason “than to instill discipline in Mr. Adio and to retrieve not my own name but the respect and dignity of the institution, the orders of which are being flouted.”
Then came the astonishing sequel: it was the judge who was called to account. The Judicial Advisory Committee, headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria of the day, Chief Justice George Sodeinde Sowemimo, asked the trial judge to appear before the Chief Justice, the President of the Federal Court of Appeal, Justice Mamman Nasir, the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Adetunji Adefarasin, and the Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Chike Ofodile, SAN, to explain his behaviour: a behaviour said to include not only the disrobing but an earlier matter in which state counsel Omotade had sought an adjournment on the ground of a toothache, which was refused, and it was alleged that Jinadu, J had addressed him as “drunk,” which Jinadu denied; and the transfer dispute with Adefarasin, CJ: Jinadu said in open court that the Oyegun contempt case had been transferred from his court by the Chief Judge; the Chief Judge insisted Jinadu had asked for the transfer; and the Committee preferred the Chief Judge’s version and said that Jinadu, J had lied. To all of it, Jinadu asserted the judge’s charter: “It is a cardinal principle of the independence of the judiciary that a judge is free in the course of any proceedings before him to make any observations on both parties and counsel without fear of being charged or disciplined for making such an observation.”
And then the words for which the saga is remembered, emphasising how sad it was that he should be the one asked to explain himself, and how wrong that he should appear before the Attorney General: “I cannot be a party to this humiliation and disgrace to the judiciary… Accordingly, I cannot see how I can continue to serve as a judge under such a system. I have already given notice of my retirement from service. I cannot condone any attempt to destroy the judicial system in this country using me as a scapegoat.” He was as good as his word, and left the Bench. At the time it was seen for what it was: an act of rare courage, a judge standing up, alone, to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, to his own Chief Judge, and to the Judicial Advisory Committee itself, and choosing to lay down his office rather than bow.
The book’s verdict cuts both ways, and I stand by it. The disrobing procedure was wrong. The show cause principle is the application of the principles of natural justice, above all the maxim audi alteram partem, hear the other side: a judge citing for contempt in the face of the court must lay the particulars of the alleged contempt specifically and distinctly before the alleged contemnor, ask him to show cause why he should not be committed, and give him an opportunity to be heard in his defence. None of that was done; instead, Mr. Adio was simply told to take off his wig and gown. But it was equally wrong, and offensive to the separation of powers under the Constitution, to require a judge to explain himself and apologise before a panel that included the Attorney General of the Federation, an arm of the executive; and doing so condoned the behaviour of Mr. Oyegun, and perhaps of Mr. Adio as well, who had been unhelpful throughout. Two wrongs met in that courtroom, and the judiciary paid for both.
And the after lives complete the tale: Mr. Adio rose to become Chief Judge of Oyo State, retiring as M. O. Adio, CJ; his elder brother, Justice Yekini Olayiwola Adio, rose to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, where he served until his death in harness in 1997; and his son, Seni Adio, took Silk.
For the full case, with the authorities, the footnotes and the comparative treatment, read it in Contempt in the Face of the Court by Eyimofe Atake.
Eyimofe Atake, SAN, PhD (Cantab)
