•Tribunal: our hands are tied
THE Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has stopped the trial of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court on charges of non-declaration of assets.
Justice Ngwuta was being tried on an eight-count charge filed on March 21, 2017, by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), in which he is, among others, accused of contravening the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal (CCB/T) Act for failing to declare some of his assets.
But Justice Ngwuta filed an application, challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal to further try him.
He harped on the December 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos division in an appeal by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court.
The Court of Appeal had held, among others, that by virtue of Section 158 of the 1999 Constitution, only the NJC has the powers to try judicial officers for any misconduct while in office.
In a ruling on Monday, a two-man panel of the CCT, upheld Justice Ngwuta’s application to the effect that, as a serving Justice of the Supreme Court, he could not be tried in any court or tribunal, except after he had been subjected to the investigatory and disciplinary processes of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
The tribunal said its hands were tied in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Nganjiwa case.
A member of the CCT panel, Williams Atedze, who read the ruling, said a judge could not be prosecuted by any court of tribunal until the NJC deals with the allegations against him/her and takes a decision on the case.
He rejected the argument by the prosecution that, by the provision of Paragraph 5, Part II of the 5th Schedule of the Constitution, Ngwuta, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, could be tried by the CCT as a public officer.
Atedze also rejected the prosecution’s contention that the defendant (Ngwuta) was being tried before the CCT in his capacity as a public officer and not as a judicial officer, and therefore could be lawfully tried before the tribunal without first referring his case to the NJC.
He noted that the defendant is a public officer, because he is a judicial officer. In other words, it is his judicial cloak that makes him a public officer, and not the other way round. Not all public officers are judicial officers, Atedze said.
“Pursuant to the immediate foregoing, I am persuaded by the argument of the defendant/applicant in Paragraph 4.1 of his written address that as a serving judicial officer, he is under the management, control and discipline of the NJC, a body whose independence from external control or interference is constitutionally provided for by Section 158(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“This means that any allegation of official misconduct will first have to be referred to the NJC to the exclusion of any other body, court or tribunal.
“Furthermore, it is observed that the prosecution, who queried the veracity of the adoption of the case of Ngajiwa v. FRN as a precedent, further contradicted himself by alluding to the possibility that should the matter be appealed to the Supreme Court for final determination, that the apex court may adopt his line of argument.
“This, in other words, means that the prosecution is desirous of selecting only precedents that favour his case, but this cannot be so.”
He said: “Judicial precedents are all-binding, for as long as it is subsisting, and until such precedent is overturned by the higher court, it remains in force.
“One cannot be choosy of which precedent to adopt, and which not to, or to speculate on the possible outcome of a question of law, and thus, seek to adopt it as persuasive in a legal argument.
“In resolving issues raised by parties in this application, it is hereby held that the defendant/applicant, though a public officer, is also a judicial officer, and subject first to the discipline and management of the NJC.
“This is in line with Section 158(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Paragraph 21 (b) of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Ngajiwa V. FRN (supra), which forms a precedent binding on this tribunal
“Our hands are, therefore, tied in the light of the aforesaid decision. Based on the above, the application of the defendant/applicant is found merited, and hereby granted. The defendant is hereby discharged accordingly,” Atedze said.
Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja had, in a similar ruling on March 23 this year, discharged the same Justice Ngwuta on the charges of corruption, money laundering and related offences on which he was being tried.
