The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen

  • Acting CJN justifies Onnoghen’s suspension

    Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Ibrahim Muhammad has justified President Muhammadu Buhari’s suspension of erstwhile CJN Walter Onnoghen.

    He said that the step taken by the President on the January 25 ex-parte order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) was right.

    Justice Muhammad argued: “Any public officer found guilty of the breach or violation of Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) can be ordered to vacate the office he is holding as the consequence of the breach or violation of the code of conduct.”

    He contended that President Buhari did no wrong by relying on the CCT order to suspend Justice Onnoghen.

    Besides, Justice Muhammad averred that he committed no offence by submitting himself to be sworn in as acting CJN following the order of the CCT and to prevent the vacuum that would have been created by Onnoghen’s suspension.

    The acting CJN made his position known on Onnoghen’s suspension and eventual conviction in his response to a suit filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja, by the Incorporated Trustees of Malcom Omirhobo Foundation.

    The reliefs sought by the plaintiff include; a declaration that Justice Muhammad “is not a proper and fit person to be recommended by the second defendant (the Federal Judicial Service Commission) to the first defendant (the NJC) and by the first defendant to the fifth defendant (President Buhari) for appointment to the Office of the CJN”.

    The plaintiff argued that by accepting to be sworn in as the acting CJN, while Onnoghen was unlawfully suspended, Justice Muhammad “conducted himself in a manner that cast a doubt of confidence in his integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary and having made himself a tool used in the violation of the Constitution of Nigeria”.

    The National Judicial Council (NJC), the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), Justice Muhammad, the Federal Government, President Buhari, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Senate were listed as co-defendants to the suit.

    Read also: Buhari, AGF to court: Onnoghen resigned after NJC’s recommendation

    In a counter-affidavit filed for him by his team of lawyers, led by Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), Justice Muhammad insisted that President Buhari breached no law or procedure in suspending Onnoghen, based on an ex-parte order by the CCT.

    The acting CJN, who noted that Justice Onnoghen has since resigned after his suspension, argued that neither him, nor the President, did any wrong in their handling of the Onnoghen case.

    Justice Muhammad added: “The fifth defendant (the President) has the power to remove or suspend any person occupying the office of the Chief of Nigeria, being the appointing authority.

    “As at January 25, 2019, the order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal also directed the fifth defendant to swear in the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    “It was pursuant to the order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal that the fifth defendant appointed the third defendant as the Acting CJN.

    “In the circumstance, I know as a fact there was no need for a recommendation of the second defendant (FJSC) to the first defendant (NJC) or of the first defendant to the fifth defendant (Buhari) before the erstwhile Chief Justice of Nigeria could be suspended from office.

    “There was also no need for the fifth defendant to approach the seventh defendant for support by majority of two-thirds votes before the erstwhile CJN could be suspended from office.

    “The fifth defendant followed due process of law in the appointment of the third defendant as the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    “There has not been any negative impact on the Nigerian Judiciary as there is renewed belief by the common man in the Judiciary as his last hope.”

    When the matter was mentioned on Monday, Justice Inyang Ekwo directed parties to file all necessary processes and adjourned till today 7 for hearing.

  • SANs group: Onnoghen’s resignation not enough

    A 20-man group of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) under the aegis of the Justice Reform Project (JRP) Tuesday said Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen’s resignation was not enough in view of “the grave nature of the allegations” against him.

    Urging the Federal Government to sanction other judges whose legitimate earnings do not justify their wealth, the group said justice should run its course in the Onnoghen matter.

    According to JRP, extending the anti-graft exercise to other judges will restore confidence in the Judiciary and dampen the impressing that the former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) was being victimized.

    The group, set up to push for reforms in the judiciary/legal profession, is led by one of the oldest SANs, Mr. Ebun Sofunde, with Jibrin Okutepa, Dr Babatunde Ajibade, Prof Ernest Ojukwu, Osaro Eghobamien, Mrs. Funke Adekoya, Kayode Sofola, among others, as members.

    In a statement, JRP said it noted Onnoghen’s resignation “with concern”, but added that the matter should not end there.

    “His resignation/voluntary retirement is not an answer to these allegations and the JRP expects that justice, which is no respecter of persons or position, will be allowed to take its course,” it said.

