Written by Dr. Ekong Sampson, Senator-elect, Akwa Ibom South, while giving a Keynote Address at the 15th Punuka Annual Lecture/Symposium in honour of the centenary of the former Supreme Court Justice, Chike Idigbe, OFR, CON, held on Thursday, 4th May, 2023 at the Abuja Continental Hotel
"I consider it a matter of great privilege to have been invited to present a keynote address at this important symposium in honour of the former Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Felix Chukwunweike Alexander Idigbe. You might have noticed that I have not prefixed Justice Idigbe’s name with “Late”. This is because, to me, great thinkers – and Idigbe belongs to this eminent tribe – live on through their works. I agree totally with a very relevant limp of the eloquent tribute given by the Hon. Justice Atanda Fatai-Williams, then Chief Justice of Nigeria, during the special sitting of the Supreme Court on September 5, 1983 in honour of Hon. Justice Idigbe:
_Long after the dust has settled on his law books, and the wig and gown have faded, and the voice of the judge has been stilled, and the causes which he championed in the law courts are a distant memory, the judgments which he wrote during his years on the Bench would have been permanently enshrined in our Law Reports. It is by those, perhaps most of all, that the name of Justice ldigbe will be lovingly and respectfully remembered._
Let me at this point thank the Hon. Justice Idigbe family and Punuka Foundation for working very hard, over the years, to immortalize this outstanding Jurist. I enjoyed the warmth and co-operation of the Idigbe family extensively when I was gathering material for my book, _The Path of Justice Chike Idigbe (Distinct Universal, 1999),_ which followed my earlier work on Sir Udo Udoma _(Law and Statesmanship: The Legacy of Sir Udo Udoma, Patrioni Books, 1996)._ Initially, I had outlined the content to form a joint work on the two eminent jurists, in one book. The split was influenced by the volume of material that kept emerging about the two jurists. My research has shown how the minds of the two - and those of other great judges at the time - worked when they sat together. Let me give an example in *Nafiu Rabiu vs The State (1980 NSCC 291)* on constitutional construction. In that important case, Idigbe JSC had declared:
_It is the duty of this court which has the ultimate responsibility of declaring and interpreting provisions of the Constitution always to bear in mind that the Constitution itself is a mechanism under which laws are to be made by the Legislature and not merely an Act which declares what the law is. Accordingly, where the question is whether the Constitution has used an expression in the wider or in the narrower sense the court should always lean where the justice of the case so demands to the broader interpretation unless there is something in the context or in the rest of the Constitution to indicate that the narrower interpretation will best carry out its object and purpose._
Sir Udo Udoma offered his own deep perspective in the decision of the Supreme Court this way:
_…where the question is whether the Constitution has used an expression in the wider or in the narrower sense, in my view, this court should whenever possible, and in response to the demands of justice, lean to the broader interpretation, unless there is something in the text or in the rest of the Constitution to indicate that the narrower interpretation will best carry out the objects and purposes of the Constitution._
Hon. Justice Idigbe was born in Kaduna on August 12, 1923 to Alexander and Christie Idigbe. There is a lot to suggest that he was a Special One. He was the only surviving child of his mother, out of her eight children. That meant that his parents looked at him with considerable anxiety and treated him like an egg. The boy was some prodigy – highly inquisitive, adventurous and skilful in craft. Without any formal training, Chike could dismantle wrist watches, radios and bicycles and re-fix them satisfactorily. Even as a boy, he was exceptionally gifted on the piano and could conjure notes to the astonishment and delight of the elders and his friends.
At the age of 6, he was enrolled at St. Mary’s Catholic Mission Primary School, Port Harcourt before being admitted into the famous Christ the King College, Onitsha in 1937. Amongst his classmates at Christ the King College were some Nigerians who, like him, later became men of great accomplishments. They included Pius Okigbo, the widely acclaimed economist, Gabriel Onyuike, SAN, Queen’s Counsel and Attorney-General of the Federation during the Ironsi regime and Chukwudifu Oputa, who later also served on the Supreme Court Bench.
In 1943, Chike Idigbe passed the Cambridge examination in Division I and obtained an exemption from the London Matriculation Examination. Initially, he wanted to study Engineering but one morning he suddenly announced to his parents that he would study law instead. He told his shocked parents the only reason for his sudden change of mind was that he saw himself in a dream as a well-robed lawyer in a full court room and that he had won a sensational case. For a son who was well petted at home, that was no problem. Chike went on to read Law at Kings College, University of Cambridge where he won the coveted Foster-Campbell Prize in Criminal Law in 1945. In 1946, he graduated with LL.B (Second Class Division). He was called to the Utter Bar of the Middle Temple at the age of 23. In March 1947, he returned to Nigeria and was enrolled in the Nigerian Bar as a Solicitor and Advocate.
