The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN)

  • Court to Buhari, NJC, others: justify Muhammad’s choice as CJN

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered President Muhammadu Buhari, the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Senate and others to justify why it should reject a suit seeking to stop them from appointing and confirming Justice Ibrahim Muhammad as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).

    Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the order while refusing an ex-parte motion for interim injunctions filed the Board of Incorporated Trustees of Malcolm Omirhobo Foundation.

    Justice Ekwo, in a ruling on Friday, an enrolled copy of which was sighted on Monday, declined to grant all the reliefs sought by the applicant.

    Instead, the judge ordered the defendants to, within seven days after being served, to appear and show cause why the applicants’ reliefs should not be granted.

    The judge said: “None of the prayers made on this motion ex-parte can be granted in the absence of the defendants.

    “The plaintiff is hereby ordered to put the ‘defendants on notice.

    Read Also: Acting CJN to lawyers: judges not poor

    “The defendants are hereby granted seven days, upon being served, to appear and show cause why the application of the plaintiff ought not to be granted.

    “Case adjourned to 13th day of May, 2019 for the defendants to show cause.”

    The plaintiff/applicant had, in its motion ex-parte, prayed the court for “an order of interim injunction restraining the 5th defendant (Buhari) from appointing the 3rd defendant (Justice Muhammad) as the Chief Justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria pending the determination of the motion on notice filed herein.

    “An order of interim injunction restraining the 7th defendant (the Senate President)  from confirming the appointment of the 3rd defendant as the Chief Justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria pending the determination of the motion on notice.”

    Named as defendants in the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/420/2019, are the NJC, the Federal Judicial Service Commission of Nigeria (FJSCN), Justice Muhammad, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    In the substantive suit, the plaintiff is praying the court to restrain President Buhari from appointing the Justice Muhammad as the substantive CJN.

    The plaintiff argued that the Acting CJN conducted himself in a manner that reduced the confidence of the public in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.

    It argued that President Buhari lacked the constitutional powers to unilaterally suspend and/or removal a sitting CJN from office, as was done in the case of Onnoghen.

    The plaintiff wants the court to declare that by combined interpretation sections 1(1 )(2), 231(4), 292(1)(a)(i)(b), 153(1)(i), 158(1) and paragraph 21 (a)(b) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, “it is unlawful and undemocratic for the 4th and 5th Defendants (Federal Government and President Buhari), to declare the office of the CJN vacant on January 25, 2019 and consequently appoint and swear in the 3rd Defendant as the acting CJN”.

    It also wants the court to restrain the National Assembly from confirming any appointment of Justice Muhammad as the substantive CJN.

    He is praying the court to declare that Justice Muhammad, who is currently the most senior jurist at the Supreme Court, is unfit to replace the sacked CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    The plaintiff wants the court to declare that Justice Muhammad, having made himself available as a tool that was used in the violation of the Constitution, especially with regards to the “illegal” removal of the former CJN, is therefore not a proper and fit person to be recommended for appointment to head the judiciary.

    It further prayed for: “An order, compelling the 2nd Defendant (FJSC), to select and the 1st Defendant (NJC), to recommend the most qualified Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria that is fit and proper, to the 5th Defendant, for appointment to office of the CJN, and for the confirmation of the 7th Defendant with a two third majority vote”.

    In a supporting affidavit, the plaintiff stated that unless restrained by the court, the Executive arm of government would continue to violate the extant provisions of the Constitution and sanctity of the judiciary.

  • Defence team kicks as conduct tribunal orders Onnoghen to open defence Monday

    Proceedings ended abruptly and on a rowdy note yesterday 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 had 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.

    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, Awomolo 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 Onoghen to defend himself.

    He said the entire proceedings had 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 noted 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 was 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.

    Read also: Protest as CCT orders Onnoghen to open defence on April 1

    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 had 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 whosoever 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 tendered, 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 the ruling be made available to the defendant to enable him prepare for his defence. Awomolo prayed the court to allow the defendant return next week Friday for his defence.

