The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Bukola Saraki

AGF to Saraki, others: Offer your explanation to court

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) has responded to claim by the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and others that the charge of forgery against them amounted to an abuse of the principle of separation of powers

The AGF, who justified his decision to initiate criminal proceedings against Saraki and three others over the allegation that they were involved in the forgery of the Senate Order 2011, urged the defendants to take their argument before the court.

Malami, in a statement issued late Thursday by his media aide, Salihu Isah, said he was withing his constitutional powers to initiate criminal proceedings against anybody where any of the investigating agencies has established a prima facie case against such suspect.

The AGF, who faulted the arguments by Saraki and others named in the charge before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), urged them to go before the court and explain their roles in the forgery case rather than accusing him of violating the Legislative arm.

“It is not in doubt that each arm of government is constitutionally vested with distinct powers. Looking critically at the doctrine of the separation of powers, it is a practice that exist on a tripod viz, the executive, legislature and judiciary with clearly distinctive functions and responsibilities as captured under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“So, by virtue of this, we are committed to the rule of law and will thus keep to the tenets of the rule of law as enshrined in a constitutional democracy like ours.

“The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation is empowered under Section 174 (1) of the Constitution and vested with the power to undertake and initiate criminal proceedings in any court of law in Nigeria.

“By virtue of this power as the Chief Law Officer of the nation, he has simply initiated criminal proceedings for forgery against the affected principal officers in the Senate for altering the Senate Standing Rules in the Federal High Court.

“It is worthy to note here that the action of the Attorney General of the Federation can stand the test of any law since he did not act on a vacuum.

“He acted based on a recommendation by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) who having fully satisfied investigative procedure arising from the petition sent to the Nigerian Police by some aggrieved members of the Red Chambers of the National Assembly alleging that the affected officers altered the rules of the Senate for Dr. Bukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu to emerge leaders of the Eighth Senate of the National Assembly.

“Under the 1999 Constitution, only the Attorney General of the Federation has the powers to institute criminal proceedings.

“For the benefit of doubt, as stated above, there was a petition bordering on allegations of forgery against the defendants, the petition was investigated by the police and the police recommended the case for prosecution.

“At this point, the question is how initiation of criminal proceedings against Dr Bukola Saraki, Ike Ekweremadu, Salisu Maikasuwa and Bernard Efeturi violated the principle of separation of powers as contained in the Constitution? “The action of the Attorney General of the Federation cannot obviously be said to be a coup against the National Assembly as the Senate has claimed.

“By preferring the charge, the accused persons are entitled to fair hearing under the law while the prosecution is obligated to prove its case against them beyond reasonable doubts. “Therefore, the Attorney General of the Federation has not violated any known law in the land. Or is the Senate suggesting that its principal officers, members and staff of the National Assembly are above the law or enjoys same immunity as do the nation’s President and Governors?

“It is common knowledge over the years since the nation embraced democratic system of governance and backed by the current Constitution those elected officers of government who are exempted from legal encumbrances whether it is civil or criminal are known to all.

“It is pertinent to be reminded too, that forgery of the Senate Standing Rules cannot be described as the internal business of the National Assembly that is exclusively only in its purview. “The Attorney General of the Federation cannot therefore be faulted for his decision to initiate legal actions against the accused for alleged forgery after a thorough police investigation of the issue whether there was an amendment of the Senate Standing Rules in 2015 or not.

“The case of Adesanya vs Senate which has been seriously touted in its press statement does not support them and they should rather take their plea and defend the action accordingly.

“We assure Nigerians that the Attorney General of the Federation will continue to be committed to the rule of law at all times.

“On this particular forgery case, we believe he should rather be commended for his foresight and political will to carry out his constitutional role to the letter and not to be vilified under any guise.”

June 23, 2016
‘Saraki’s allegation of bias against CCT, a desperate move to frustrate trial’ – Prosecution

…Tribunal to rule July 13

The prosecution in the false asset declaration trial of Senate President, Bukola Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) said yesterday that a fresh application by Saraki, asking the tribunal Chairman to disqualify himself from the case on ground of alleged bias was a desperate move to frustrate his trial.