There were clear signs of the emerging hero. Chike was the first lawyer from what was then Asaba Division. He began his legal practice in Warri with a brief engagement in the law firm of Nelson Williams, a Sierra Leonean.
Later in 1947, he set up his own practice with the name Punuka Chambers and married Ofunneamaka in November, two years later. In Igbo, Punuka is translated loosely as "come out of trouble". Little wonder then, that his practice was a rescue campaign. His reputation soared with every sensational case he won. His legal services were in high demand. In his years in legal practice, Chike Idigbe represented the highest traditions of the Bar.
The gold fish, as it is said, has no hiding place. In 1961, Idigbe was appointed a Judge of the then High Court of Eastern Nigeria. In 1964, at the age of 41, he was elevated to the Supreme Court Bench.He also served as Chief Justice of the then Mid-Western Region. The Nigerian Civil War however interrupted his career on the Bench. Caught on the Biafran side of the conflict, he sat with other jurists in the Biafran Court of Appeal. Readers of the judgments that came from that Court would notice that Idigbe retained his usual brilliance and calmness of mind, even in the tension and uncertainty of the period. However, in 1975, he was reappointed to the Supreme Court of Nigeria to contribute to what is easily identified as a watershed era in the history of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
The essential Justice Idigbe lies in the profundity of his thoughts and in his sense of decorum. He was a pathfinder who deployed profound brilliance and boldness to chart frontiers in law. Quite often, he made it clear that he stood for justice and the evolution of a better society. If I may quote again from the tributes of Hon. Justice Atanda Fatai-Williams, CJN –
_Justice Idigbe was the very embodiment of the law whether it was the common law, customary law, statute law, or the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He seemed to have it in his very bones. Yet, although he had all this legal knowledge, he also had a firm grip of principles and of the rules of practice and procedure applicable in all the courts in the Federation… He was so well versed in his knowledge of the law that he would reach the right result almost by instinct._
It would be in the same vein that the great Chief Rotimi Williams, SAN, spoke of Justice Idigbe’s “unrivalled capacity to get quickly to the heart of the matter or matters in debate”. I was not taken aback when Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria told me in Oguta that “if you convinced Idigbe, you convinced the Supreme Court”. That was a weighty compliment which showed the influence and respect Justice Idigbe earned on the Bench. As a result, Nigerian law and jurisprudence benefited from his rich mind.
As I observed in _The Path of Justice Idigbe,_ his return to the Supreme Court in 1975 became a major catalyst of what could be described as a most progressive epoch in the history of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. His judgments showed his preparedness to move the law and society forward. He was never deterred by lack of, or scant, precedent. Even where there was precedent, Justice Idigbe would carefully scrutinize it, as if with binoculars. In his search for justice, he, like the famous Lord Denning, would not be unduly manacled by precedent or technicalities. For instance, the principal question that arose for determination in *Ogbunyiya & Ors v. Okudo & Ors (1979) NSCC 77* was devoid of any direct judicial decision, authority or comment. Yet, Justice Idigbe deftly led the Supreme Court to fill the gap.
At the Supreme Court, Idigbe JSC, wrote some of the most difficult, yet unassailable decisions, as he resolutely trod the path of substantial justice. In *Maclean v. Inlaks (1980) NSCC 232,* he led the full panel of the Supreme Court to overrule its line of authorities which appeared, at the time, untouchable. In *Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) NSCC 20;* and *Balogun v. National Bank (1978) NSCC 142,* where Idigbe, JSC made clear departures from ostensibly sacrosanct premises of the common law, further portrayed a mind that looked well beyond traditional legal confines; as much as *Usoro v. Shell Petroleum Development Co., (Suit No. C/5/1961);* *Atiti Gold v. Beatrice Osaseren (Suit No. SC.362/1967),* and *Mutual Aids Society v. Akerele (1965) LLJR – SC,* came from a consistent wealth of reasoning ability from his early days on the High Court and Supreme Court Bench.
