From Eric Ikhilae, Abuja
A suit seeking to sack Deputy Senate President Ovie Omo-Agege on allegation that he concealed information about his earlier conviction in the United States (U.S.) has been dismissed by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Bwari, Abuja.
In a judgment on Wednesday, Justice Othman Musa, held that the suit was a mere waste of the court’s time as the claimant – the Incorporated Trustees of Patriotic Youth Organisation of Nigeria (PYON) – failed to provide evidence to establish their claim that Omo-Agege was ever convicted by any court of law or was he under any sentence.
The group had prayed the court, to declare among others that Omo-Agege was not qualified to stand for election in 2019 on the grounds that he allegedly gave false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the Form CF001, relating to whether he has been under a sentence of imprisonment or conviction for offence involving dishonesty and/or fraud.
The claimant had argued that Omo-Agege was not qualified to stand election by allegedly failing to disclose that he was under a sentence of imprisonment or conviction for criminal offence of felony involving moral turpitude by violating Section 470 of the California Penal Code under the authority of Subsection (a) Rule 951, of the California Rules of Court in the United States of America in Case No: 94: C:14401.
Read Also: ‘Omo-Agege has not unfolded governorship ambition’
In his ruling, Justice Musa upheld the submission made by Omo-Agage’s lawyer, Alex Izinyon (SAN), and noted from a judgment of the California Superior Court, delivered on March 12, 1996, exhibited by Omo-Agege, that the charge was dismissed.
The judge held that, the California court, “by dismissing the charge against the 1st defendant (Omo-Agege), does not mean conviction. The 1st defendant has not been found guilty and has not been convicted.”
Justice Musa said the report of judicial commission of enquiry given against the 1st defendant, which was also tendered in court, could not be equated with an order of a court of law.
The judge, who held that it was only a court of competent jurisdiction that has the power to try and convict an offender, said it is the law that a report of judicial commission of enquiry could only enable a court of law to ascertain the culpability or otherwise of a public officer where a case of professional misconduct is alleged.
Justice Musa held that the allegations raised by the claimant were criminal in nature that required proof beyond reasonable doubt, a legal burden, which he said the claimant failed to discharge.
He said: “A community reading of Section 66(1) and (2) of the Construction states that such conviction must be by a court in Nigeria.”
The judge noted that the not guilty that was entered by a superior court in California in the Omo-Agege case cannot amount to conviction.
He said: “The 1st defendant has not been found guilty and is not under any conviction by any court in California. The professional disciplinary procedure cannot be elevated to criminal conviction.
“There was no reason why the 1st defendant should have answered in the affirmative to the questions contained in the INEC From CF001.
“The effect is that the 1st defendant has nothing to declare, because he was not under any conviction known to law in Nigeria as envisaged under Section 66 of the Constitution.”
Justice Musa, who ordered the claimant to pay Omo-Agege N1million damages, said the conviction recognised by the constitution, and which could prevent one from holding public office in the country for 10 years, is the conviction and sentencing entered by a Nigerian court, not a court of foreign jurisdiction.
Justice Musa noted that, even if Omo-Agege was convicted in 1996 as claimed by claimant, the 10 years within which he could not hold public office would have ended in 2006.
“I must reiterate that the disciplinary proceeding initiate against the 1st defendant was set into motion by the criminal charge, which was eventually dismissed and the 1st defendant, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, discharged and acquitted by the Superior court of California, County of Los Angeles. This ought to have brought that non-criminal procedure to an end.
“As held in several authorities in Nigeria, such indictment against the 1st defendant by the State Bar of California in the State Bar Court has no force of law in Nigeria and not within the contemplation of Section 66 of the 1999 Constitution.
“From all I have shown, no matter which scenario one looks at the case of the claimant, it suffers from lack of conviction and indictment known to law, the effect is that the 1st defendant has nothing to declare in form CF001. There was not any indictment, conviction or sentence known to law Nigeria or California, USA.
“Again, it is my view that the 1st defendant is not under any obligation under Section 66(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to furnish INEC any information assuming we take the allegations here as true. As any obligation to declare would be from 312/1996 to 03/12/2006.
“In the light of my findings above, questions 1 to 4 on the originating summons and reliefs a, b, c, d, f, g crumble and collapse to smithereens, as they are bereft of any substance and they are hereby dismissed since this court has held that the 1st defendant was not under any conviction known in law and/or indicted by any competent court or authority, as such he could not have supplied false information after 2006, in fact and in law.
“He not capable in law to perjure, as such, reliefs (e) and (h) is hereby dismissed.
“I must say straight away that the plaintiff/claimant ought not to have wasted the precious time of this court, insisting to proceed with this suit the moment the preliminary objection and the counter affidavit of the 1st defendant were filed and served on him.
“This action carries in it; a New Year hamper titled with defamation, reckless and uninvestigated allegation of conviction against a defendant holding a sacred and highly placed office, which serves the nation home and abroad.”
Leave a Reply