Lead prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) cautioned the tribunal against granting application on the ground that it was intended by Saraki and his legal team to “obtain from the backdoor, what they failed to achieved at the Supreme Court,” in reference to the February 5 judgment of the apex court which dismissed Saraki’s appeal against his trial.

“They know that this tribunal has only two members, and if the Chairman recuse himself from this trial, the tribunal will stop sitting. What they failed to achieve through their appeal, they now want it through the back door,” Jacobs further said.

Jacobs was reacting to the application by Saraki Saraki, alleging that a comment made by the tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar during the proceedings of June 7, in which he expressed his displeasure at the defence’ delay tactics and warned that the delay would not reduce the consequences that awaits the defendant at the end of trial.

Arguing the application earlier, a member of Saraki’s legal team, Paul Erokoro (SAN) argued that the implicit meaning of the tribunal Chairman’s comment was that the delay will not reduce the severity of his client’s punishment, which he said implied that Umar had concluded in his mind that Saraki would be convicted at the end of the trial.

Erokoro argued that by his statement, Umar has betrayed his inability guarantee fair hearing to Saraki in line with the provision of Section 36(1) of the Constitution.

The lawyer said: “Our chairman will no longer be able to comply with section 36(1) of the Constitution in this trial and that is the point we are making. The fundamental point is that once it is no longer possible for the chairman of the tribunal to be fair to both sides, he has to recuse himself.

“We are saying that once a judge, by word or action, can no longer hold the scale of justice, the judge should withdraw. The prosecution has not disputed the fact that the chairman made this statement. For the avoidance of doubt, the prosecution has implicitly admitted that the Chairman made that statement.”

Erokoro, who referred to the reports of the June 7 proceedings in seven newspapers, quoting the Umar as making the statement, also referred to affidavits of “four concerned Nigerians” who were at the June 7 proceedings, allegedly confirming that the chairman made the statement and reaching conclusion that he (Umar) could never be fair to Saraki, were filed as exhibits.

He identified the deponents to the affidavits as Abubakar Shehu Mahmud, Ogbonna Emanuel Azuke, Omokanye David Adetoyese and Nasir Suberu.

Erokoro said: “The prosecution has said in their counter-affidavit that the chairman assured the defence on June 7 that he would keep his mind open and do justice. No counter-affidavit has said that the tribunal chairman said so. If indeed the chairman said so, it is another reason to be afraid. Why did the chairman have cause to re-assure the defence?

“No reasonable person, who listened to the Chairman would not conclude that the chairman had made up his mind,” Erokoro siad.

Responding, Jacobs faulted the application, arguing that the applicant failed to attach certified record of proceedings, which he is complaining against. He noted that it was only intended by the defence to further stall proceedings or at best ensure further delay.

He noted that Saraki had in the past filed similar application, which the tribunal refused, and which now forms the subject of an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

Jacobs argued Saraki and his lawyers were interpreting the tribunal’s Chairman’s statement to suit their interest.

“The chairman said the consequences of trial, which is either conviction or acquittal. Sections 309 and 310 of the Adminiatration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) are clear on what the consequences of trial are. The consequences of trial is the end/conclusion, which can go either way.

“The Chairman did not use the words consequences of the ‘offence’ or ‘conviction,’ which would have implied that the Chairman had concluded that he will convict the defendant. The Chairman used the word ‘trial.’

“Your lordship is eminently qualified to continue with this trial. Their application is based on false premise and misunderstanding of that word. Every trial has its own consequence, which is conclusion. This is an attempt to further delay trial. Their conclusion is mere conjecture,” Jacobs siad.

Citing a Supreme Court decision, Jacobs described the four affidavits of concern by the four persons attached to the defendant’s motion as extraneous and deposed to by “rash persons”.

