NJC
The National Judicial Council has warned judges and other judicial workers from accepting gifts from other arms of government.
The is part of new measures to checking corruption and other unethical conduct among judicial officers and other court staff.
The development formed part of the provisions in a new National Judicial Policy, NJP, to be launched in Abuja today by the NJC.
It seeks to merge and improve on the existing NJC NJP and a similar policy by the National Judicial Institute, NJI.
The existing Code of Conduct for judicial officers provides that “a judge and members of his/her family shall neither ask for nor accept any gift, bequest, favour, or loan on account of anything done or omitted to be done by him in the discharge of his duties.
“But, the provision in the new policy particularly bars judges and other court staff from accepting gifts from other arms of government, and made compliance mandatory.”
Section 2(3)(2) of the new policy states: “The Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers and Code of Conduct for Court Employees, with the amendment discouraging acceptance of gifts from other arms of government, should be such as would be adequate. Compliance with their provisions shall be mandatory.”
Further on its relationship with other arms of government, it is prescribed that “the judiciary shall not resort to lobbying in ensuring that the legislature and the executive perform their constitutional responsibilities.
“All arms of government should respect the doctrine of Separation of Powers as enshrined in the Constitution.”
The policy also introduced measures to further keep complaints against judges and other court staff from the media and public domain. Provisions in this regard are contained in section 2(2)(4) to 2(2)(9).
It states further: “It shall be the policy of the judiciary on complaints of misconduct against judicial officers or employees of the judiciary shall not be leaked or published in the media.
“Where complaints on allegations against judicial officers and court employees are submitted for investigation, the complainant or complainants shall be made to give an undertaking not to do anything to prejudice investigation or actions that may be taken.
“The institutions of the judiciary concerned with investigation or/and implementation of decisions taken on such complaints shall be obliged to cease further action where such complaints are leaked or discussed in the media.
“Where such a leakage is occasioned after the submission of a complaint, then all investigations on the complaints shall be suspended, the leakage investigated and if such leakage is from the complainant or through other parties known to such a complainant, such a complaint should be discarded.
“Where such leakage is occasioned prior to the presentation of the complaint and the source of the leakage is found to be the complainant or through other parties known to and connected with the complainant, then such complaint shall not be accepted, upon submission, by the appropriate disciplinary body.
“On conclusion of investigation, the disciplinary bodies may allow public disclosure of their findings, subject to following the proper channels.”
