BETWEEN THE NJC, THE SANCTITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND PUBLIC OPINION.

The court of public opinion comprising civil society organizations, eminent lawyers and several other personalities have come out to ask the judges facing investigation to proceed on a compulsory leave.
The most recent judges of the public opinion court, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), has added its voice to that call. It specifically asked the National Judicial Council (NJC) to direct those judges to proceed on compulsory leave “in order to protect the sanctity and integrity of judicial processes that may involve the judges concerned and safeguard the public image of the institution.” The NJC reacted to that call, stating that it cannot ask those judges to go on suspension without first probing them based on a petition to that effect. I consider the NJC's response apt.
Inasmuch as it may seem that the sanctity of the judiciary will be affected if the indicted judges remain in office, the NJC is constrained to permit them to continue. This is because the NJC, just like a court, does not assume jurisdiction on its own. It requires persons to petition it before it exercises punitive jurisdiction against judges (such as compulsory leave). Thus, merely going to the media and calling for compulsory leave is not enough. It may be argued that the DSS had petitioned the NJC already on these judges. Well, those who were truly petitioned for misconduct were duly investigated, according to the NJC. Others are still being investigated (read Here In that case, if they (the judges in question) were not recommended for suspension or compulsory leave, it will require a fresh petition and subsequent investigation for the NJC to recommend such. It must be added that a mere petition does not guarantee that the judges in question will be suspended or forced to go on leave. Such a petition must be substantiated with evidence to leave the NJC with no other option than to suspend them. At least, such petitioners can say they are on course in calling for the suspension of the judges, unlike when there is no petition.
Thus, rather than the NBA and other "judges" of the court of public opinion recommending the suspension of those judges in the media, they should first petition them to the NJC. In the alternative, they can ask the judges to voluntarily go on leave. However, such a leave may not be able to cover the duration of the matter in dispute (especially the impending court cases) because they can only be away for the time allowed for judges to go on their annual leave whereas a compulsory leave would last for the duration of the case.
The above discussion makes me ask the question- if these judges are charged to court without the NJC's input and are eventually convicted, will it amount to a termination of their judicial appointments? If yes, then does it not amount to usurping the joint power of the NJC and the President in sanctioning erring judges? Some have said that the NJC will do the "needful" before the judges are convicted. I ask them what if the NJC doesn't (as they have said)?
It is hoped however that those who want the judges suspended petition the NJC to make it possible.