The triumph of substantial justice over undue technicalities is an ideal that will strengthen public confidence in the judiciary. May I add that in realizing this objective, even our Supreme Court should not shy away from revisiting its earlier premises on which it erected a decision, if the circumstances call for that, in the interest of justice. Although the highly respected Kayode Eso JSC, had warned in *Adigun v. AG Oyo State (No. 2) (1987) 2 NWLR (pt 56) at 214 -215* that the Supreme Court is “a Super Court … and the Justices of that Court are …Super Men”, the dynamic nature of society and the very limitation of the human element could present a scenario for proper review and further evolution of law and jurisprudence. This would be in line with the view of *Lord Morris in Conway v. Rimmer (1968) 1 All E.R. 874 at 892 D.E* as follows:
_Though precedent is an indispensable foundation on which to decide what is the law there may be times when a departure from precedent is in the interest of justice and the proper development of the law._
In *Buhari v. INEC (2008) SC,* it was stated that:
_Departing from a decision of acourt or overruling a decision of a court is a very major judicial exercise, which if done often will ruin or jeopardize the stable rules of judicial precedent, and particularly the rules of stare decisis._
In *Disu v. AjilOwura (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 1000) 783,* it was also stated:
_This court will not depart or overrule its earlier decisions at the whims and caprices of a party, as such exercise is not automatic. The party must convince the court that it is necessary to do so and in the process furnish it with cogent reasons._
However, in the more recent case of *Pillars (Nig.) Ltd v. Desbordes (2021) 12 NWLR (pt. 17890 122 at 144,* the Supreme Court in departing from its earlier decision on the mandatory requirement for service of statutory notices in tenancy cases, held thus:
_ven where no statutory notices were served or those served are defective, once the Writ of Summons in the suit was served on the defendant, it served as adequate and sufficient notice._
In *Jev v. Iyortyom (2015) 15 NWLR (pt.1483) 484 at 503 (SC),* the Supreme Court set aside its decision in *Iyortyom v. Jev (2014) LPELR-23000 (SC);* and in *Guaranty Trust Bank v. Innoson (2022) (SC),* the Supreme Court also set aside its earlier decision dismissing the appeal.
It is instructive that despite his high standing on the Bench, Justice Idigbe took active interest in the development of his community. In appreciation of his contributions, his kinsmen conferred on Justice Idigbe, _Izoma of Asaba_ in 1977. Hon. Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, former Chief Justice of Nigeria, who was with Justice Idigbe in the Supreme Court, said that Justice Idigbe “was committed to humanity and loved tradition. He effectively combined his rigorous schedule of the Supreme Court with an unwavering commitment to the needs of his people of Asaba.”
When he was in legal practice, he handled many cases pro bono, and sponsored many students from his purse. Many still speak highly of his humility and humaneness. The Judge, usually amiable but stern, alas, betrayed discernible compassion in *The State v. Musa (1967) 168 MSNLR 44.* The facts of the case were however touching. The deceased, married to an American lady, went out one evening in a Peugeot car belonging to the wife. He returned home at about 1.45am the next day and met her waiting displeased that he stayed out for so long. They exchanged unpleasant words. Later that morning, the wife took the key of the car and made to drive it away from a premises opposite their home, where the car was parked. Her husband followed her and arrived at the premises just as she was entering the car. However, she quickly got into the car and shut the door. As she tried to reverse the car unto the highway, her husband threw across the path of the car a molded block in an effort to halt the movement of the car. The car still went over the block after smashing it into pieces and kept moving. As the car slowly surged forward, her husband who was waiting on the side of the street, mounted the bonnet of the car probably in yet another effort to prevent his wife from driving away. She drove on and after a distance of about 100 yards, he fell from the bonnet of the car onto the road. He died shortly after that from injuries he sustained in the head and other parts of the body.
Claudette Barrington Musa was charged with the manslaughter of her husband and reckless driving. The case drew emotions. Before idigbe, CJ, the question arose whether the action of the accused that morning in continuing her journey even for a short distance, after the deceased mounted the bonnet of the car was tantamount to reckless driving. Justice Idigbe noted bitterly:
_It was foolish and reckless of the deceased to mount the bonnet of a moving vehicle whatever his motive may have been. If it was intended to prevent the accused from further driving the car that morning it was indeed a misguided and stupid action._
Nor did His Lordship spare the accused:
_…but accused herself told the court she knew it was a dangerous act on the part of anyone to mount the bonnet of a moving vehicle and for the driver of such vehicle to continue the journey in those circumstances. She, however, drove on, not making any attempt to bring the car to a halt…_
Idigbe CJ, concluded, after considering the evidence of witnesses, the injuries on the body of the deceased and their relation to what was in the opinion of the doctor the cause of the death, that the accused was guilty of the manslaughter of her husband. His Lordship also found the accused guilty of reckless driving but stayed sentence on that count.
