Reps consider immunity from prosecution for Supreme Court judges, others
The bill scaled
second reading at the green chamber on Thursday.
Sponsored by Iduma
Igariwey (APC, Ebonyi), himself a lawyer, the proposed law seeks to alter
section 308 of the 1999 constitution as amended by restricting legal
proceedings against heads of courts in the country.
Mr Igariwey said if
it becomes law, the bill will “protect the integrity and independence of the
Supreme Court, the Federal and state High Courts.”
The lawmaker argued
that the proposed legislation will entrench the doctrine of separation of
powers, thereby protecting “the Judiciary from the excesses of the Executive
arm.”
In 2019, President
Muhammadu Buhari controversially suspended former Chief Justice of Nigeria
(CJN), Walter Onnoghen, for false and non-assets declaration.
Mr Onnoghen would
later resign, after which he was convicted by Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT),
April last year.
More so, section 308
shields the quartet of the president, the vice president, state governors and
their deputies, for their period in office, from all forms of civil and criminal
prosecution.
Also narrowly
scaling second reading, a bill that would grant immunity to the presiding
officers of the National and State Assemblies is being mulled by the House of
Representatives.
“I really think that
if there is an arm that should enjoy immunity, it is the judiciary. I think
that this is the arm that should enjoy immunity to avoid distraction. What is
good for the executive is good for the judiciary,” Mr Igariwey argued in his
lead debate.
He said this makes
the bill “expedient in order to protect the integrity and independence of the
leadership of the superior courts of records at the state and federal levels.”
“The immunity clause
as contained in Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) should be
extended the Chief of Justice of Nigeria and justices of the Supreme Court of
Nigeria, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and the Chief Justices of the
State High Courts and Federal Capital Territory.
“This will be in the
best interest of maintaining the doctrine of separation of powers, as
contemplated by the 1999 Constitution and the protection of our judiciary from
the excesses of the executive,” the lawmaker added.
The bill is now up
for consideration at committee level, followed by a public hearing and a
concurrence by the Senate after which the president will be required to assent
to it.
Post a Comment