    The tribunal Chairman assured Awomolo that the tribunal’s registry will make the ruling available to him before the close of work yesterday. He directed the defendant to return on Monday for his defence; a decision the defence lawyer pleaded with Umar to reconsider.

    Awomolo pleaded with the tribunal Chairman to remember that the Constitution provides that a defendant was entitled to adequate time and materials to prepare for his defence.

    While Awomolo was still on his feet, appealing to the tribunal Chairman to reconsider his position in relation to the next adjourned date, Umar, who appeared unmoved by all that the lead defence lawyer was saying, sprang up from his seat and said: “That is the decision of the tribunal. Come and open your defence next Monday. The case stands adjourned to Monday.”

    At that point, Awomolo stopped begging the tribunal Chairman and told him to stop oppressing the defendant and his lawyers.

    Umar did not respond to Awomolo. He simply turned away and walked straight out of the tribunal’s sitting venue, leaving everyone dazed.

    As Umar walked away and other members of the tribunal in toe, a dejected Awomolo said: “If this is justice, I pray for Nigeria.”

    He later had a little altercation with the lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar, who he accused of not intervening when the tribunal Chairman was imposing a date on the defendant. Umar shot back at Awomolo, saying he did nothing wrong.

    The suspended CJN is being tried on a six-count charge of non-disclosure of assets. He has however appealed yesterday’s ruling of the tribunal rejecting his no-case submission.

    In the notice of appeal filed at the registry of the CCT, shortly after the ruling, the defendant raised five grounds of appeal, in which he faulted the tribunal’s decision and urged the Court of Appeal to, among others, set aside the ruling.

  • Prosecution closes case in Onnoghen’s trial after three witnesses

    The prosecution in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen yesterday closed its case after calling three witnesses.

    Onnoghen is being tried before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for alleged violation of the code of conduct for public officers by not declaring correctly his assets.

    The prosecution, led by Aliyu Umar (SAN), called two witnesses  – a retired director of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Awal Usman Yakasai and Team Lead, Priority Banking, Standard Chartered Bank, Ifeoma Okabue.

    Okabue, who testified as the third prosecution witness, gave details of the five domiciliary accounts held by Onnoghen in her bank, including the balances in the accounts between December 2018 and January 2019.

    Yakasai, who was the second prosecution witness, confirmed receiving Onnoghen’s asset declaration forms for 2014 and 2015, which reflected, among others, that he has five houses.

    Umar, at the conclusion of Okabue’s testimony, told the tribunal that, although the prosecution had indicated its intention to call six witnesses, it was comfortable with the testimony of the three witnesses called so far and would close its case.

    Led in evidence by Umar, Okabue said she started managing Onnghen’s accounts in 2015.

    The witness confirmed from a bundle of documents, including account opening documents and statements of account, marked ‘Exhibit 5’, which was handed to him by an official of the tribunal, on Umar’s request, that the defendant has five accounts.

    She said the first account, with No: 5001062686, was opened in April 2010, the second: 0001062667 was opened in June 2009; the third: 0001062650 was opened in June 2009; the fourth: 5001062679 was opened in March 2010 and the fifth: 5001062693 was opened in February 2011.

    Still reading from the documents, the witness raid the first account had an opening balance of €30,178.58 in January 2018 and a balance of €10,187.18 as at December 2018.

    The second account, 0001062667, the witness said, the balance by January 2018 was N34,280,904.61. It had N2,656,019.21 as at December 2018.

    The third account: 0001062650, Okabue said, had, by January 2018, a balance of $80,824.25. The balance was $56,878 by January 2019.

    Okabue said the fourth account 5001062679, had a balance of £39,456.08 in January 2018. This went down to £13,730.70 by December.

    The witness said the fifth account:50010626 had an opening balance of N6,411,312.77k by January 2018, which increased to N12,852,580.52 by December.