There was pin-drop silence when time came for allocutus. D.E.Y. Aghaghowa, for the accused, rose slowly to his feet. His delivery was excellent. Mr. Aghaghowa spoke like a thoroughly inspired character from Shakespearean literature:
_This lady came to this country in pursuit of love; it has now struck a tragic note. I believe it will remain with the accused for life. The principal actor (accused) will be haunted by events which led to this prosecution. At the prime of her age no woman wishes to be called a widow. She has been through a nightmare throughout the tendency of this case. I ask court to be lenient._
Even the prosecution appeared touched and left the issue of sentence to the court. Chief Justice Idigbe was evidently touched by the facts of this case and he tempered justice with mercy as he ended his judgment. He showed that he was human after all. Justice Idigbe declared, with a touch of the consummate poet-umpire:
_This is indeed a very pathetic case. There was a domestic disagreement such as it is not unknown between husbands and wives; accused walked out on the deceased possibly in an effort to avoid an explosive situation. The deceased followed possibly intending to prevent the accused from going out that early hour of the morning; in doing this, deceased became rash in his action and courted death. Aggrieved about the situation, accused, heedless of the consequences of the action of the deceased, also pursued a dangerous course of action… After taking into consideration the facts of the case, I propose to be extremely lenient. Sentence: Accused is cautioned and discharged_
Justice Idigbe was a liberal-minded crusader who, in *Ukaegbu v. Attorney-General of Imo State (1983) NSCC 160* led a full panel of the Supreme Court to declare that a private individual or agency had the right to establish a university, a secondary or post-primary institution. His Lordship declared pointedly in a decision that, progressively, broadened access to education in Nigeria:
_Every member of this community has a right to adequate, unalloyed and balanced education; a right to receive healthy education; a right to freedom from unsavory and diabolical instructions and teachings._
It could therefore be said that Justice Idigbe, by that judgment, laid a strong foundation for the Nigerian government to liberalize university education in Nigeria. In the Shitta-Bey case, Idigbe JSC boldly rejected the application in Nigeria of the common law principle that the prerogative order of mandamus does not, generally, issue against the crown or its servants in their capacity as crown servants. He held that a public servant in the established pensionable cadre of the Federal Public Service has a legal status and _ex hypothesi,_ a right to remain in service until properly removed in accordance with the Civil Service Rules applicable to him.
In his landmark conclusion, Justice Idigbe held that the applicant had a legal right to be properly reinstated and that the respondent had the correlative duty to see that he was duly reinstated.
Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe was a good listener who could hear you out quietly for a long time even when he did not agree with all your arguments. His colleagues and others who knew him spoke well of his team spirit and high respect for humanity.
Justice Idigbe was brilliant, bold, hardworking and foresighted, yet humble and humane. Outside the legal profession, he chaired the committee whose work gave birth to the Land Use Act – even though the final document became a joint effort. His appointment to the panel came not long after he returned to the Supreme Court, and was seen as proof of his understanding of the complexities of land law in Nigeria. Readers of Idigbe, JSC’s judgments in *Udensi v. Mogbo (1976) NSCC 376;* and *Arase v. Arase (1981) NSCC 101*, amongst others will readily encounter his profound grasp of the intricacies of land law. He was conferred with two national honours -Officer of the Federal Republic (OFR); Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON).
The essential Justice Idigbe was largely a combination of the character convictions of his father, Alexander, and the amiability of his mother, Christie. There is no denying the strong presence of the Jurist’s background, personality and perception of social environment in his legal thoughts. The suffering humanity he saw during the civil war might also have sharpened the Izoma’s sensibilities to law and social cohesion. Although, he was never the Chief Justice of Nigeria, some in his time regarded him as “Chief Justice of Law in Nigeria.” I think music also charged his thoughts!
Nigeria is passing through a phase that challenges the resilience of our patriotism and the character of the Bench which was Justice Idigbe’s principal constituency. The Judiciary represents a much coveted institution to protect democracy and the rule of law in this country. Needless emphasizing that, a truly autonomous, independent Judiciary deserves support and encouragement to perform optimally and help strengthen our institutions. Certainly, Nigeria needs a courageous, integrity-drivenJudiciary.Despite the worrisome outlook in some cases, the Nigerian Judiciary is well positioned in terms of content.
There may well be other Idigbes in our midst waiting to happen. One way we can draw them out is by enriching the Bench with more presence from the accomplished Bar or even from the academia.That way, we can have more Elias, Nnamanis, Tobis, Udomas, Esos, Oputas and other icons who lit up the Nigerian Judiciary.
Before I conclude this modest contribution, let me appeal to the Nigerian law biographer and legal researcher to write more about the giants of the profession , whether at the Bar or on the Bench. An exploration into the backgrounds and influences that made them excel, or into the character and breadth of their jurisprudence, is eternally necessary, not just to eulogize a glorious past but to challenge the future. I made a major discovery when I spent sessions in Onitsha on Sir Louis Mbanefo. My effort led, in 2002, to the publication of the book, _Evergreen Memories of Sir Louis Mbanefo,_ seen as a useful insight into law and history.
In the case of Hon. Justice Chike Idigbe, in whose honour we are gathered here today, there are abundant lessons to be learnt from his massive imprint. Forty years after he slept, the Bar, the Bench and the larger strata of humanity continue to unite to say eloquently about him: ‘Here was a great man, much alive, indeed, in death’.
Thank you