Jacobs argued that the affidavits were mere opinions of some individual,s who were seeking political patronage from the defendant, and were not the reasonable common man who had the full knowledge of the case as envisaged by law.

“The affidavits deposed to by the four persons were deposed to by supporters of the defendant. A motion must be supported by an affidavit. Extraneous affidavits such as these are unknown to law. The deponents are obviously supporters of the defendant. They have their interest to serve, and they went to the counsel for the defendant telling him they want to depose to an affidavit of concern.

“Those people are rash persons. Rash! Rash! Rash! The affidavits are opinion of those who do not have full knowledge of the case. They are people who will sit in the gallery seeking political patronage. They just hold on to one word and say the judge is bias. They are not the reasonable common man,” Jacobs said.

He argued that the statement made by the Chairman was justified based on the antecedence of the defence, who has spent 12 days cross-examining the first prosecution witness and was yet to conclude.

Jacobs further argued that even if the tribunal chairman made the statement, it did not imply a threat of conviction, as the “consequence” mentioned in the comment implied the two possible outcomes of a trial.

“What the tribunal Chairman said was an expression of his determination to see the trial to the end despite the delay tactics of the defence. He simply said the defendant will meet the consequence of the trial which could either be acquittal or conviction.

“”What the tribunal said is I must conclude this trial; there must be an end to this trial. I must conclude this trial. His lordship did not express the opinion that I must convict you. Your lordship will have to look at sections 309 and 310 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.

“This application is based on false premise. There is a clear intention to delay. The decision of the tribunal cannot be based on conjecture. It cannot be based on an unreasonable application of affidavits of concern that replaced trial in the statement of the chairman with offence,” Jacobs said and urged the tribunal to dismiss the application.

Tribunal Chairman, Umar adjourned to July 13 for ruling.

June 21, 2016
Again, Saraki seeks CCT Chairman’s disqualification from trial

For the umpteenth time, Senate President, Bukola Saraki, has challenged the procedure of his trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for alleged false assets declaration.

This time, Saraki has filed a fresh application seeking among others, an order asking the Chairman of the tribunal, Danladi Umar, to disqualify himself from further presiding over the trial.

Saraki, in the fresh application filed by his lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), accused Umar of making statements capable of prejudicing the outcome of the trial.

The Senate President cited the reported statement by Umar, where he deplored the delay tactics being employed by Saraki’s legal team and noted that the delay would not affect the consequences of the trial on the defendant if found guilty.

The application, already served on the prosecution may not be heard on Wednesday because the prosecution) was yet to respond the application as at Tuesday.

Since the trial commenced late last year, the Senate president has filed series of applications, challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal and the competence of the charge filed against him, among others.

This is the second time he would be asking Umar to disqualify himself from the trial.

The first one filed through one of his lawyers, Ajibola Oluyede, is currently a subject of appeal, having been rejected by the tribunal.

June 14, 2016
CCT frowns at delay by Saraki’s lawyers

The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has frowned at what it described as the delay tactics being employed by lawyers to Senate President, Bukola Saraki in his on-going trial for false asset declaration.

Saraki’s legal team consisting of about 100 lawyers, including about 10 Senior Advocates, has spent 11 days on the cross-examination the first defence witness, Michael Wetkas, and was yet to conclude.

The tribunal has also expressed discomfort over what it called incidents of misrepresentation of proceedings in the media.

Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, who spoke at the resumption of proceedings Tuesday, said the tribunal was equally bothered by the concern expressed by the prosecution that the defence was deliberately delaying proceedings.

At the commencement of proceedings, lead prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) complained that the defence was unduly delaying proceedings having spent 11 days cross-examining a single witness presented by the prosecution.

Umar said: “I am not happy at the delay tactics by the defence counsel. And I must say this thing out, that this delay tactics will not reduce the consequences the defendant will meet from this tribunal at the end of the trial if he is found guilty.”

Lead defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) however told the tribunal that the defence team was not comfortable the tribunal Chairman’s view on the allegation of delay made by Jacobs.