    In explaining the nature of the accounts, the witness said: “The Euro account is savings account. There are two naira accounts –  one is a current account and the other is a savings account. The pound sterling account is savings account, while the US dollars account is a current account.

    “I took over the management of the accounts in 2015. The accounts are currently active.”

    The witness confirmed meeting the defendant, in her capacity as the bank’s Relationship Manager in charge of High Networth Customers, sometime in 2015.

    When asked how to know if an account was dormant, Okabue said: “An account would be dormant due to inactivity for up to one year. Whether an account is dormant or not can be ascertained from the statement of account.

    “When an account goes dormant, it is my responsibility, as the Relationship Manager, to inform the customer of the dormant status of the account and encourage the customer to reactivate the account or the bank sends a notification to the customer.”

    When asked if such communication ever took place in relation to the status of the defendant’s accounts, the witness said she could not recall her bank or her informing the defendant that any of his accounts was dormant or should re-activate.

    Under cross-examination by the lead defence lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), Okabue said the bank invested some of the funds in the defendant’s accounts on his behalf and paid the yield from such investments back into the accounts.

    She added that the defendant got  a facility (loan) of 500,000 US dollars from the bank in January 2019, the security for the loans were his investments in Federal Government’s bonds and other investments, such as shares and others

    Okabue said the domiciliary accounts in Pound sterling, Euro and US Dollars were operated here in Nigeria, not overseas, by the bank.

    She said the bank advised the defendant to invest in other profit yielding investments,  and that interests on theses investments were regularly credited to these accounts.

    The witness said there was no evidence in the account statements that showed the defendant made a transfer for the purchase of pleasure/luxury vehicles.

    Yakasai, who testified earlier, told the tribunal how he received the completed forms from Onnoghen and how the forms were inspected in his presence.

    The witness, who said he is now a farmer, told the tribunal that, as at December 2016, he was a director in CCB, in charge of Federal Political Office Department.

    “My schedule of duties includes taking charge of the general administration of the department, responsible for operational activities of the department, that include issuing and receiving completed copies of assets declaration forms (CCB1) from federal political office holders as well as staff of the Federal Judiciary.

    “That was the main schedule of my duties as at that time.I was posted to that department in November 2013 up to February 2017. I retired in April 2018.”

    The witness said he met the defendant once when he (the defendant) came to submit his declaration form in my office.

    Yakasai added: “He (Onnoghen) came to submit his forms on December 14, 2016. On that day, in my office in Asokoro, I was attending a meeting at the conference hall when a staff of mine called me and informed that the defendant was in my office to submit his forms.

    “I left the meeting and came to attend to the defendant, who was accompanied by one other person. I collected the forms from him.

    “We went through the form, from one page to another, with them, up to the last page, which was page 6.

    “After that, I put down my name in page 8 as the receiving officer. And appended my signature to confirm that I was the person who received it.”

    “Thereafter, I handed the form to the schedule officer.And directed him to register the form in our register and process the acknowledgment slip to be handed back to him. I then went back to my meeting.

    “I received two forms from the defendant. After signing, the slips were detached from the forms and were handed over to the person, who the defendant came to my office with. The forms were retained in the Chairman’s office, as is the procedure,” the witness said.

    Yakasai said apart from receiving the forms and directing his junior officer to conclude the process, he did not do any other thing in relation to the form.

    The witness confirmed the forms, marked as Exhibits 2 and 3, when they were shown to him.

    Under cross-examination, he said he did not know the group that wrote the petition that informed Onnghen’s investigation and subsequent prosecution.

    The witness, who confirmed that information in the petition by the group was similar to those in the form submitted by Onnoghen, said he did not know how the group got its information.

    He also told the tribunal that it was the CCB Chairman who could only authorise access to completed assets declaration forms kept with the bureau.

