By Gloria Ikibah

The House of Representatives has progressed a bill aimed at amending the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, ensuring that judicial officers cannot be prosecuted before being lawfully removed from office. The bill passed its second reading during Thursday’s plenary session.

The bill which was originally introduced on April 30, 2024, sponsored by Rep. Solomon Bob (PDP-Rivers), seeks to amend sections 20 and 24 of the existing Act.

According to Rep. Bob, these amendments will safeguard judicial officers from arbitrary legal actions and premature removal.

A key provision in the bill stipulates that no judicial officer shall face prosecution before the tribunal unless they have been officially removed under Section 292 (1) of the Constitution.

Explaining the bill’s objectives, Rep. Bob emphasised the need to reinforce judicial independence by ensuring that disciplinary measures follow due process. He highlighted proposed modifications to Section 20, stating that the Code of Conduct Tribunal should be recognized as a superior court of record with exclusive jurisdiction over offences under the Act.

Additionally, amendments to Section 24 introduce new subsections (5 and 6) to further strengthen judicial protections.

He said: “Nothing in this Act shall permit the commencement of any action against a Judicial Officer before the Tribunal unless such Judicial Officer has been validly removed from office under section 292 (1) of the Constitution.

“Any action seeking to prosecute any Judicial Officer in contravention of sub-section (5) of this section shall not be entertained by the Tribunal.

“It is axiomatic that in a presidential system the three arms of government are separate and independent of one another; each with its powers constitutionally determined. Under our constitution, their powers are created by sections 4, 5, & 6 for the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary respectively.

“The constitution evinces that each arm of government will discharge its responsibilities without interference from the other arms.

He explained further that: “The Code of Conduct Tribunal which is the crux of this bill is a body with statutory judicial powers to try and sanction public office holders found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct Bureau Act. The powers of the Tribunal are pursuant to section 24 of the Principal Act – The Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

“The constitution has made very clear provisions for removal of elected officials including judicial officers. The obvious intention is to obviate the threat of arbitrary removal from office, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of the office and affording the office holders the necessary leeway to discharge the functions of their office without fear of being victimized.

“For Judicial officers, the procedure or process for their removal from office is as enunciated in section 292 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Section 292(1) requires that the removal of a Head of Court by the President or the Governor, as the case may be, must be upon an address by the relevant Legislative House. And in any other case (i.e. Judicial officers other than Heads of Court) by the President or Governor, as the case may be, acting on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council. It is pertinent to note that in both cases, the bases of such removal are incapacity (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body), misconduct or contravention of the code of conduct.

“For ease of reference, section 292(1) of the Constitution is reproduced hereunder: “A judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement except in the following circumstances.

“Mr. Speaker, Honourable Colleagues, this proposed amendment aims at securing the sanctity of the office of judicial officers, their tenure, freedom from arbitrary interference and harassment, and to ensure that no judicial officer is put on trial except after having been lawfully removed from office in strict compliance with section 292 of the Constitution.

“This Bill will enhance the rule of law and invariably deepen our democracy. I, therefore, with utmost respect, urge it upon you my very dear colleagues”.

Lawmakers engaged in a heated debate over the bill, while some argued for maximum protection, others questioned why immunity is granted to the executive but not the judiciary.

Rep. Peter Ifeanyi supported stronger safeguards for judicial officers but cautioned against granting blanket protection to those who might abuse their positions. He clarified that the term “immunity” was causing confusion and suggested a more precise definition.

Rep. Kalejaye Paul, however, expressed concerns that the bill contradicts constitutional provisions. He argued that rebranding “immunity” as “protection” does not change the bill’s underlying intent. Stressing the Code of Conduct Tribunal’s role in holding public officials accountable, he warned that altering constitutional processes could create loopholes for other sectors to seek similar privileges.

Rep. Sada Soli pointed out that Section 292 of the Constitution already provides safeguards for judicial officers in the performance of their duties. He criticized the trial of a former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) at the Code of Conduct Tribunal without first passing through the National Judicial Council (NJC), calling it a breach of due process. According to him, the bill simply aims to establish a proper legal framework for handling disciplinary actions against judicial officers.

Presiding over the session, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu noted that Rep. Soli’s explanation had clarified the bill’s intent, allowing members to make informed decisions. The bill was subsequently put to a vote, approved for second reading, and referred to the House Committees on Anti-Corruption and Justice for further consideration.