LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PROFESSIONAL ETHICS – Bias – Distinguished Between Official Act and Personal Act of Public Officer
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There is a serious misconception on this part of learned counsel's submission namely that he is unable to separate Chief Bola Ige as husband and father from his office as Governor. When Chief Bola Ige assented to Exhibit C1 he was performing a constitutional duty. If Chief Bola Ige had been sued in his personal capacity over a private matter and the matter were to come before Tinuke Ige, J., prudence demands that she should disqualify herself from adjudicating on the case. But a government is an abstract personality, it lives in perpetuity with or without a particular Governor, and the act which was challenged before Tinuke Ige J was not the act of Chief Bola Ige but that of Oyo State Government.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kolawole, JCA (as adopted by Wali, JSC), in Secretary, Iwo Central Local Government v. Adio (2000) NLC-1431994(SC) at pp. 20–21; Paras E–A.
"There is a serious misconception on this part of learned counsel's submission namely that he is unable to separate Chief Bola Ige as husband and father from his office as Governor. When Chief Bola Ige assented to Exhibit C1 he was performing a constitutional duty. If Chief Bola Ige had been sued in his personal capacity over a private matter and the matter were to come before Tinuke Ige, J., prudence demands that she should disqualify herself from adjudicating on the case. But a government is an abstract personality, it lives in perpetuity with or without a particular Governor, and the act which was challenged before Tinuke Ige J was not the act of Chief Bola Ige but that of Oyo State Government."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A critical distinction exists between a public officer’s official acts (constitutional duties) and personal acts. The Governor assenting to legislation performs an official, not personal, act. The government is an abstract perpetual entity, not synonymous with the current officeholder. If the Governor were sued personally, a spouse-judge should disqualify. But challenging government action (even one taken by a particular Governor) does not implicate personal interest. The judge’s marital relationship to the Governor does not create bias where the challenge is to official state action. The distinction preserves judicial functionality while protecting against actual bias.