    At the conclusion of the the prosecution witness’ testimony, Umar announced the closure of the prosecution’s case, following which Awomolo said the defence planned to make a no-case submission in line with the provision of Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

    Umar adjourned the matter till March 29 for adoption of parties’ addresses in respect of the defence’s no-case submission.

    Before the proceedings, the tribunal Chairman noted that the last proceedings on March 18 was misrepresented in some media reports.

    He urged the media to ensure appropriate reportage of proceedings and to avoid distortion and misrepresentation.

    Umar threatened to come down hard on any media house and journalist who misrepresents proceedings at the tribunal. He threatened to ensure that such a journalist was incarcerated for as long as he remains in service.

    He said: “Henceforth, any journalist, who publish distorted and concocted information contrary to what happens here, I will not…

    “They will languish there in prison until I retire, about 28 years from now. I have made my point clear to the journalists. They should take hint.”

    Umar also told lawyers in the case to, henceforth refer to each member of the tribunal as “my Lord”, as is the case in the regular courts.

     

  • ‘Onnoghen down with high BP, toothache’

    SUSPENDED Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen is suffering from high blood pressure and toothache, his lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, told the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) yesterday.

    The embattled CJN is standing trial before the CCT in relation to his alleged breach of code of conduct for public officers.

    He was arraigned by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) over alleged infractions in his asset declaration forms.

    Justice Onnoghen, who attended proceedings on Monday when the tribunal ordered a day-to-day hearing in the case, was absent at the resumption of proceedings yesterday.

    His lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, (SAN), told the tribunal that he (Awomolo) was informed Monday night that Onnoghen has developed tooth-ache.

    Adegboyega tendered a medical report in support of his claim.

    Lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar, (SAN), also said he got a copy of the medical report, which was signed by one Dr. Francis Uche, the Medical Director of Ideal Medical Services.

    Umar said he could not make any observation in view of what the doctor said about the blood pressure of the defendant, which was said to have risen to 410/121.

    The prosecution lawyer added: “As an old man, I know how dangerous that could be.”

    He said the medical report suggested that Onnoghen was given 72 hours bed rest.

    Umar said, though prosecution witnesses were present, the trial could not be conducted in the defendant’s absence.

    He added: “Under the circumstance, I will concede that there is a justification for the defendant to be absent.

    “Taking into consideration the order of the court yesterday (Monday) on day-to-day proceedings and the health condition of the defendant, I urge the court to adjourn the matter till Monday when we can have five days straight.”

    Ruling, tribunal Chairman Danladi Umar, said: “In view of the medical report, explaining the absence of the defendant in court and in consideration of the level of his blood pressure, and with the prosecution having agreed for an adjournment till Monday, the tribunal concede to the adjournment of the matter to Monday, March 18 for hearing.”

  • Onnoghen appeals CCT’s refusal to deliver ruling in his applications

    Suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen has appealed Monday’s decision by the Code of Conduct Tribunal to delay ruling in his applications challenging its jurisdiction  and its impartiality in the criminal case against him

    CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar, in a ruling on March 11, ordered a day-to-day trial in the charge of non-declaration of assets against Onnoghen and said ruling in the two applications by the defendants would be delivered at the time of judgment.

    Onnoghen, in a three-ground notice of appeal filed on Tuesday, argued that the CCT erred in law in its interpretation of Section 369(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) when it ruled that its decision in the applicant’s applications shall be given at the point of judgment.

    The suspended CJN argued that it was wrong for the CCT to refuse to deliver ruling after hearing the application challenging “constitutional jurisdiction” of the tribunal to hear and determine the charges filed against him.

    He also faulted the tribunal for withholding its decision on the other application which challenged the “independence and impartiality of the chairman of the tribunal as his conduct in the proceedings showed bias and prejudiced against the appellant”.

    Onnoghen argued that Section 396(2) of ACJA could only be the basis for adjourning rulings on such interlocutory applications till the conclusion of trial if the applications had to do with the validity of the charges filed against the defendant.