    JRP urged the Federal Government to look beyond Onnoghen for three reason main reasons.

    It said: “Beyond Honourable Justice W. S. N. Onnoghen, however, the JRP believes the revelations that have been made in the course of this affair necessitate that urgent steps be taken to identify and sanction all other Nigerian judicial officers who are found to possess inexplicable wealth that cannot be reconciled with their legitimate income or their asset declarations, two of the allegations made against Justice Onnoghen.

    “These steps are necessary for a variety of reasons. First, to restore public confidence in the judiciary and disabuse the notion that all judicial officers in Nigeria are corrupt and that justice is for sale.

    “Second, to disabuse the notion that Justice Onnoghen’s travails are a mere witch-hunt motivated by ethnic and political interests rather than the result of a genuine concern for sanitising and reforming the Nigerian judiciary.

    “Third, to eliminate the suspicion that the Executive arm of government is using the information it has access to by virtue of its control over the apparatus of the state to take selective action only against those judicial officers that fail to do its bidding.”

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

    Besides, the group said Onnoghen’s response to allegations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before the National Judicial Council (NJC) raises significant questions about how heads of courts manage judiciary’s funds.

    “Without prejudice to the legitimate clamour for increased budgetary allocation to the judiciary, its financial independence and improvement in the working conditions of service of judicial officers, all of which JRP wholeheartedly supports, there must be better management of that which is currently allocated.

    “The JRP calls on everyone with a stake in our judicial system (the public, the Bar, and the bench), to report their concerns, if any, to the relevant regulatory agencies so that they are investigated.

    “The legal profession is a self-regulating one, so it behooves all its members to take an active interest in maintaining the standards of rectitude and integrity expected of judicial officers and legal practitioners.

    “In making this call, the JRP merely exhorts every member of the legal profession to act as they are expected to act.

    “If the profession does not regulate itself effectively, incidents such as those involving Justice Onnoghen will remain a fixture in our judicial system.”

  • Ex-UN chief urges Buhari to cleanse Judiciary

    A Lawyer and multilateral diplomat, Dr Babafemi Badejo, has urged President Muhammadu Buhari to cleanse the Judiciary of corrupt elements.

    He said Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen’s resignation should kickstart the cleansing process in the President’s second term.

    According to him, if anti-graft agencies beam searchlights on other judges and Justices, there would be more ‘voluntary resignations’.

    Badejo, a former Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, said Onnoghen should have resigned earlier in view of the sensitive office he occupied.

    He believes Onnoghen should be given the chance to defend himself in court while Buhari must prove that he is not selective in his anti-graft war.

    Badejo said in a statement: “The throwing in of the towel by Chief Justice Onnoghen came too late than should have been the case.

    “As I repeatedly said after the news broke on him, a prima facie case being made on the occupant of a post as high as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) should lead to the honourable next line of action: a stepping aside, even if temporarily, in the interest of the high office.

    “But he got goaded on by some of the Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs). Some of these SANs have since abandoned him and returned to the side of the government for lucrative legal briefs while others, who had initially thought they could use foreign embassies and the media to intimidate the executive, have gone quiet.”

    According to him, some of the 100 SANs who thought they could shout loudest in the media and thereby cover their own tracks are gradually being exposed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Badejo said: “In fact, I would repeat that a honourable CJN should have cared about the exalted office he was occupying and should have resigned.

    “His conscience should have guided him to seek a soft landing as the National Judicial Council (NJC) is reportedly recommending.”

    Badejo was of the view that the idea of a soft landing for Onnoghen, which will guarantee his retirement benefits and a seat of honour at the National Council of State, “makes Nigeria a huge joke”.

    The statement reads: “If it indeed made such a recommendation (and what we are reading is not fake news), then the NJC condones corruption and this raises a lot of questions in my mind.

    “However, the simple question for the Executive is whether President Muhammadu Buhari would confirm that he is, indeed, selective on which allegations of corruption he chooses to prosecute.

    “In my view, given the situation as it is, the honourable path for President Buhari should be to accept the so called voluntary resignation and leave the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) and EFCC to continue with their respective jobs on the allegations on Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    “President Buhari would, by so doing, be helping the country to get to the bottom of the case for the sake of probity in our national life.

