I have in recent times come across two posts or write-ups put up by Professor Odinkalu containing some misinformation, which requires correction so that they do not become accepted for all times as the true versions of the events to which they relate.
The first has to do with the events of 31st December 1983 which heralded in the Buhari/Idiagbon Administration. From his account, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice George Sodeinde Sowemimo GCON (who happens to be my late father) was out of the country at the material time. The Military in his absence then proposed to swear in Justice Aniagolu in his place as Chief Justice but the learned Justice declined the offer.
ALSO READ: Op-Ed: In Defence of Judicial Authority By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu
I have some personal knowledge of the events of that day and it has therefore become necessary to correct some aspects of your narrative. Firstly, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Sowemimo was certainly in the country at that time. What actually happened was that on the night of the coup, the military officers sent the then Secretary to Federal Government, Mr. Gray Longe to CJN’s official residence to invite my father to their gathering at Bonny Camp. In panic, my late mother sent word to me to alert me of the development but happily by the time I got to the house, my father had returned from Bonny Camp.
What happened at Bonny Camp was that the Military Officers requested that my father swear him General Muhammadu Buhari, as the new Head of State and possibly thereafter accompany him to the Television Station where he was to make his maiden Broadcast. The Chief Justice refused and impressed on them the fact that they had by their actions suspended the Constitution and that he could not therefore as the Chief Justice legitimately swear General Buhari as the Head of State. The military officers were persuaded by this explanation and General Buhari thereafter proceeded with the takeover without formality of a swearing-in.
When my father got to Bonny Camp that night, he met some Judges at the venue but their presence has never been fully explained. I, however, believe that if such offer was ever made to Justice Aniagolu it would be easy for me to appreciate his disinclination towards the offer as judges of their ilk were not consumed by ambition and Justice Aniagolu would well have recognized that there were other Justices of the Supreme Court who were senior to him and that an acceptance of such an offer would have created a very awkward situation for the judiciary, especially at the level of the Supreme Court. Anyone familiar with the level of camaraderie which existed amongst the Justices of that Court at the material time will readily appreciate why such an offer would have been spurned.
The second post concerns the compulsory retirement of Hon Justice Yaya Jinadu from the High Court. An aspect of the narrative which is incorrect concerns the claim that Hon. Justice Adefarasin, the then Chief Judge of Lagos State, unilaterally withdrew the Garba case file from Justice Jinadu. The version that I am familiar with is that it was Justice Jinadu who requested that the case file be reassigned to another judge. The Advisory Judicial Council made up of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and several other Justices actually called for the case file and observed for themselves the minutes by Justice Jinadu requesting that the case file be assigned to another judge. It is therefore not correct or fair to give the impression that the case file was unceremoniously withdrawn from him by Justice Adefarasin, the Chief Judge. What infuriated members of the Supreme Military Council was the fact that the Judge had made those false claims against the Chief Judge. This was the background to the compulsory retirement of Justice Yaya Jinadu.
Finally, you described as infamous the judgment of Justice Sowemimo which convicted the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo. You referred to the judgment as “infamous”. This characterisation clearly ignores the fact that the judgment was in fact upheld and confirmed unanimously by a panel of five justices of the Supreme Court [in] Michael Omisade & Ors. v. The Queen (1964) 1 All NLR, 23.
The judgment in the Omisade case was in fact preceded by the judgment in the treasonable felony trial of Chief Anthony Enahoro, who was convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by Hon. Justice S.O Lambo on the very same set of facts, two weeks before the judgment in the Awolowo case. Chief Enahoro’s appeal was decided by another set of five Supreme Court Justices, who affirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence from 15 to seven years.
It is unfair in the circumstances to describe the judgment of the trial Court as infamous, considering the fact that 10 reputable Justices of the highest Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons.
Seyi Sowemimo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, practices law in Lagos
