Read Time: 2 minutes

The Supreme Court disqualified Justice Wuni from sitting on a case for asking a party “to show cause why he should not be severely punished for contempt, if the matters are proven against him to the satisfaction of the court.”

How then can another judge remain on a case for alleging that a party’s affidavit (sworn statement) in support of a motion for recusal is filled with malicious lies and is engineered to court public support?

Judges can no doubt determine the legal sufficiency of affidavits in support of recusal motions.

This is a fancy way of saying that they must accept the facts as stated in the affidavit as true. Their task in such motions is limited to deciding whether those facts are sufficient to compel the judge to disqualify himself.

So there was nothing wrong in Justice Honyenuga hearing the motion for recusal.

However, they have no business determining the factual sufficiency of the affidavit in support of their recusal. That is, they cannot pass upon the truth or falsity of the sworn statements.

If they want to contest the facts of the affidavit they are free to do so by stepping down from the bench and mounting the witness box in another judge’s court.

Justice Honyenuga has disqualified himself by veering into the factual minefield and can no longer sit in judgment of his adversary.

He has, by his pronouncements, created an intolerable adversary atmosphere between him and the defendant which severely militates against the prospects of a fair and impartial trial.

Let justice be done though the heavens fall!

SALL is the cardinal sin of the 8th Parliament.

Da Yie!