The Nation Newspaper

Tag: CCT

  • Assets declaration: CCT faults charge against Nwaoboshi

    The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Danladi Umar, has directed that the charge against Senator Peter Nwaoboshi and other processes filed along with it be returned to the Federal Ministry of Justice.

    CCT’s spokesman Ibraheem Zakariya said Danladi’s directive, which was complied with on Monday, was informed by errors noticed on the charge, by the Registry of the tribunal.

    In a statement, Zakariya said: “The Code of Conduct Tribunal yesterday returned to the Federal Ministry of Justice an application to commence trial against a Senator named Peter Nwaoboshi for substantial non-compliance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction 2017.”

    Zakariya said the clarification about the status of the case became necessary because information about the existence of the case became public before the Registry of the CCT could take a decision on the case.

    Part of the statement reads: “However, the letter conveying the request to Federal Ministry of Justice, was captioned: ‘Re: CCT /ABJ/02/19 FRN V Senator Peter Nwaoboshi,’  dated 20th June, 2019, and attentioned to S. M. Labaran.

    “The letter reads: ‘Please, recall that you filed an application to commence trial in the above named suit on the 17th of June, 2019.

    ‘I am, however, directed by the Hon. Chairman of Code of Conduct Tribunal to return the application filed due to the following: ‘Non-compliance with paragraph 3 (2) (i), (iii) and (iv) of the Code of Conduct Tribunal Practice Direction 2017 in that:

    • No name of witness(s) is listed on the application; the CCB staff so stated without given a name and address is vague.
    • Since accounts are involved, a Sterling Bank official ought to be listed as witness with attached statement of witness(s).’

    “These are some of the defects, along with others not mentioned.

    “We crave the indulgence of media operatives not to use any matter before the tribunal from anybody outside it, in order to avoid this kind of mishaps of our procedures,” Zakariya said.

    The Federal Government, acting through the the Director of Public Prosecution, Federal Ministry of Justice, last week, filed a three-count charge against Senator Nwaoboshi before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), in which he is accused of making false assets declaration.

    Nwaoboshi is of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) representing Delta North Senatorial District.

    Nwaoboshi is accused of making false assets declaration in his Form CCB1 submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau by failing to declare three bank accounts he was said to have been maintaining with Sterling Bank (Nigeria) Limited since 2015.

    By his alleged conduct, Nwaoboshi is said to have breached Section 15(1) and (2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and punishable under section 23(2) of the same Act.

    Read Also: CCT to arraign ex-Bayelsa Speaker, 4 others July 4

    The Nwaoboshi case is one of the cases recently transferred by the Special Presidential Investigation Panel (SPIP) for the recovery of public property to the Director of Public Prosecution for prosecution.

    The charge reads: “That you, Senator Peter Nwaoboshi adult, male, Nigerian citizen and a serving Senator representing Delta North constituency within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal did make false declaration in your asset declaration Form CCB 1 No: SEN001098 in that you refused to declare Account No: 0008600331 maintained by you with Sterling Bank (Nigeria) Ltd which is in operation since about 2015 and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15 (1) and (2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 015 LFN 2004 and punishable under Section 23 (2) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 015 LFN 2004.

    “That you, Senator Peter Nwaoboshi adult, male, Nigerian Citizen and a serving Senator representing Delta North Constituency within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal did make false declaration in your asset declaration Form CCB 1 No: SEN001098 in that you refused to declare Account No: 0006493689 maintained by you with sterling Bank (Nigeria) Ltd which is in operation since about 2015 and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15 (1) and (2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 015 LFN 2004 and punishable under Section 23 (2) (c) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 015 LFN 2004.

    “That you, Senator Peter Nwaoboshi adult, male, Nigerian citizen and a serving Senator representing Delta North constituency within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal did make false declaration in your asset declaration Form CCB 1 No: SEN001098 in that you refused to declare Account No: 000997287 maintained by you with Sterling Bank (Nigeria) Ltd which is in operation since about 2015 and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15 (1) and (2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 015 LFN 2004 and punishable under Section 23 (2) (c) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 015 LFN 2004.”

    The prosecution also attached to the charge, a document titled: “an application to commence trial,” in which it sought to be allocated a date for the commencement of the case.