“From the defence side, we are not worried about the law and facts that will be placed before this tribunal by the prosecution. But we are worried about enemies, who may wish to use this tribunal to achieve their ulterior motive.

“As the tribunal Chairman, we love you, we respect you, but we are afraid of consequences, especially as just stated by this tribunal this morning. Our fears have been reinforced, but we pray against consequences that are against natural justice,” Agabi said.

On the issue of misrepresentation, Umar was particularly angered by some media reports to the effect that the tribunal had adjourned Saraki’s trial indefinitely.

“Journalists should be punished” for publishing falsehood, “it is a criminal offence. If I have my way I would bring back Decree 2 of the olden days to take care of the irresponsible journalists in this country”.

“How can they dare to publish that we have adjourned the trial of this defendant (Saraki) indefinitely? It is the highest point of irresponsible journalism. But I thank God for them that we are in a democratic era and that is why they are doing what they are doing now.

“They are embarking on sensational journalism to sell their newspapers at the expense of truth. That is not journalism, but a serious crime that can lead them to jail,” Umar said.

Agabi, who agreed with Umar on the need for the media to be accurate in their report of proceedings, said he admires journalists a lot, because of their contributions to the enthronement of democracy in the country.

He said what Nigeria needed now was peace and not Decree 2. He urged Nigerians should pray for peace rather than anything that can disturb the peace of the nation.

Another member of Saraki’s legal team, Paul Usoro (SAN) later cross-examined Wetkas.

Under cross-examination, Wetkas insisted that Saraki procured undeclared properties through bank loans of over N2.5billion.

When asked if he found any economic and financial infractions in the activities of Skyview properties limited (a company linked to Saraki), Wetkas said: “The only thing we found out during investigation is that, both Plots 2481 and 2481 Cadastral Zone, Maitama, Abuja were residential properties, and that loans were taken by Skyview from Guranty Trust Bank to develop the properties.

“The loan was in two tranches of N1.8billion and over N700million. When we interview the Managing Director of Skyview, he said the transactions were at the instance of the defendant, and that the property belongs to the defendant, that formed our basis of the ownership,” Wetkas said.

When asked if he ever confronted Saraki with their findings, Wetkas said he never did.

At this point, tribunal Chairman indicated his intention to adjourn proceedings on the ground that tribunal members had an engagement outside the tribunal premises.

Agabi and Usoro however sought a long adjournment. Agabi said he had written the tribunal about an appointment he has with his physicians.

Usoro also said he was engaging on a trip to Ghana.

The tribunal later adjourned to June 15 for continuation of trial.

June 7, 2016
Budget 2016 shows we can work together for people – Saraki

The Senate President, Bukola Saraki, said on Friday that the signing of the appropriation bill into law showed that the legislative and executive arms could come together to work for the electorate.

Saraki said this in his remark at the signing of the N6.06 trillion appropriation bill into law by President Muhammadu Buhari

“We have shown again that, despite the challenges, we can come together again and work as a government in the interest of the people that put us here.

“We should look at the good sides and more and we forge ahead.

“The most important part in the signing is the implementation, to ensure it is to the benefit of Nigerians who waited,’’ the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) quoted the Senate president as saying at the event.

Saraki said reports that the budget could be signed had raised the tempo of activities in the country.

“So, you can see the interest of our people; so, the onus lies on all of us to ensure implementation,’’ he said.

May 6, 2016
We’ve verified assets of Buhari, Osinbajo, others – CCB

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) said Wednesday that it has completed the verification of assets declared by President Mohammadu Buhari, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, Senate President, Bukola Saraki and others top officials of the current administration.

The agency said, in a statement Wednesday that it was not true, as reported by a newspaper, that it was yet to conclude the verification of assets declared by Buhari, Osinbajo, Saraki and others.

CCB’s Head, Press and Protocol Unit, Mohammad Idris said, in the statement, that more than ever before, the rate of compliance to assets declaration requirement by public officers has increased since the inception of this administration.