    He stated that his applications “raised a threshold issue of jurisdiction which should not wait until the conclusion of trial” adding that it “did not relate to the validity of the charges”.

    “The decision (deferment of rulings) is a violation of the right of the appellant to fair hearing,” the notice of appeal also stated.

    Onnoghne noted that the same CCT, had in an earlier proceedings in the case of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, delivered ruling in similar application.

    He added that the CCT erred in the interpretation of Section 396(3) of the ACJA when objections of the appellant to impartiality and independence of the tribunal, particularly the Chairman, whose conduct in the proceedings gave indication of bias and absence of independence in the determination of the right of the appellant.

    Onnoghen argued that the application he filed “is not one of the interlocutory applications covered by Section 396(4) of the ACJA. The decision is a violation of the right of the appellant to fair hearing.”

    He urged the Court of Appeal to allow his appeal and “set aside the order of the tribunal made on March 11, 2019”.

    Onnoghen also urged the Court of Appeal to proceed to invoke the provisions of Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, which he noted, empowers the court to hear and determine the applications in respect of which the CCT declined to rule.

  • Suspended CJN appeals CCT’s refusal to deliver ruling in applications

    The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen has appealed the decision by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to delay ruling in his applications challenging its jurisdiction and impartiality in his trial.

    CCT Chairman Danladi Umar, in a ruling on Monday, ordered a day-to-day trial in the charge of non-declaration of assets against Onnoghen, saying that ruling in the two applications by the defendants would be delivered at the time of judgment.

    Justice Onnoghen, in a three-ground notice of appeal filed yesterday, argued that the CCT erred in law in its interpretation of Section 369(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) when it ruled that its decision in the applicant’s applications shall be given at the point of judgment.

    The suspended CJN argued that it was wrong for the CCT to refuse to deliver ruling after hearing the application challenging “constitutional jurisdiction” of the tribunal to hear and determine the charges filed against him.

    He also faulted the tribunal for withholding its decision on the other application which challenged the “independence and impartiality of the chairman of the tribunal as his conduct in the proceedings showed bias and prejudiced against the appellant”.

    The Justice argued that Section 396(2) of ACJA could only be the basis for adjourning rulings on such interlocutory applications till the conclusion of trial if the applications had to do with the validity of the charges filed against the defendant.

    He stated that his applications “raised a threshold issue of jurisdiction which should not wait until the conclusion of trial” adding that it “did not relate to the validity of the charges”.

    “The decision (deferment of rulings) is a violation of the right of the appellant to fair hearing,” the notice of appeal also stated.

    Justice Onnoghen noted that the same CCT, had in an earlier proceedings in the case of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, delivered ruling in similar application.

    He added that the CCT erred in the interpretation of Section 396(3) of the ACJA when objections of the appellant to impartiality and independence of the tribunal, particularly the chairman, whose conduct in the proceedings gave indication of bias and absence of independence in the determination of the right of the appellant.

    Arguing further, he said that the application he filed “is not one of the interlocutory applications covered by Section 396(4) of the ACJA. The decision is a violation of the right of the appellant to fair hearing.”

    He urged the Court of Appeal to allow his appeal and “set aside the order of the tribunal made on March 11, 2019”.

    Justice Onnoghen also urged the Court of Appeal to proceed to invoke the provisions of Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, which he noted, empowers the court to hear and determine the applications in respect of which the CCT declined to rule.

  • We’ve not removed Onnoghen, Fed Govt, AGF tell Supreme Court

    •Court to decide suspended CJN’s fate May 17

    The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, has not been illegally removed from office, the Federal Government and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) said yesterday.

    Faulting claims by the Cross River State Government that the embattled CJN has been eased out of office, the government and the AGF explained that Justice Onnghen was suspended to enable him stand trial for the charge of breach of code of conduct, before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    Solicitor-General of the Federation (SGF) Dayo Apata spoke for the government and the Office of the AGF at the hearing of a suit by Cross Rivers State, in which it challenged Onnoghen’s suspension and asked that the decision be set aside.

