Stakeholders in the legal profession have dismissed the claims in some quarters that Hon. Justice Daniel Okugbowa was among other judges across the country, cautioned over abuse of his judicial discretion.
Reacting to the narrative in a section of the media, a legal practitioner, Barr. U. L. Osa-Uwagie, in an interview with newsmen in Benin, said the judicial discretion as claimed in the narrative was a misnormer and misleading in Suit No. B1/555/2020, between Hon Mike Igini V. Col. David Imuse Rtd & Ors (pending before Justice V. O. Eboreime)” .
The legal luminary explained that there was no issue of use of judicial discretion and insisted that the Honorable Chief Judge of Edo State, Justice Okugbowa, only exercised his administrative power in the matter, which is within the law.
He said the Chief Judge of a State in Nigeria holds a pivotal role within the state’s judiciary, serving as both the head of the High Court with both judicial and administrative powers and functions in the state’s judicial arm.
Osa-Uwagie said the Chiefs Judge’s responsibilities include both administrative and judicial functions.
He added that the Chief Judge directing that Suit No B1/555/2020, between Hon Mike Igini V. Col. David Imuse Rtd & Ors (pending before Justice V. O. Eboreime)” starts de novo will clearly show that the judiciary or judge had no interest in the matter.
Osa-Uwagie emphasised that the Chief Judge oversees the day-to-day operations of the courts, which includes the assignment of cases to various courts for hearing and determination, posting or placement of judges to man the various judicial divisions within the State.
He added that when carrying out his functions in this regard, the Edo CJ exercises his administrative powers.
“My view is that the posting of a judge is not a judicial function or discretion but an administrative one.
It can not also be said that the determination of an administrative complaint of a lawyer or a litigant, i.e., Mike Igini is a judicial function as he did not and is not the judge presiding or sitting over the said case.
“His action in the said case was purely administrative and not judicial.In my humble view I believe and think that what weighed on the mind of the Chief Judge in exercising his administrative discretion in the way and manner he did was the impression one of the party was having, that the presiding judge had an interest in the matter in that the judge continued to sit over the matter in Benin City after the judge had been posted to Okada Division.
“The judge had earlier delivered a ruling reopening the Claimant’s case shortly before the judge was posted. In other words, the matter was at the stage of the Claimant’s case. There was an extant Practice Direction that all matters that had not reached defense and / or where the Claimant is still leading evidence should commence de novo as in this case in question.
“In my view, I think the Chief Judge was persuaded that starting the matter de novo will clearly show that the judiciary or judge had no interest in the matter preserving the integrity of the Judiciary which the Chief Judge had a responsibility to use his office to preserve.” Osa-Uwagie said.
Recall that the Claimant Barrister Mike Igini, a former INEC Commissioner, had petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Kudirat M. O. Kekere-Eku urging the NJC to intervene over allegations of Justice frustration in his petition titled “Denial of justice and frustration of my case after four-year trial by the Honourable Chief Judge of Edo State, in suit no B1/555/2020 — Hon Mike Igini V. Col. David Imuse Rtd & Ors (formerly pending before Justice V. O. Eboreime)”.
