The Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) has refused to comply with a judgment of the Supreme Court, ordering it to among others, reinstate the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Bode Thomas, who was retired in 2009.

Rather than obey the February 16 judgment, the FJSC directed Thomas to proceed on 300 days compulsory accumulated leave.

The Nation sighted a copy of the letter, dated March 9, which was copied the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa.

Justice Bulkachuwa has directed the head of the Court of Appeal’s Accounts Unit to act on the letter.

The letter, which directed Thomas to resume on January 2, 2019 – close to his retirement period – acknowledged the Supreme Court’s judgment.

It, however, directed Thomas to proceed on his accumulated leave, which FJSC estimated at 300 days.

When contacted, Thomas, his lawyers, officials of the Court of Appeal and FJSC refused to comment on the legality of FJSC’s decision to override the Supreme Court judgment.

The Nation, however, found out that the FJSC’s directive that Thomas should proceed on accumulated leave offends both the Public Service Rules and the FJSC Regulations.

Section 129 of the FJSC Regulations reads: “Leave will be granted at any time during the leave year. Normally, the full leave will be taken at one time, but it may be taken in not more than two instalments.

“Any leave not taken within the calender year concerned will be forfeited. No officer is allowed to accumulate leave.”

Thomas was compulsorily retired on March 5, 2009 by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) which accepted the report of its investigative committee set up to examined allegations of “serious misconduct” raised against him by the then President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Umaru Abdullahi.

Justice Abdullahi had, by a letter dated November 24, 2008, laid a complaint against Thomas before the FJSC, in which he accused the then Chief Registrar of insubordination and sundry misconduct.

By a letter dated March 5, 2009, FJSC’s Secretary, Hajia B. A. Bashir informed Thomas that the commission accepted the report of the committee it constituted to investigate the allegations against him and recommended his compulsory retirement in line with Regulation 43(2)(a) of the FJSC Regulations.

Thomas challenged the FSJC’s decision at the Federal High Court via suit: FHC/ABJ/CS/313/09, which he filed on May 27, 2009. In its judgment on May 12, 2011, the Federal High Court among others, voided Thomas’ sack and ordered his reinstatement, a decision the FJSC challenged at the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in its judgment on January 16, 2013, upheld the FJSC’s appeal and set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, following which Thomas appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgement of a five-man panel, delivered on February 16, this year, upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court and set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision.

The apex court faulted the process leading to the FJSC’s decision to compulsorily retire Thomas and held that fair hearing was no accorded him.

Justice Kumai Akaahs, in the lead judgment, held that the FJSC breached the principles of fair hearing in its handling of the case.

He equally faulted the January 16, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which he noted, was based on irrelevant evidence on which pleadings were not led at the trial court.

Justice Akaahs found that it could not be said that the principles of fair hearing was not breached, where Justice Abdullahi, who was the complainant, also participated in the disciplinary proceedings leading to the FJSC’s decision to retire Thomas.

He upheld Thomas’ argument that the participation of the President of the Court of Appeal in the FJSC’s disciplinary proceedings, where he (Justice Abdullahi) was also the accuser, breached the principles of fair hearing.

Justice Akaahs said the Court of Appeal was in grave error when it held that no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was proved by the appellant such as would vitiate the proceedings that led to appellant’s compulsory retirement.

He said: “I have already disposed of issue one and any arguments relating to admissions made by the appellant on giving approval to staff to undertake foreign trips and the recruitment of junior staff without the approval of the President, Court of Appeal cannot be used to justify the claim that the appellant was granted fair hearing.

“In view of all that transpired and especially based on the fact that the President, Court of Appeal had made up his mind, when he wrote to the Secretary of the FJSC on 24th November 2008, that he could no longer work with the appellant as Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal and requested that an appropriate disciplinary action be taken against him.

“It is obvious that the appellant did not stand a chance of getting any verdict from the commission (FJSC) other than the one which was recommended by the investigating committee. In other words, the commission was to merely rubber stamp what the committee had recommended.

“Most of the members of the committee were among those who sat in the commission to approve the recommendations.

“In conclusion, the appeal succeeds in the main. The proceedings of the committee, together with the decision of the FJSC are hereby declared a nullity for failure to adhere strictly to the rules of natural justice.

“The decision taken at the FJSC to compulsorily retire the appellant as Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal since March 5, 2009 is hereby set aside. The appellant is reinstated to his post as Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement,” Justice Akaahs said.

In his supporting decision, Justice Paul Galinje expressed displeasure on how Thomas was compulsorily retired.

Justice Galinje said it was wrong for Justice Abdullahi (who was the accuser) and members of the investigative committee to participated in the FJSC’s meeting where the investigation report was adopted.

He added: “Rafiu Adeyanju Lawal-Rabana (SAN), Lady Debbie N. Obodoukwu-Iregbu, Alhaji Ayinla Olomada and Hajia B. A. Bashir, who were members of the respondent’s investigative committee that investigated the allegation against the appellant also sat throughout the emergency meeting of the respondent and participated in ratifying their own report.

“Clearly, this is a case where the President of the Court of Appeal sat on appeal over his case. The established principle of natural justice is that nobody should preside and ultimately give judgment in his own cause.

“It does not matter whether miscarriage of justice is occasioned or not, once this principle is violated, the entire proceeding conducted under the watch and participation of an interested party stands vitiated.

“Those in charge of affairs of in the Judiciary must position it as a mirror to other arms of government. A situation where its affairs are conducted with reckless abandon does not portray the institution as a citadel of justice,” Justice Galinje said.

Justices Musa Dattijo Muhammad, Amina Adamu Augie and Sidi Dauda Bage, who were also on the panel, agreed with the lead judgment.