Despite constitutional provisions for the separation of powers, executive interference in judicial matters persists across countries, often undermining democratic principles, eroding public trust, and raising significant concerns about the rule of law and due process, YETUNDE AYOBAMI OJO and NGOZI EGENUKA report.

Disciplining of judicial officers (from magistrates to the justices of the Supreme Court) in the country is explicitly governed by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Judicial Discipline Regulations. However, the National Judicial Council (NJC) stands as the sole disciplinary body for judges.
 
It is empowered to investigate complaints, ensure fair hearings, and recommend sanctions to the appropriate authorities, that is, the president or state governors.
 
Over time, legal scholars and civil society actors have drawn attention to the potentially dangerous precedent of allowing the executive to suspend the head of the judiciary at will. The NJC, not the president or National Assembly, stakeholders stressed, initiates, and manages disciplinary inquiries even against the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN). Ensuring this preserves the separation of powers and judicial dignity.

In America, recent sanctions of certain federal and state judges, particularly under the Global Magnitsky Act, demonstrate another form of judicial discipline and external sanctions based on allegations of corruption or human rights abuse.

While these actions are in favour of accountability, they also lack the due process afforded by judicial settings, since accused judges are not always tried in courts, nor subjected to independent disciplinary tribunals before sanctions are imposed.

However, sanctioning judges outside the judicial framework undermines judicial independence. Even if justified, these sanctions bypass domestic judicial accountability structures and set a dangerous precedent for political interference in an otherwise sovereign judicial process.

Tasked with interpreting the law and ensuring justice, the judiciary plays a sacred role in every nation, and its responsibility extends to holding individuals accountable for their actions regardless of status. To fulfil this role effectively, judicial independence is essential, particularly in nations practising the presidential system of government, where the risk of power overlap between the arms of government could undermine democratic governance.

However, the doctrine of separation of powers often exists more in theory than in practice. Across several countries, the judiciary has increasingly found itself entangled with the executive arm, facing interference that questions the integrity and independence of the courts.

A recent case that illustrates this troubling trend is the unprecedented suspension of Ghana’s Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, by President John Mahama. This development marks the first time a sitting chief justice has been suspended in the country’s history. Though the contents of the petitions against her remain undisclosed, and she has not spoken publicly about it, critics argue that the suspension may be a strategic attempt to undermine the judiciary.

The Ghana incident is not an isolated incident in the ECOWAS sub-region. In 2019, in Nigeria, then-president Muhammadu Buhari suspended Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen, replacing him with Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad. The move, which followed a tribunal order concerning asset declarations, triggered international condemnation.

The United Nations described the suspension as a breach of international human rights standards concerning judicial independence and the separation of powers.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Diego Garcia-Sayan, emphasised that “International human rights standards provide that judges may be dismissed only on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence,” and that such decisions must be made by independent authorities, not by political figures. Dismissing judges without due process, he warned, is incompatible with the principle of judicial independence.

Unfortunately, similar developments have unfolded across several countries beyond ECOWAS.
In the Maldives, the parliament recently removed Supreme Court justices Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir over alleged abuse of power. In Comoros, President Azali Assoumani’s government abolished the Constitutional Court, replacing it with a politically aligned constitutional chamber under the Supreme Court—effectively capturing the judiciary. Tunisia also came under scrutiny for dismissing judges in a move widely seen as a tactic to consolidate executive power.

In The Gambia under former President Yahya Jammeh, the judiciary was largely subservient to the executive, and judges who made rulings against presidential interests often got dismissed. Similarly, reports from Turkey indicate that the government has repeatedly influenced the judiciary by removing judges and reconfiguring the court system to align with political agendas.
 
While the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Afam Osigwe (SAN) believes that transparent judicial appointments will restore public trust in Nigeria’s justice system, he, however, expressed concern over the NJC’s one-year suspension without pay of three judges for misconduct, calling it “too lenient,” and called for their permanent removal.

“Any judge who is not fit for elevation is not fit to remain on the bench,” he said, warning that leniency risks making the judiciary a “haven for impunity.”

He called for constitutional amendments to limit the CJN’s NJC appointments and expand the NBA nominees’ roles. Osigwe also suggested appointing non-judges, like retired justices or former NBA presidents, as NJC chairs for a single five-year term.