    Also attached to the charge was the summary of the prosecution’s case. It reads: “It is the prosecution’s case that the defendant, a serving senator was investigated and found to have falsely declared his assets in his assets declaration Form CCB1 No. SEN001098.

    “The prosecution in this case shall rely on the exhibits and testimonies of witnesses to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

  • ‘Should CCT remain under Presidency? ’

    Rights group Access to Justice Executive Director Joseph Otteh and Programme Officer Daniel Aloaye , in this article, call for constitutional reforms to make the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) a more independent institution.

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal, in a judgment delivered by its chairman Mr. Danladi Umar on April 18 convicted Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen on a six-count charge of false declaration of assets.

    The charges were filed on January 10 by the Federal Government following a petition to the Code of Conduct Bureau on January 9th 2019 by an organization (the Anti-Corruption and Research Based Data Initiative).

    Following its verdict, the Tribunal ordered Justice Onnoghen’s removal from judicial office as Chief Justice of Nigeria, as well as the seizure and forfeiture of the monies in his accounts.

    It also barred him from holding public office for ten years. The Code of Conduct Tribunal is a quasi-criminal court saddled with the responsibility of handling complaints of non-compliance with the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.

    The primary objective of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, as provided under its Enabling Act is to establish and maintain a high standard of morality in the conduct of their official functions by public officials.

    Access to Justice (A2Justice) takes no position on whether Justice Walter Onnoghen committed the infractions with which he was charged or indeed is guilty of offences related to them.

    A2Justice abides by the rule of law principle that all persons are equal before the law and that no person should be above the law.

    However, a cardinal rule of law requirement is that courts and tribunals which exercise judicial powers should be independent of other arms of government and appear, in the perception of reasonable observers, to be so independent.

    Unfortunately, the Code of Conduct Tribunal did not offer this guarantee of independence, neither its perception. Far from it.

    The Tribunal had, from the word go, drawn the handwriting on the wall indicating that it was bent on a particular outcome, and that it would look neither to the left nor to the right in the blind pursuit of that goal.

    At several pivotal junctures in the course of the trial, the Tribunal appeared to demonstrate that it was clearly on the same side with the government, and was not sitting as an unbiased umpire or judicial arbiter.

    Nowhere was this more evident as when Danladi Umar and another member of the Tribunal granted, speaking figuratively, under cover of darkness on January 23rd 2019, an ex-parte Order removing Justice Walter Onnoghen as Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    The bizarre and egregious procedure taken to unseat Justice Onnoghen was an unmistakable indication that no barrel was too deep to plumb in getting to achieve what the Tribunal wanted to achieve, and no rule or principle of law was strong or revered enough to forestall its plan.

    It will not surprise many that the Code of Conduct Tribunal reached the verdict it did after using very questionable procedures from the very start.

    It would be a serious fallacy to characterise the Tribunal’s verdict as one reached after a due process trial using even the lowest possible denominators of what a fair trial represents.

    The procedures adopted by the Tribunal in the case were far too faulty and flawed to be regarded as a judicial process.

    To reasonable observers, it would appear that the Tribunal’s procedure and speed were deliberately contorted to enable it reach its pre-determined outcomes, and its verdict was simply a reflection and product of the shambolic trial.

    Undoubtedly, Justice Onnoghen’s trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal was, in every way, grossly and grievously unfair, and no fair-minded court or tribunal could have descended to the depths the Code of Conduct Tribunal delved in trying to convict Walter Onnoghen on the charges against him in order to remove him from office.

    The Tribunal was so desperate to convict Justice Onnoghen that it had to overturn or side-step its previous judgments on similar matters, decisions such as those given in a prior case involving another Justice of the Supreme Court.

    A cardinal principle of our Common Law system is that similar cases are decided alike in other to prevent arbitrariness and caprice in the adjudication of cases.

    This is not a way to fight corruption. There is no positive, but rather, there are plenty negatives to this flawed judgment.

    This judgment merely shows how much is still lacking in Nigeria’s courts and tribunals and how distanced they truly are from being independent vehicles of justice.

    Unfortunately, the Code of Conduct Tribunal has been headed for a long time by a person who himself has been the subject of corruption allegations, and that, in itself, is a major weakness.

