Supreme Court won’t review Onnoghen’s removal

From Eric Ikhilae, Abuja

The Supreme Court yesterday rejected a request to review the circumstances in which former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen was removed from office.

It declined to pronounce on the propriety or otherwise of his removal, following an ex parte order issued by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

A panel, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, struck out an application filed on Onnoghen’s behalf by Dr N. S. Nwawka.

The lawyer applied for the determination of some constitutional questions on Onnoghen’s removal and the roles CJN Ibrahim Muhammad, Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami, the National Judicial Council (NJC), among others, played in the matter.

Nwawka prayed the court to determine if the Federal Government, the NJC and the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HOS) ought not to dismiss and prosecute Malami, Muhammad and two members of the CCT “for the treasonable action of unconstitutional overthrow of Onnoghen from the office of the CJN contrary to sections 1(2) and 292(1) of the Constitution”.

The members of the CCT listed in the motion are: Danladi Umar and Julie Anabor, who the applicant claimed granted an unlawful ex parte order on which Onnoghen was removed.

Read Also: Senate seeks probe of CCB contractor over N1.5bn abandoned project

Nwawka also prayed the court to determine if the first to sixth respondents’ alleged involvement in Onnoghen’s removal “by means of an ex parte order of the CCT does not amount to treasonable conduct, having regard to the clear provisions of sections 1(2) and 292(1) of the Constitution”.

The Federal Government, Malami, Muhammad, Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) Chairman Muhammed Isah, Umar and Anabor are the respondents.

Nwawka said he sought the Supreme Court’s determinations of the constitutional questions due to the refusal of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal to hear similar applications he filed before them.

Neither Nwawka nor his lawyer was in court when the case was called yesterday.

The respondents were also not represented in court, following which Justice Rhodes-Vivour ruled that the motion be struck out for want of diligent prosecution.