His words: “Judicial officers must be held accountable, but how that accountability is enforced defines the health of any justice system. Nigeria’s NJC-led disciplinary process, though imperfect, is a better model than the politically influenced suspensions seen in Ghana or the executive-led sanctions in the U.S.

“Discipline must never serve as a weapon of intimidation or retribution. The judiciary, like any other institution, must be corrected when it errs, but always within a framework that respects its independence, preserves due process, and protects the rule of law.”
 
Evans Ufeli, a constitutional lawyer, noted that the suspension of a country’s chief justice by a sitting president raises serious concerns about the independence of the judiciary, which is a cornerstone of democratic governance. He also asserted that the judiciary must operate independently from the executive and legislative branches to ensure fair and impartial justice.
  
Ufeli explained that when a head of state suspends or removes a chief justice, it creates a perception of partisan influence, undermining public confidence in the legal system.

“Such actions may lead to a chilling effect on judicial decision-making, as judges might face pressure to align with political interests. An independent judiciary is crucial for upholding the rule of law, protecting human rights, and maintaining checks and balances within the government,” he said.

According to him, if a chief justice or any member of the judiciary errs, the best approach for sanctioning should be grounded in established legal and institutional processes, rather than political intervention.

Another way to discipline, he said, could be by the implementation of a structured disciplinary process, consistent with the legal framework that allows investigations and hearings regarding judicial conduct to ensure fairness and transparency, as well as engaging in a peer review system where judgments and behavioural practices can be evaluated by fellow judges will also foster accountability within the judiciary.

Ufeli added that accountability must be balanced with the protection of judicial independence to ensure that judges can perform their duties without undue influence or intimidation.

Human rights lawyer, Deji Ajare, believes that when judicial leadership faces sudden suspension without clarity or public justification, it risks not only the reputation of the individual judge but the broader integrity of the institution.

He explained that Ghana’s Constitution wisely outlines a detailed framework for the removal of superior court judges, including the chief justice, under Article 146.

“Any rush to suspend or remove a chief justice without strictly following the steps outlined in Article 146 threatens judicial balance and undermines the rule of law. Independent oversight is only as strong as adherence to due process. When a chief justice errs, the remedy lies in robust, impartial proceedings, not abrupt removal or political pressure,” he said. 

“The independence of the judiciary is non-negotiable as it cements checks and balances in any democracy. While the president does have constitutional powers to suspend pending investigations, it must be executed lawfully, transparently, and in full compliance with the law,” Ajare stated.

Also reacting to unconstitutional sanctions against erring judicial officers, a human rights lawyer, Mr Kabir Akingbolu, who said that the judiciary is still the most effective of the three arms of government noted: “Despite all sorts of condemnations, criticisms, and disapproval of some of the actions of judicial officers, they still stand tall among the three arms of government. However, this kind of suspension is welcome development, although it’s not enough; they should do more.

“There are bad eggs everywhere – within the judiciary, in the medical profession, accounting, and the rest of them. So, the bad eggs in the judiciary are supposed to be flushed out, even though I sometimes do not agree with this suspension thing, but the truth is, when you talk, they mark you out and vent their anger on you when you appear before them. Yes, sometimes it happens. There is a lot of unethical conduct being perpetrated by judges. How do you conclude a case before a judge, then the judge adjourns for judgment, and for a year or two, judgment will not be given, and there is no reason for that,” he asked.

Akingbolu described such behaviours as illegal and emphasised that judges involved in such cases deserve outright dismissal. “But nobody wants to report any judge because you don’t want to be the architect of anybody’s downfall. However, these judges do it every time. They have even forgotten the oath of the office that they took. Some of them behave as if they are Almighty God when they are there,” he said.

Ige Asemudara, a lawyer, said that since it is appropriate for an erring judge to face disciplinary measures from the NJC, the system and processes should never be abused.

“There are mechanisms built into the system of administration of justice that call unethical practices by judges to question. If anyone is found culpable, he or she must be disciplined.

It is the same for legal practitioners because whenever any practitioner breaches the Rules of Professional Conduct, the LPDC will wield the big stick.

“It is all in a bid to sanitise the system and build public confidence. We cannot afford to lose the justice system. Our judicial leaders are working hard to ensure that no misconduct is tolerated. So, many of our judges are working hard, and the NJC will not allow unethical behaviours by a few judges to mar the work of many good ones,” he said.