    It is clearly feasible to argue, at least theoretically, that all an executive government needs to do to get the Code of Conduct Tribunal groveling to its side is to raise the spectre of pursuing a corruption trial against its Chairman, Danladi Umar.

    That is just how vulnerable the leadership of the Code of Conduct Tribunal is.

    There needs to be a change in the chairmanship of the Tribunal if it is to inspire public confidence in itself.

    More than changing its leadership, constitutional reforms must make the CCT a more independent institution.

    As Danladi Umar himself said in his judgment today, “…CCT also is not under the supervision of the National Judicial Council but the Presidency…’’.

    A Tribunal under the Presidency cannot be independent of the Presidency, which is a political institution.

    Ultimately, the trial and judgment of the CCT will disparage Nigeria’s system of justice in the eyes of the international community.

    More than that, however, they show that, despite elaborate constitutional arrangements to guarantee an independent Judiciary, as well as constitutional rights to a fair trial, the judicial process is still weak and leaking through many crevices leaving many citizens defenceless and exposed as a result.

    We see this situation in the Code of Conduct Tribunal. No democracy can flourish under such conditions.

  • CCT, mercenary of the executive?

    SIR: On September 21, 2011, the hearing room of the Code of Conduct Tribunal was overflowing with lawyers, journalists and spectators. A “big masquerade” was expected to be huddled in the dock.  It was Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

    Tinubu was a leading figure of the opposition at the time. And it was really no news that he was a discomfort for the Jonathan government.

    On that morning, he sauntered into the tribunal in his accustomed gait and fixed himself on a bench. Proceedings commenced with drama over whether he belonged in that humiliating cavity of the accused or in the bench of spectators. While the argument raged on, Tinubu stood up and walked into the dock. He sat in the chair, stretching out his legs and caressing his jaw as he moved his head intermittently.

    That was it: the perfect picture of humiliation and “surrender”. And the next day, news headlines read, “Tinubu in the dock”.

    However, the allegations of operating 10 foreign accounts while in office between 1999 and 2007 filed against him by the government were quashed three months later, November 30.

    I believe, this case brought the CCT into the reckoning of most Nigerians and was an experiment in the deployment of that state institution for witch-hunt by the executive.  Since the Tinubu trial, the CCT has ratcheted up pace in the trial of politically-exposed-persons.

    On May 17, 2016, in the course of the trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki, the chairman of the tribunal, Danladi Umar revealed that he was under immense pressure to compromise in Tinubu’s case, but he said: “We did the right thing.”

    Also, the tribunal dismissed the charges of false asset declaration brought against Saraki by the government after two years of a climactic legal battle. The acquittal of the senate president was unexpected because the trial itself was perceived to be political hounding. The outcome of this case was, perhaps, the biggest surprises of 2017 owing to the nasty fights between the executive, which was the accuser and the Saraki-led senate.

    Really, studying the trials of Tinubu and Saraki, it is obvious that a political hand played the cards, but the CCT leadership did not surrender to the wheedling of this “mighty hand”. It will be hypocritical to commend the tribunal for its decisions, taken under tenuous circumstances in these previous cases, but condemn it for its decision in the case of Justice Onnoghen.

    Although the federal government circumvented the law in bringing Onnoghen to trial, the case against the now convicted chief justice is not without merit.

    One thing is certain; the CCT is a nightmare for public officers, especially those with questionable acquisitions. Another thing is certain, the tribunal is not without influence or pressure to compromise in cases, but its integrity has not been faulted so far.

    I think, the CCT is that heady executive “mercenary” which braves pressure to work according to its own conscience.

     

    • Fredrick Nwabufo, fredricknwabufo@yahoo.com

  • Onnoghen: I didn’t confess to hiding my bank accounts

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has scheduled judgment for Thursday in the trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen.

    Onnoghen is being tried on a six-count charge in which he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct for public officers by allegedly making false declaration of assets and also failing to declare some.

    He denied confessing to hiding his bank accounts. The prosecution insisted that his guilt had been proven.

    CCT’s Chairman Danladi Umar announced the judgment date yesterday after lawyers to the prosecution and defence adopted their final written addresses.