    “Importantly, the outgoing CJN would also have the opportunity to clear his name in open court on the allegations that the EFCC is levelling against him.

    “Finally, the outcome of such open court trial will make it clear to all as to whether the outgoing CJN should receive benefits, including sitting in the Council of State.”

    Badejo, a former University of Lagos (UNILAG) don who consults for the African Union (AU), urged the President to do more in cleansing the Judiciary.

    “He has institutions to direct to interfere in the Judiciary towards totally cleaning up the Augean stable at our Supreme Court. With incontrovertible evidence, there would be more ‘voluntary resignations’.

    “Not to do so is to confirm that he, Mr. President is also corrupt. To be quiet and condoning of corruption is to be corrupt.

    “The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has been condoning allegations of corruption on many politicians and had turned a blind eye on glaring cases having to do with the ruling party’s major financiers.

    “Equally, some principal members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have also been sacred cows under President Buhari’s first term in office.

    “Cleaning up our Judiciary presents an opportunity for the President to do well and not follow the APC pattern with politicians on the situation of our Judiciary.

    “The Judiciary is far above our dishonourable politicians. President Buhari should show that his second term will not be business as usual and move towards justice in the land would be an appropriate point of commencement.

    “He should not be persuaded by compatriots who want all cases of corruption caught and brought before the law before allowing our Judiciary to handle the allegations against the outgoing CJN.

    “By the same token, he should nudge the CCB/ICPC/EFCC to look into all outstanding cases, including those very close to himself as the President. It would be injustice to make the outgoing CJN the only case to be examined.

    “His successor in waiting should be scrutinised properly. This is more so when the outgoing CJN had reportedly argued that some of the alleged wrong doings had been the practice/convention at the Supreme Court.

    “I do not buy this as defence (if indeed he made it), because if he found wrongs, CJN Onnoghen had enough time to undertake reforms.

    “The point is that outgoing CJN should have his days in open court and not only before an opaque NJC as President Buhari makes transparent effort to clean up the Judiciary.

    “Nigeria must have clean Judges left who can occupy the exalted position of being the ultimate judicial leaders.”

  • Resign, Onnoghen, resign

    With the head of the judiciary, Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen (CJN) charged before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for alleged disobedience of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), our constitutional democracy is on trial. The CJN is facing a six-count charge, for failing to declare bank accounts allegedly containing about three million dollars in his asset declaration form filed with the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    According to media reports, the CJN has admitted the infractions, pleading oversight while filing the returns as required by the constitution. Despite the reported admission, his defence lawyers have filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of CCT to hear the matter. Also, parties claiming public interest have obtained ex parte interim order from the Federal High Court, restraining the CCT from hearing the case pending the determination of an interlocutory application.

    On their part, four governors from the south-south met last week and advised the CJN to disobey the summons by the CCT. Also, some Niger Delta agitators have threatened to attack oil facilities if the trial is not discontinued by the Federal Government. In its own wisdom, the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) and some senior lawyers have asked that the trial be discontinued, citing the case of Ngajiuwa vs Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Conversely, others, including Professor Itse Sagay (SAN), have distinguished Ngajiuwa from the charges against the CJN. They argued that while the earlier case deals with professional misconduct in the performance of official duty, the case against the CJN deals with a breach of a constitutional imposition, which also provides the avenue for seeking redress. They argued that only the CCT has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the alleged infraction and definitely not the National Judicial Council (NJC), as canvassed by the opposing view.

    Of note, in Ahmed vs Ahmed & Ors (2013) LPELR 21143 (SC), a Supreme Court panel headed by the CJN held that the CCB has exclusive constitutional jurisdiction as in the present case. In the words of Justice Onnoghen: “Any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach of provisions of this code shall be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.” The CJN was quoting Paragraph 12 of Part 1 of the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The provision empowers the CCB to charge such breach before the CCT.

    In the face of the alleged constitutional infraction which the CJN has reportedly admitted, his lawyers are hinging their defence on procedural challenges. They raised the issue of personal service, even when the prosecution claimed the CJN directed his assistant to acknowledge service. They asked that the CJN should first be tried by the NJC, which he heads and has the prerogative to nominate many of its members. Clearly, the defence team is relying on technical obfuscations to defeat the trial of the CJN.