    Apata contended: “There is a clear distinction between suspension and removal.  There is no evidence before the court to show that the CJN was removed or dismissed from office.”

    He argued that Justice Onnoghen’s suspension was not arbitrary, and that President Muhammadu Buhari acted on a valid order made by a competent court, the suspended CJN has now appealed.

    The solicitor-general was reacting to an argument by plaintiff’s lawyer, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), to the effect that Onnoghen’s removal from office by the executive was a violation of the Constitution, attack on the Judiciary and a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

    Apata argued the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection and counter affidavit, filed in response to the plantiff’s originating summons.

    He urged the court to uphold his objection and dismiss this suit, marked: SC/45/2019, for lack of locus standi,on the grounds that the subject matter does not qualify as a dispute between

    He said: “Our submission is that there is no dispute between Cross River State and the Federal Government of Nigeria on the subject matter of this case or the charge pending before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    “In the absence of any dispute, the original jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked by the plaintiff. The office in question is the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, not the Chief Judge of Cross River State.”

    On the competence of the suit, Apata faulted Nwosu’s argument that it was intended to protect the Constitution and current its violation by the Executive in the manner Onnoghen was removed from office.

    Apata argued that as against the plaintiff’s position, the suit seeks to obstruct the efforts of the defendants to protect the interest of justice as provided in Section 174 of the Constitution, where the AGF is enjoined to ensure that every prosecution should be done in the interest of justice.

    “The interest of justice is being done with the decision by the Federal Government to prosecute the CJN before the CCT. By this suit, the plaintiff is seeking to frustrate that effort, so the case of Fawehinmi and Akilun cited by the plaintiff’s lawyer, does not support their case,” Apata said.

    He also faulted Nwosu’s reference to the oath he took, on being conferred with the rank of SAN, to protect the Constitution and defend the country’s interest.

    Apata argued that Nwosu was not the plaintiff, but a lawyer to the plaintiff. He noted that if Nwosu was interested in keeping faith with the oath he swore to, he should have instituted the suit himself.

    He added: “The lawyer is not the plaintiff here, but the Cross River State Government.  And since the subject is not a dispute between the Cross River State and Federal Republic of Nigeria, the objection should be sustained.”

    Apata urged the court to resist the attempt by the plaintiff to make it determine a criminal proceedings that is still pending at the Court of Appeal, which has not been determined.

    He said that as at yesterday (Wednesday), the Court of Appeal reserved judgments on appeals on the same subject matter as this case. “This is a case of abuse of court process and forum shopping,” he said.

    When asked if the parties at the Court of Appeal were the same as those in the case before the Supreme Court, Apata said no, but that the subject matter is the same.

    In his argument, Nwosu urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ objection and grant all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.

    Nwosu argued that, by their objection, the defendants sought to treat the Office of the CJN as personal to Justice Onnoghen, being an office created by the Constitution, with responsibilities.

    He added: “The seat of the CJN is an institution specifically established by the Constitution of Nigeria, which also makes it tenured, to the effect that the occupant should stay there until his/her retirement age.

    “And the only way he/she can be removed before his/her retirement age, has also been stated in the Constitution. This dictates that even if there is any transgression, this procedure must be followed.”

    Nwosu described the Supreme Court as the proper forum for the case to be decided. He said, since the case was brought by a state, the Constitution says, where there is a dispute between a state and the Federal Government on any constitutional issue/question, the Supreme Court shall be the proper venue.

    Nwosu distinguished both cases and argued that the one before the Supreme Court was not personal to Onnoghen, but meant to cure a violation to the Constitution and the prevent such violation in future.

    He added: “My Lord, there is a siege on the court. They have broken into your (judges’) houses at night, now they have come for your necks.