    Umar said the court will also, on April 18, deliver two rulings earlier reserved on two applications filed by the defendant, one of which is challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction; the other is querying his competence as the tribunal chairman to preside over the case.

    Proceedings began yesterday on a dramatic note when the second most senior member of the prosecution team, Prof Zainab Duke, disagreed with the team’s leader, Aliyu Umar (SAN).

    Shortly after the announcement of appearances by both the prosecution and defence teams, Umar stood up to address the tribunal.

    But, before Umar could say anything, Prof. Duke also indicated her intention to speak, raising her hand – a move the lead prosecution lawyer objected to.

    Duke, who was bent on addressing the tribunal, rose to her feet and reached for the microphone, but Umar, who moved the microphone from her reach.

    Umar, who told Prof Duke that it was improper for her to speak while she was being led by a senior colleague, later applied to the tribunal to delete her name from the prosecution team’s list of lawyers.

    In a brief ruling, the tribunal’s chairman acceded to Umar’s request and deleted Prof. Duke’s name from his record.

    The CCT chairman noted that it was not permitted for two lawyers to speak for a party during proceedings. He said Prof. Duke, could only communicate through Umar, except with approval of her lead counsel, after obtaining the permission of the tribunal.

    Following the pronouncement by the CCT chairman, Prof. Duke sat back a little while, gathered her belongings, including a bag and some books, and left.

    Outside the court, Prof Duke told reporters, who sought to know what the problem was, that her intention was to make some contributions to the prosecution’s opening remarks by citing an example of a similar trial conducted in England some years ago.

    Shortly after Prof. Duke’s exit, the tribunal’s chairman called on the lead defence lawyer, Okon Nkanu Efut (SAN) to adopt the defendant’s final written address.

    Efut, urged the tribunal to dismiss the charge, acquit and discharge the defendant.

    He argued that not only was the charge incompetent, the prosecution failed to establish the defendant’s guilt.

    Efut faulted the competence of the charge and the procedure adopted by the prosecution, which, he argued, were unlawful.

    He faulted the prosecution’s claim that the defendant confessed to the offence when, in his written statement, he said he forgot to declare some of his assets, particularly some bank accounts.

    Efut said: “It is true in ordinary parlance that once a person says he did something, that is admittance. But, confession in law is different from confession in general parlance.

    “When the defendant said he forgot, he did not mean he confessed. We are submitting that there has been no confession at all. There is no admission of guilt. Confession, in law, means admission of guilt.”

    Efut argued that the charge was incompetent because it was brought under Section 15 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal (CCB/T) Act, which, he said, has been found to be in conflict with Paragraph 11 of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution.

    He added: “The charge ought to have been brought under Parapgraph 11 to the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. The section under which the charge is prepared is unconstitutional and null and void.

    “The elements of the offence, which the prosecution attempted to prove are as it relate to the Act (CCB/T Act). They failed to prove the elements or ingredients as contained in the 5th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution.

    “If they do not know the ingredients of the offence, they could not have proved it. They acted in ignorance.

    “We urge that the charge be dismissed, because the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients or elements of the offence.”

    Efut also faulted the prosecution’s claim that the defendant made false declaration of assets, insisting that Onnoghen fully complied with the law by declaring his assets as required.

    He referred to page 13, paragraph 27 of the prosecution’s final written address, where he said the prosecution argued that “the failure or refusal of the defendant to give information on the accounts is partially false”.

    Efut argued that for the prosecution to have said the defendant’s action was partially false “means that it is partially true and, therefore, cannot be false”.

    He went on: “If it is partially false, it raises some doubt as to the falsity. If there is any iota of doubt, the law says it must be resolved in favour of the defendant.

    “On the whole, we urge that this six-charge be dismissed, because the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements or ingredients of the offences.”

    Countering Efut while adopting his address, Umar, urged the tribunal to hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.

    Umar equally urged the tribunal to hold that the defendant is guilty on all the six counts.

    On the defence’s attack of the charge’s competence, Umar contended: “In coming to the decision whether or not a defendant is guilty, it is the hard fact that the court should look at.