“The said publication is another trick to misinform the public so as to undermine the on-going trials of cases of false declaration of assets before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

“Since the inception of the present administration under President Muhammadu Buhari, the rate of compliance by public officials in responding to assets declaration has greatly increased.

“The Bureau will like to use this medium to appeal to those who are yet to declare their Assets to visit the Asokoro Head office of No 23, Halle Salasi Street Asokoro, Abuja to collect, fill and submit same to the office,” Idris said.

May 4, 2016
FG re-arraigns Saraki on new charges

The Federal Government on Thursday re-arraigned Senate President Bukola Saraki on amended three charges of alleged false asset declaration before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

Saraki pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In the fresh charge, the Federal Government accused Saraki of abusing his office while serving as Governor of Kwara State between Oct.2016 and May 2007 by obtaining a loan from GTBank to acquire property at No. 17A and 17B McDonald Street Ikoyi, Lagos.

The Federal Government, through its counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), said Saraki failed to declare the property which was allegedly acquired in at N497.2 million.

In the charge, Jacobs also accused Saraki of failure to declare his leasehold interest in property located at No.42, Remi Fani-Kayode Street, Ikeja, Lagos allegedly acquired through his company Skyview Properties Company.

The charge further accused Saraki of allegedly receiving monthly salary between June 2011 and October 2013 when he was Senator.

After hearing the charge, Saraki’s lawyer, Paul Usoroh SAN, asked the tribunal to adjourn the case to enable him to consult his client to respond to the new amended charges.

The Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Danladi Umar, adjourned the case till May 10 for continuation of trail.

April 28, 2016
Saraki lacks moral right to query CCT Chair’s integrity – FG

The Federal Government Wednesday queried the moral right of the Senate President in calling on the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Danladi Umar to disqualify himself from his (Saraki’s) trial for false asset declaration.

Lead prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs said it was laughable that Saraki, who is currently being tried, will chose to hold on to office as a Senator and Senator President, but demand that Umar, who was merely investigated and had since been freed, to vacate office.

“This motion is absurd. The defendant (Saraki), who has been charged to court, is still performing his statutory duty as a senator, but he is saying that the Constitution guarantees him presumption of innocence.

“He is saying that he remains a senator. He is saying that he will continue to be Senate President and he will continue to perform his duties. But he is saying that your lordship (Umar), who was merely investigated, should not be allowed to enjoy the presumption of innocence and that your lordship should not be allowed to continue to perform his duties.

“Your lordship has not been charged before any court. No charge has been filed against your lordship. That is the absurdity in their motion. This application is only filed to achieve one purpose; to embarrass the tribunal,” Jacobs said while responding to a motion by Saraki, asking the tribunal Chairman to disqualify himself from the trial on the ground that he was investigated for bribery allegation.

Jacobs said the motion was filed to malign the tribunal chairman, adding that the investigation of the bribery allegation had been concluded and the person found to be culpable had since last year been charged to court by the EFCC.

“If investigation has been concluded and someone is already facing trial, will the defendant be right to say that the tribunal chairman is involved in on-going investigation. He cannot be right. The investigation has been concluded since March 2015.

“This is stated in our counter-affidavit which was never challenged. That is what led to the charge he referred to. The person on trial is the only one recommend for prosecution.

“The letter did not recommend your lordship for prosecution. That is not what the letter says. The letter clearly stated with overwhelming evidence the person to be prosecuted. We should fear God, we are counsel,” Jacobs said.

He noted that contrary to Saraki’s claim, the EFCC was not a party to the case, but that it was the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) that issued him (Jacobs) the fiat to prosecute the defendant.

He insisted that the case was filed through the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and not the EFCC as claimed by Oluyede.

He said by virtue of section 349(7), of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, Saraki’s lawyer, Ajibola Oluyede could not have validly file the motion without the consent of the lead defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) who was still in the case.

He reminded the tribunal that the issue of who filed the charges against Saraki, had been argued by Agabi in a motion challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Jacobs said the issue had become part of the subjects of appeal filed by Agabi against the tribunal’s ruling and urged the judge not to make findings on it in order not to run foul of usurping the duties of the appeal court.