    “We do not know who will be next. If we do not act now, you may not be sitting here in the next few weeks. You shall be remembered for what you have done. This is an opportunity for you now to stop this violation of the Constitution.”

    The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that it was outrageous and shameful that Apata claimed that Onnoghen was suspended based on an order of court and proceeded to exhibit a copy of the said order.

    H said: “It is a shame that the Solicitor General of the Federation exhibited the laughable order made by a lay magistrate. Can this court also just order the President to vacate office? If they say an order is an order, maybe you here, should order the removal of the President.”

    Nwosu cited Legal Practitioners Privileges Act, where every Senior Advocate pledges to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, and argued that it will be a gross dereliction of his oath to watch the CJN removed from office in a manner alien to the procedure created by the Constitution.

    After listening to the lawyers, a seven-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour adjourned to May 17 thus year for judgment.

     

  • CCT: Appeal Court reserves judgments in Onnoghen’s cases

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgments in the four appeals filed by the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    A three-man panel of the court, led by Justice Stephen Adah, after taking arguments from parties, in respect of the appeals, said they would be informed when judgments are ready.

    Onnoghen is, by his first appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the charge against him, being a serving judicial officer.  He is, in the second appeal, querying the propriety of the CCT’s ruling of January 14 this year, in which it elected to hear all pending applications

    The third appeal is against the CCT ex-parte order directing Onnoghen to vacate office as CJN and for President Muhammadu Buhari to appoint an acting CJN.

    The fourth appeal challenges the competence of the warrant of arrest issued against the suspended CJN by the CCT.

    The arrest warrant, issued on February 13, this year, was vacated by the CCT on February 15, when Onnoghen voluntarily attended the sitting of the CCT, during which he was arraigned.

    Chris Uche (SAN), who argued Onnoghen’s appeals, urged the court to grant his client’s prayers and reject the notices of objection filed by the respondent (the Federal Republic of Nigeria).

    Umar, who is also the lead prosecution lawyer in the case before the CCT, urged the court to reject all the appeals and uphold the respondent’s notices of objection.

    He argued that there was no material before the court on which it could inquire into the circumstances surrounding the grant of the ex-parte order.

  • Court of Appeal fails to hear Onnoghen’s suits

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has postponed its planned hearing of the three appeals filed by the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, to February 27.

    It was the third time, in one month, that the court will postpone hearing in the appeals filed against the decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), before which the suspended CJN is standing trial for alleged breach of code of conduct for public officers.

    Justice Onnoghen is, by his first appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the charge against him, being a serving judicial officer.

    He is, in the second appeal, querying the propriety of the CCT’s ruling of January 14, this year, in which it elected to hear all pending application.

    The third appeal is against the CCT ex-parte order directing Onnoghen to vacate office as CJN and for President Muhammadu Buhari to appoint an acting CJN.

    The court had, in late January, scheduled hearing in the appeals for February 12.

    When parties got to court, the court could not form a quorum for the purpose of hearing the appeals. Two of the three justices required to form a quorum were said to be attending a seminar.

    The court subsequently adjourned to the next day. It could also not hear the appeals on February 13, owing to a request by the Federal Government to be allowed to engage a new lawyer.

    Oyin Koleoso, who represented the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), told the court that the AGF has instructed that Aliyu Umar, SAN, (who is prosecuting the charge at the CCT) to take over the case of the respondent.

    Koleoso noted that Umar was, at the moment the Court of Appeal proceedings were on, at the CCT.

    Koleoso sought an adjournment to enable Umar take over the case of the respondent.

    Lawyers to the appellant, Chris Uche (SAN), objected to an adjournment, but he was overruled by a three-man panel of the court presided over by Justice Abdul Aboki.

    The court further adjourned hearing in the appeals till February 20.

    When parties got to court on Tuesday, Umar, who appeased the respondents, said he has filed an application, in which he, among others, sought to be afforded time to familiarise himself with what had been filed in the appeals so far.