    “It is a misconception by the defence to think the first set of charge is null and void simply because it is not elegantly drafted the way the defendant would have wanted it drafted.

    “They have not shown that the defendant was misled by the way the charge was drafted. It is not the statute that creates an offence.”

    Umar argued that there was no conflict between the provision of the CCB/T Act and the Constitution as claimed by the defence.

    He submitted that the prosecution had effectively discharged its responsibility under the law by establishing the guilt of the defendant.

    Umar argued that by evidence led, the prosecution showed that the defendant did not declare his assets as required either by the Act or the Constitution.

    He faulted the defence’s contention that the defendant did not confess and argued that “it is neither the provision of the Evidence Act or case law for the suspect to tell the police that I am guilty of the offence”.

    “It is the action or omission that the court will consider to determine the guilt or otherwise of the defendant.

    “In Exhibit 6 (the defendant’s statement), if the defendant said I did not declare, because I forgot, it is for the court to decide whether or not forgetting is a defence envisaged by the Act.

    “In 2016, he went before a High Court judge and declared his assets, without referring to the bank accounts.

    “By the evidence of PW3, the accounts had been in existence from 2009 and 2010 and ought to have been declared when the defendant declared his assets in 2016.

    “We urge the tribunal to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and enter a verdict of conviction.”

  • Onnoghen closes case at CCT after calling a witness

    …Parties to adopt final addresses April 12

    Suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen ended his defence on Wednesday in his trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for allegedly breaching the code of conduct for public officers.

    Onnoghen, who called his personal driver, Lawal Busari as his first witness on Monday, failed on Wednesday, to call more witnesses.

    His lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) had, on Monday informed the tribunal that the defence would call between two to three witness, including Mrs. Theresa Nwafor, a director, on whom a subpoena was issued at the instance of the defence.

    At the resumption of proceedings on Wednesday, lawyer to the defendant, Chris Uche (SAN) informed the tribunal that the defence was satisfied with the evidence it has provided so far and was willing to close its case.

    Uche said: “My lords, today is for continuation of trial. But my lords, after a deep review of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, the defence has come to conclusion and we have closed our case.

    “Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Practice Direction of this honourable tribunal, we apply to file our final written addresses.”

    Prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN) confirmed to the tribunal that the defence had hinted him of plans to close its case on Wednesday.

    Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar has adjourned to April 12 this year for parties to adopt their final written addresses.

    Details later…

  • Protest as CCT orders Onnoghen to open defence on April 1

    Proceedings ended abruptly and on a rowdy note on Friday at the resumed hearing in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code of conduct Tribunal (CCT) as his lawyers protested what they viewed as the highhandedness of the tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar.

    Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), who led the team of lawyers for Onnoghen, accused the CCT chairman of oppressing the defendant and his lawyers when, shortly after delivering a ruling on the no-case submission made by the defendant, Umar insisted that the suspended CJN must open his defence on Monday (April 1, 2019).

    Awomolo told Umar: “Stop oppressing us. This is not justice.”

    He repeated the statements about three times when the CCT Chairman refused to yield to his appeals that the defendant be afforded sufficient time to prepare for his defence and be allowed to return next week Friday.

    While Awomolo was still on his feet, pleading with the tribunal Chairman to reconsider his position, Umar stood up, announced that the proceedings have been adjourned till Monday and walked away, leaving the two other members of the tribunal to scamper after him.

    As Umar and the other members of the tribunal walked out of the tribunal’s sitting venue, many lawyers in the defence team shouted in protest, saying: “This is not how to do justice.”

    A dejected Awomolo, who appeared to have been taken aback by Umar’s conduct, said: “If this is justice, then, God bless Nigeria,” a statement he repeated about four times.

    Read Also: Onnoghen accuses CCT of not following procedures in instituting case

    Proceedings had commenced earlier in the day on a friendly note, with the tribunal Chairman exchanging pleasantries with lawyers to both the prosecution and defence, when the case was called.

    Shortly after, argued the defendant’s no-case submission and urged the tribunal to discharge and acquit his client on the grounds that the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.

    Awomolo faulted the entire evidence led by the prosecution and exhibits tendered and urged the tribunal to hold that it is not worth it calling on Onnoghen to defend himself.