Earlier, Oluyede, while moving the motion, insisted that Umar must disqualify himself from the trial. He argued that the June 24, 2014 letter by the then EFCC chairman, Mr. Ibrahim Lamorde and which was dated addressed to the then AGF, Bello Adoke, did not exonerate him of the bribery allegation.

Oluyede contended that the then AGF had directed the EFCC to proceed to prosecute the tribunal chairman and the other suspects. He added that the other report of investigation issued in March 2015 did not also clear the tribunal chairman.

Oluyede said it would require the AGF office to issue another letter overriding the earlier directive to the EFCC to go ahead with the prosecution of Umar and his co-suspect, before the tribunal chairman could be said to have been cleared.

He insisted that in as much as there was no fresh letter by the AGF expressly stating that Umar had been cleared of the allegation, “the legitimacy of the proceedings (Saraki’s trial) is in question”.

On claim by Jacobs that Agabi was not part of the motion, Oluyede noted that “Paragraph 15 of the further affidavit confirms that it was, in fact the lead counsel, Agabi,that advised the defendant to bring this application before the tribunal in the interest of justice.

“The submission of counsel, no matter how esteem that counsel is, does not and is not allowed to be considered as constituting evidence.

“Even if it was true that the lead counsel was not aware or did not even consent or approve it for reasons of conflict, it is immaterial because any counsel that is briefed by a party to a proceeding is entitled to act in accordance to the instruction of his client,” Oluyede said.

Before Oluyede moved the motion, Agabi excused himself from the proceedings.

He appealed to parties in the case, including the tribunal members to allow peace to reign.

As against the claim by Oluyede, Agabi, before exiting the proceedings, admitted that he only became aware of the motion after Oluyede had filed it. Agabi said he had no problem with the motion, being moved on behalf of the defence team.

Shortly after Oluyede moved his motion, Umar said he has been cleared of the allegation by both the EFCC and the AGF.

He recalled that upon a petition filed against him before the House of Representatives over the bribery allegation, the AGF (Malami) appeared before a committee of the House and told the members of the committee that he (Umar) had been cleared.

Umar said, “A group called Anti-Corruption Network wrote a petition against me at the House of Representatives.

“The House committee invited me and I went there three times but the petitioner did not come. The committee asked me what I think should be done and I said, if it were to be court, when the person who filed a case refuses to come, the court will strike it out. But the chairman said, let’s give them another time.

“Why did he not strike it out and decided to continue to wait for the petitioner? I went there just because of the respect I have for the institution. I am a law abiding citizen. That is why I went there three times, abandoning all my works here.

“They invited the AGF. He went with a copy of the letter of EFCC and he said by virtue of that letter, nobody could compel him to prosecute me on the basis of that letter, which stated that the allegation was based on mere suspicion.

“On the basis of that, he (the AGF) said he will not prosecute me. As the chief law officer, he decides who to prosecute and when to stop to prosecute anybody.”

The tribunal will rule Thursday on the motion.

April 27, 2016
Saraki presides over session ahead of CCT trial

Senate President , Bukola Saraki on Tuesday briefly presided over the plenary session of the house before leaving to attend his trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) sitting in Abuja.

He came into the chambers at 10.48am and the session took off with the opening prayer.

Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, took over from Saraki when he left the seat.

During the session, the controversy trailing a supposed bill to create a Grazing Reserve commission for cattle breeders in the country was raised by the Senator representing Abia South Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe..

Abaribe, said to the best of his knowledge, there is no such bill by the name before the Senate.

Senator Abaribe who came under personal explanation, told his colleagues that he was bombarded with phone calls and text messages at the weekend by his constituents who wanted to know how the bill scaled second reading in the Senate.

He noted that his explanation to those who called him that there was no such bill before the Senate was discountenanced and dismissed as information coming from an absentee Senator.