    Appellant’s lawyer, Uche, did not object to a request for a brief adjournment, following which the court adjourned till February 27.

  • CCT trial: At last, suspended CJN Onnoghen docked

    It was an unusual proceeding yesterday before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in Abuja as the most senior judge in the country was put on trial, with the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, pleading to a six-count charge.

    This is the first time in the history of the nation’s judiciary, when the must senior jurist would be subjected to a court trial. Onnoghen is charged with the breach of code of conduct in relation to his alleged failure to declare some assets linked with him, as required for public officers.

    Smartly dressed in suit and tie, 69-year-old Onnghen stood in the dock for the entire one-hour long proceedings, during which the charge was read to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, following which tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, admitted him to bail on self-recognisance.

    The tribunal had, at its previous sitting on February 13, issued a bench warrant against Onnoghen, directing either the Inspector General of Police (IGP) or the Director General of the State Security Service (SSS) to arrest him and produce him on February 15.

    As against the tone of the tribunal’s order, the suspended CJN attended Friday’s proceedings on his own. He arrived the CCT’s sitting venue at Jabi, Abuja, around 9.40am, driven in his official vehicle, with his security aides in tow.

    On alighting from the car, he was immediately led to the packed spacious hall, where he sat on the front pew, to the left side of the hall, close to the main entrance, with some senior lawyers sitting to his right and left.

    No known Justice of either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal was present. Normal court businesses went on smoothly at the Supreme Court. A panel of four Justices, led by Justice John Okoro sat on cases and delivered judgments in about 13 cases, when The Nation visited.  Other Justices on the panel were Centus Nweze, Paul Galinje and Amina Adamu Augie.

    Many senior lawyers, who had appeared before the CCT as part of the defence team, like former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Kanu Agabi (SAN), Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), Victoria Awomolo (SAN), were absent yesterday.

    The size of the defence team was also smaller yesterday, with the number of Senior Advocates, whose names were announced, not up to 10. The size of the audience was also smaller than the attendance recorded before yesterday.

    Proceedings commenced around 10.35am when members of the tribunal took their seats, following which the tribunal Chairman directed an official to call the case.

    When the charge marked CCT/ABJ/01/2019 was called, Onnoghen stood up from his seat. His lawyer made move to address the court, but was interjected by tribunal Chairman.

    Pointing towards the dock, Umar insisted that the defendant must step into the wooden cubicle before further businesses could be conducted, a directive Onnoghen promptly complied with and walked briskly into the dock.

    While in the dock, the defendant chose to stand, he rejected the chair offered by a security official of the tribunal, on the instruction of the Chairman.

    On realising that the defendant was standing, Umar said: “Please give him a chair to sit (pointing to a policeman attached to the tribunal). Let him sit down. My Lord, please sit down.”

    In response, Onnoghen, standing, with his hands held behind him, said: “Thank you sir. I don’t need it (the chair) now. When I need it, I will ask for it,” he smiled as he spoke. The defendant did not request for the chair while the proceedings lasted.

    Upon a request by the lead prosecuting lawyer, Musa Ibrahim, the six-count charge was read to the defendant, with him pleading not guilty to all the counts.

    After his plea, lead defence lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN), applied for bail on self-recognisance, for the defendant. Uche also prayed the tribunal to vacate the arrest warrant issued against his client, which he said was no longer necessary because the defendant voluntarily attended the tribunal’s sitting.

    The prosecuting lawyer did not object to any of the applications, following which Umar granted them, but emphasised that he was granting them on the condition that the defendant would always attend subsequent proceedings.

    Uche subsequently prayed the tribunal for an adjournment. He noted that election was a day away, and that he needed to travel to his constituency, where he planned to cast his vote.

    Though counsel for the prosecution and defence agreed to have the case adjourned until March 18, this year, it took a lot of pleadings, by both lawyers, for the tribunal Chairman, who had chosen February 21 as the return date, to reluctantly agree to March 11 this year for the hearing of all pending applications.