    He said the entire proceedings have become a nullity because the process leading to the commencement of the trial did not comply with the procedure provided for in the CCB’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 2017.

    Awomolo made a lengthy submission, during which he cited many decided cases, including a 2013 ruling by the tribunal (a copy of which he later offered the tribunal), urged the tribunal to be guided by past decisions.

    At the conclusion of his submission, the CCT Chairman commended Awomolo for his brilliant and “well-articulated” argument.

    Prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar offered a counter-argument and urged the tribunal to reject Onnoghen’s no-case-submission and order him to enter defence.

    The prosecution lawyer said the prosecution’s case was simple and relates mainly to the defendant’s failure to declare his assets.

    He said; “We are not accusing him of having $300m in his accounts. What we are saying is that he failed to declare his assets on his appointment as Justice of Supreme Court and that he operated domiciliary accounts since 2009 and 2010 without declaring them.”

    After listening to the arguments by parties, the tribunal Chairman, to the dismay of most of those at the proceedings, announced that ruling would be delivered in two hours’ time.

    When the tribunal resumed around 2pm, Umar read his ruling, in which he rejected the submission by Awomolo.

    He rejected Awomolo’s argument that the process leading to the filing of the charge was not in accordance with the procedure provided in the CCB’s SOP.

    Umar note that the SOP, which was a creation of the former board of the CCB, led by Sam Saba, was no longer in use because it had been abused by that board.

    CCT Chairman said the operations of the CCB were currently being guided by the Constitution since it has discarded the SOP, which he said, the former board abused.

    The CCT Chairman accused the defendants of deploying technicalities to prevent the hearing of the case despite the glaring evidence, suggesting that the defendant has a case to answer.

    Umar said the tribunal was not bound by technicality, but was interested in always ensuring justice.

    He refused the no case submission and said the tribunal was convinced that the prosecution has established a prima facie case, warranting the defendant to enter his defence if he has any.

    The tribunal Chairman added: “The defendant himself, made a written admission, without duress, that he forgot to declare the domiciliary accounts maintained in Standard Chartered Bank. That is, the euro account, the dollar account, the pound sterling account and the two naira accounts.

    “His confessional statement is more than enough to warrant the defendant to enter defence, if he has any.

    “The tribunal shall never be swayed from exercising justice, no matter who so ever appeared before it, irrespective of his/her status in life. After all, all of us are from the same source – dust.”

    Umar added that by the evidence led by the prosecution through its three witnesses, and the documents tended, including the statement by the defendant, “where he confessed that he forgot the accounts and that he made mistakes in not declaring the accounts,” are sufficient to make the tribunal demand that the defendant defend himself against the charges.

    He said the need for the defendant to defend himself was “to clear his name, because the name has been tainted so much.” He proceeded to reject the no-case submission and ordered the defendant to “enter a defence.”

    At the conclusion of the ruling, Awomolo applied that a certified-true-copy (CTC) of

  • BREAKING: CCT: Tribunal orders Onnoghen to defend charges

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has rejected the no-case submission made in his trial by suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    CCT Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, in a ruling, said the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the defendant to warrant his being called to enter his defence.

    Umar referred to a confessional statement made by the defendant in which he admitted omitting to declare the five domiciliary accounts he has been operating in Standard Chartered Bank since 20009.

    The CCT Chairman said the confessional statement was sufficient to warrant the tribunal to ask the defendant to enter his defence if he has any.

    Umar rejected the no-case submission and ordered the defendant to enter a defence against the six-count charge of non-declaration of assets brought against him by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    Proceedings in the tribunal later went rowdy when after concluding his ruling, Umar adjourned to Monday (April 1, 2019) for the defendant to open his defence.

    Many lawyers in the defence team shouted in protest when Umar ignored appeals by lead defence lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) that April 1 was too short for the defendant to adequately prepare for his defence.

    While Awomolo was still on his feet, asking the tribunal Chairman to allow the defendant sufficient time to prepare, Umar stood up and walked away, leaving other members of the tribunal to scamper after him.

    A dejected Awomolo accused Umar of oppressing the defence.

    As Umar and the two other members of the tribunal walked away, Awomolo said: “If this is justice, then, God bless Nigeria.”