    Considering that the matter is before the courts, it will be improper to comment on the propriety of the applications pending before the tribunal and the cases filed to defeat the trial. This is more so as the courts are yet to rule on them. However without prejudice to the right of a citizen to defend himself in any manner he considers just, we feel justified in public interest because of the enormous responsibilities on the shoulder of the CJN, to exercise our right of holding an opinion on this grave national development.

    Since none of the cases filed to shield the CJN from trial contested the genuineness of the claims against the CJN, and considering that the CJN has admitted the alleged infractions, we urge him to immediately resign to save the image of the judiciary which he symbolises. Moreover, in Ahmed vs Ahmed (supra) he has upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of the CCB and consequently CCT to deal with similar issues as he is now involved.

    Were the circumstance different, the defence lawyers would have recourse to accelerated hearing, for the CJN to answer the substantive issues raised against him. But of note, both the defence lawyers at the tribunal, and those at the various high courts, and even the public commentators are all seeking to raise obstacles to forestall a hearing on merit of the charges raised against the CJN.

    We admit that the trial of the CJN few weeks to a general election, in which the arm of government he heads would play a major role, is untidy. We appreciate that the prosecutors may harbour bad faith, or even extraneous considerations. We are also scandalised that in clearing the CJN for the high office, these allegations were not raised during his confirmation. But then, all of these would amount to little if the CJN has admitted the alleged infractions, as widely published by the media. The question now is whether he has the moral authority to cling to technicality as a defence to the charges? Our answer is NO.

  • How Supreme Court’s verdict affirmed CCT’s powers

    Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen, who is challenging the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to try him for alleged non-declaration of assets, had given judgments affirming the Tribunal’s powers.

    In one of the judgments delivered on July 12, 2013, he held that the CCT had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all violations contravening any of the provisions of the Code of Conduct Bureau.

    He also held that the provisions “expressly ousted the powers of ordinary regular courts in respect of such violations.”

    Chief Justice Onnoghen’s lawyers are arguing that the charges against him should first be decided by the National Judicial Council (NJC). Can the NJC not be considered an “ordinary regular court” in the circumstance?

    The judgment was in a suit numbered SC.279/2012 before Justices Onnoghen, Christopher Mitchell, Chukwuma-Eneh, Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, Clara Bata Ogunbiyi and Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs.

    The case was between Ismaeel Ahmed and Alhaji Nasiru Ahmed, Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), CPC Kano State Chapter chairman and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Interpreting Paragraph 12 of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as regards CCT’s jurisdiction, Justice Onnoghen held: “’…the said paragraph 12 provides as follows: ‘Any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach of or has not complied with the provisions of this Code shall be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.’

    “The foregoing provisions are clearly unambiguous and so construed literally mean that any breaches of any provisions of the said 5th schedule or matters of noncompliance with any provisions of the Code shall, (meaning that it is mandatory i.e. must) be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau that has established its Tribunal with the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any violations of any provisions under the Code.

    “If I may emphasise, any violations shall be made to Code of Conduct Bureau. The provisions have made it mandatory to take any matters so covered by the 5th schedule (supra) to the Code of Conduct Bureau and not to any ordinary regular Courts as has been done in this instance.

    “If I may repeat, the Code of Conduct Tribunal has been established with the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all violations contravening any of the provisions of the Code as per paragraph 15(1). This provision has expressly ousted the powers of ordinary regular courts in respect of such violations.

    “The Tribunal to the exclusion of other courts is also empowered to impose any punishments as specified under sub-paragraphs (2) (a), (b) & (c) of paragraph 18 as provided in sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of paragraph 18 while appeals shall lie as of right from such decisions to the Court of Appeal.

    “Simply put, to tackle any violation of the Code starts before the Code of Conduct Bureau Tribunal to the Court below on appeal and on a further appeal therefrom to this Court.

    Read also: CCT trial: Fed Govt freezes Onnoghen’s five accounts

    “As can be seen, the lower Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over the Code of Conduct Tribunal and no more.”