Abaribe recalled that the last time the Grazing Reserve Commission Bill came to the Senate was in the 7^th Senate when Senator Zainab Kure who is no longer in the upper chamber proposed the bill.

He said the bill sponsored by Senator Kure (PDP Niger South) failed to fly as it was roundly rejected.

“When I asked where is this information coming from, they said the information is coming from the social media.

“Mr. President, the reason I’m making this personal explanation is so that my constituents in Abia South, will know that there is no such Bill called Grazing Reserve Commission Bill before this Senate.

“I have taken time to ask the clerk and every other person to say where is this bill that has passed second reading. How did it passed second reading in my absence and they said they also are in confusion, they have never seen such thing.

“So I would like the Chairman of Committee on Rules and Business to tell this Distinguished Senate whether he passed the bill in our absence when we are not all sitting here and it went through second reading before it got here. That is all I have to say over this, Mr. President.”

Responding, Saraki, told Abaribe that his information is noted.

April 19, 2016
CCT Bill: Lawyers slam Senate

Some lawyers in Lagos on Friday reacted to the ongoing amendment of the Code of Conduct Tribunal Act by the Senate, describing it as self-serving and unacceptable.

The lawyers, who spoke with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), said the amendment was ill-timed and a breach of public trust.

NAN reports that the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, is currently being tried for alleged false declaration of assets by the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

The bill to amend the CCT Act, has within 48 hours, scaled the second reading in the Upper Chamber.

Mr Dotun Adetunji, the Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association, Ikorodu Branch, Lagos State, said the amendment of the CCT Act at this point was a “shameful act.’’

He said any amendment to a law based on vested interest was contrary to the rule of law and the ethics of good governance.

“This action of the Senate while its president is undergoing trial at the CCT is a shameful act.

“It is also a slap on the generality of Nigerians that voted them into office and a breach of the trust expected of them.

“This move by the Senate will not put this nation in good standing in the international community,’’ he told NAN.

According to him, the amendment of the CCT Act by the Senate will not in any way bring Nigeria close to a sane society.

“The rule of law is supposed to create a sane society and that is why its principles aim to ensure that a nation is governed by law and not by men’s self-serving interests.

“The international community and Nigerians in diaspora should raise their voices in addition to all of us within the country to condemn this move by the Senate,’’ the NBA chief added.

Another lawyer, Mr Ataene Spurgeon, said although the National Assembly was empowered by the statute books to make laws for the country, the amendment of the CCT Act might be a “coincidence.’’

“The amendment of the Code of Conduct Tribunal Act is a `coincidence’ with the trial of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki.’’

“If the laws establishing the Code of Conduct bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal are faulty, it becomes necessary for the sake of the good governance to amend the same.

“If three judges ought to sit on a particular tribunal and there are only two judges presently sitting, then there is a gap in the law which needs to be addressed for the future, ’’ he also told NAN.

For Mr Ola Ogunbiyi, the amendment should not affect the trial of the senate president.

“The trial can only be affected if the trial is stalled till after the amendment.

“The Senate can at any point amend the law, that it is being amended at this point in time is not an issue.

“The law begins to take its course the day it is signed into law; it is not going to be retrospective.

“Now it is not a law, it is still under amendment before the Senate and it will not affect his trial.’’

An Abeokuta-based legal practitioner, Mr Emmanuel Olu-Alade, said there was no law forbidding amendment of an Act because someone was on trial.

“The question is, ‎what are the paragraphs that are currently being amended and what would be the effect of the amended paragraphs considering the ongoing trial of Bukola Saraki.

In his contributions, Mr Wale Ogunade, a lawyer and public affairs analyst, said:

“The Senate is required by law to amend laws.

“However, in the case of the amendment of the CCT Act by the Senate, the question to ask is: does the Senate have an honest intention or an ulterior motive.

“My opinion is that the recent moves by the Senate to amend the CCT Act were designed to frustrate the trial of Saraki.

“It is designed to water down the Act making it worthless, useless and of no effect whatsoever.”

April 15, 2016