    Detail shortly…

  • Breaking: Tribunal to decide whether or not Onnoghen defends charges

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has scheduled ruling for 1.30pm on Friday in the no-case submission made by suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Wanter Onnoghen.

    Onnoghen is being tried for non-declaration of asset, in a six-count charge instituted by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar announced, after taking arguments from parties this morning, in relation to the no-case-submission, announced that ruling would be delivered this afternoon.

    Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) who argued for Onnoghen, urged the tribunal to discharge and acquit his client on the grounds that the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case against him.

    Awomolo faulted the entire evidence led by the prosecution and exhibits tendered and urged the tribunal to hold that it is not worth it calling on Onoghen to defend himself.

    He said the entire proceedings have become a nullity because the process leading to the commencement of the trial did not comply with the procedure provided for in the CCB’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 2017.

    Prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar offered a counter-argument and urged the tribunal to reject Onnoghen’s no-case-submission and order him to enter defence.

    Umar said the prosecution’s case was simple and relates mainly to the defendants failure to declare his assets.

    He said; “We are not accusing him of having $300m in his accounts. What we are saying is that he failed to declare his assets on his appointment as Justice of Supreme Court and that he operated domiciliary accounts since 2009 and 2010 without declaring them.”

    Details shortly…

  • Onnoghen accuses CCT of not following procedures in instituting case

    The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, on Friday accused the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) of not following its set Standard Operation Procedures in instituting the case against him.

    Onnoghen made the accusation during his resumed trial in Abuja.

    NAN reports that Onnoghen is being arraigned at the CCT following a charge against him brought by the Code of Conduct Bureau in January.

    The CCB accused Onnoghen of failing to declare his assets from June 2005, after he became a Justice of the Supreme Court till December 2016, two months after the Federal Government raided the homes of several judges, including those of the Supreme Court in October 2018.

    According to the six-count charge brought against him, Mr Onnoghen is also accused of false declaration of his assets, following his alleged failure to include some domiciliary accounts managed by the Standard Chartered Bank.

    Read Also: Onnoghen accuses CCT of not following procedures in instituting case

    The accounts, created in 2011 and used for the transfer of foreign currencies, were omitted in one of two forms filled on December 14, 2016, by Mr Onnoghen.

    According to section 3(d) of the CCB act, the Bureau is empowered to receive complaints about cases of non-compliance with or breach of the act.

    The section also empowers the CCB to refer such non-compliance to the CCT where the public officers accused of the alleged breach, will be tried according to the provisions of the act.

    NAN reports that the prosecution team led by Aliu Umar, presented three witnesses before closing its case on March 21.

  • We didn’t query prosecution lawyer in Onnoghen’s trial, says NBA

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)  has faulted media reports to the effect that it has issued a query to Aliyu Umar (SAN) the lead prosecution lawyer in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    NBA’s National Publicity Secretary, Kunle Edun said, in a statement on Sunday that Umar was only required to respond to a petition written against him by another member of the NBA.

    The statement reads: “The attention of the Nigerian Bar Association has been drawn to misleading headlines published by some bloggers and national newspapers giving the  erroneous impression to members of the public that the Nigerian Bar Association has issued a query against the person of Aliyu Umar, SAN for appearing as a prosecuting counsel in the case against Hon. Mr. Justice Walter N. Onnoghen at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    “Please, be informed that the said publication is false and misleading. A proper perusal of the content of the letter of the General Secretary of the NBA, Jonathan Gunu Taidi, will bear this out.

    “Any member of the Nigerian Bar Association is entitled to send petitions to the NBA against any member who he perceives to have committed any infraction of our Rules of Professional Conduct.

    “When such a petition is received, NBA forwards same to the colleague against whom it is written for his response. That is what the NBA has just done. It is a long standing standard procedure.

    “The Nigerian Bar Association, in adhering to these laid down procedures is impervious to emotions or sentiments.

    Therefore, it is misleading to say that NBA has issued a query against the learned silk. The NBA urges members to desist from spreading false news over a process that is at it’s preliminary stage.

    “We should be properly advised and disregard any motive ascribed to the letter, particularly sensational headlines that are contrary to established facts. “