    In his contributory judgment in Ahmed V. Ahmed & Ors (2013) Lpelr-21143(SC), Justice Onnoghen said regarding breach of public conduct: “It is the contention of the cross appellants that the initiation of the appeal process etc by M.K. Dabo esq is in violation of the Paragraphs of the 5th Schedule thereby rendering the actions so taken and the processes null and void.

    “The real important question to ask at this stage is, what is the consequence of the violation of the aforesaid paragraphs of the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution?

    “The answer to the above question is to be found in Paragraph 12 of the said Part 1 of the 5th Schedule which enacts as follows: -‘Any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach of provisions of this code shall be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.’

    “It is my considered view that the above provision is very clear and unambiguous. It provides a remedy in the event of any alleged breach of the provisions. The remedy lies with the Code of Conduct Bureau which has been clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to handle such matters.”

  • How Onnoghen’s judgments affirmed CCT’s powers

    Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen, who is challenging the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to try him for alleged non-declaration of assets, had given judgments affirming the Tribunal’s powers.

    In one of the judgments delivered on July 12, 2013, he held that the CCT had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all violations contravening any of the provisions of the Code of Conduct Bureau.

    He also held that the provisions “expressly ousted the powers of ordinary regular courts in respect of such violations.”
    Chief Justice Onnoghen’s lawyers are arguing that the charges against him should first be decided by the National Judicial Council (NJC). Can the NJC not be considered an “ordinary regular court” in the circumstance?

    The judgment was in a suit numbered SC.279/2012 before Justices Onnoghen, Christopher Mitchell, Chukwuma-Eneh, Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, Clara Bata Ogunbiyi and Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs.

    The case was between Ismaeel Ahmed and Alhaji Nasiru Ahmed, Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), CPC Kano State Chapter chairman and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Interpreting Paragraph 12 of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as regards CCT’s jurisdiction, Justice Onnoghen held: “’…the said paragraph 12 provides as follows: ‘Any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach of or has not complied with the provisions of this Code shall be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.’

    “The foregoing provisions are clearly unambiguous and so construed literally mean that any breaches of any provisions of the said 5th schedule or matters of noncompliance with any provisions of the Code shall, (meaning that it is mandatory i.e. must) be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau that has established its Tribunal with the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any violations of any provisions under the Code.

    “If I may emphasise, any violations shall be made to Code of Conduct Bureau. The provisions have made it mandatory to take any matters so covered by the 5th schedule (supra) to the Code of Conduct Bureau and not to any ordinary regular Courts as has been done in this instance.

    Read also: Breaking: FG orders NFIU to freeze Onnoghen’s five accounts

    “If I may repeat, the Code of Conduct Tribunal has been established with the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all violations contravening any of the provisions of the Code as per paragraph 15(1). This provision has expressly ousted the powers of ordinary regular courts in respect of such violations.

    “The Tribunal to the exclusion of other courts is also empowered to impose any punishments as specified under sub-paragraphs (2) (a), (b) & (c) of paragraph 18 as provided in sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of paragraph 18 while appeals shall lie as of right from such decisions to the Court of Appeal.

    “Simply put, to tackle any violation of the Code starts before the Code of Conduct Bureau Tribunal to the Court below on appeal and on a further appeal therefrom to this Court.

    “As can be seen, the lower Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over the Code of Conduct Tribunal and no more.”

    In his contributory judgment in Ahmed V. Ahmed & Ors (2013) Lpelr-21143(SC), Justice Onnoghen said regarding breach of public conduct: “It is the contention of the cross appellants that the initiation of the appeal process etc by M.K. Dabo esq is in violation of the Paragraphs of the 5th Schedule thereby rendering the actions so taken and the processes null and void.

    “The real important question to ask at this stage is what is the consequences of the violation of the aforesaid paragraphs of the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution?

    “The answer to the above question is to be found in Paragraph 12 of the said Part 1 of the 5th Schedule which enacts as follows: -‘Any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach of provisions of this code shall be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau.’

    “It is my considered view that the above provision is very clear and unambiguous. It provides a remedy in the event of any alleged breach of the provisions. The remedy lies with the Code of Conduct Bureau which has been clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to handle such matters.”