The Nation Newspaper

Tag: CJN

  • Why CJN should clear his name, by lawyer

    An Aba lawyer, Victor C. Nwaugo, has urged Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen to clear his name.

    He said the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) should be “bold” enough to face the charge as anything to the contrary would create the wrong impression about him.

    Nwaugo recalled that allegations of misconduct were not new in the Supreme Court even if not proven.

    He said in a statement: “Hon Justice Uwaifo in his valedictory party first drew the nation’s attention to the rot at the Supreme Court. He accused the CJN then of awarding contracts to his wives.

    “In fact, Justice Uwais was accused of awarding contract to his second wife, then a lawyer.

    “The accusation was made by a group known as Derivative Front believed to be based in Southsouth of Nigeria.

    “Exactly on 21st June 2005, Mr Ephraim Duru had appeared before the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/ 161/2001, The Honda Place Vs. Globe Motors to argue his application for transfer of motion then pending before the Supreme Court from the Panel chaired by Justice Uwais to another on grounds of likelihood of bias based on corruption.

    “Uwais was accused of ordering for supply of several pieces of Honda vehicles from Honda Place even when a dispute of who between Honda Place and Globe Motors had the sole distributorship right of Honda vehicles in Nigeria.

    Read Also: Court hears CJN’s appeal against trial Thursday

    “The allegation also carried the fact that certain pieces of Honda vehicles were supplied to the Supreme Court by Honda Place.

    “As a result, Ephraim Duru was hounded by very many senior Advocates of Nigeria and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) threatened to prosecute him and take him before Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

    “It took the courage of four Aba lawyers: Ukpai Ukairo, O.O.Anyadikw, Victor C. Nwaugo and Age Nwachukwu to stand to the defence of Duru both in court and NBA NEC meeting in Aba.

    “There was a write-up tagged Before Ephraim Duru is crucified, which was well circulated before NEC members who came for meeting in Aba wherein the role of Duru, in that case, was well explained.

    “Lord Chancellor of England from where we borrowed our system, Lord Francis Bacon was convicted of corruption; Lord Macclesfield was reputed for his prolific demands for pecuniary aggrandizement. Both suffered the consequences of their actions.

    “Our own Justice Onnoghen is facing a charge of breach of Code of Conduct as a public officer and all you hear some lawyers raise is ‘PDP this way’, ‘APC that way’, ‘Son of Niger Delta’, etc.

    “Some quote irrelevant case of Nganjiwa vs. FRN without querying Onnoghen’s innocence in the accusation.

    “Justice Onnoghen has in the case of Ahmed vs. Ahmed 2014, Vol 231 of LRCN stated the position of the law that any charge bordering on breach of Code of Conduct by a public officer under schedule 5 is exclusively triable by Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    “So, the actions we take today or the things we say today may hunt us tomorrow. For me, Hon Justice Onnoghen: how do you plead – guilty or not guilty?

    “Only bold step towards this direction will clear your name. Any other thing, be it injunction or directives of four Niger Delta governors will end up giving you a permanent tag of a corrupt man in our minds.”

  • CJN: Court orders service of processes on CCT chairman

    The National Industrial Court, Abuja, on Monday ordered the service of an interim order and hearing notice on the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Malam Danladi Umar.

    The orders follow the suit seeking to restrain the tribunal from persecuting the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mr. Walter Onnoghen.

    At the hearing, counsel to the claimant, James Igwe (SAN), informed the court that originating processes and interim order had been served on all parties except the tribunal’s chairman and the Senate President.

    Igwe said it was the secretary to the tribunal’s chairman that received the document and not the chairman personally.

    He, however, said the Senate president was not served as an oversight that should be corrected immediately.

    The judge, Justice Sanusi Kado, therefore ordered that the processes and interim order be served on the tribunal’s chairman through substituted means.

    He equally ordered that notice should be placed on the wall of the tribunal’s office.

    He held that hearing notices should be served on all parties.

    He also gave the order that the interim order made on Jan.14 restraining the defendants from further proceeding with the trial against the CJN should subsist.

    The judge adjourned the matter until Jan. 30 for hearing of motion on notice of the interlocutory injunction in the substantive suit.

    The CJN is facing a six-count charge before the CCT over an alleged non-declaration of assets.

    Read Also: Court restates order stopping CCT from forcing CJN to vacate office

    The trial is based on a petition filed by a group, the Anti-corruption, Research and Data-based Initiative.

    The claimant in the suit, one Mr Peter Abang, therefore, filed an ex-parte motion before the court seeking an order to suspend the trial at the tribunal.

    Joined as co-defendants in the suit are Code of Court Bureau, CCB, CCT chairman, Danladi Umar; Attorney General of the Federation and The National Judicial Commission.

    Others are The Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Inspector General of Police, the Justice Minister, Abubakar Malami, Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and National Judicial Council.

    Mr Garba Tetengi, Defence Counsel to NJC was the only defence counsel in court.

  • CCB, CJN and indeterminate future

    IT is all but certain that the next few weeks before the fateful 2019 elections, particularly the presidential election, will be pockmarked by bitter wrangling between opposing parties and open, provocative plots by the government. It is also certain that the All Progressives Congress (APC), as evidenced by the Information minister’s Friday disclosures on the collapse of Bank PHB, will be on the offensive throughout, and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) will be on the defensive throughout. If the APC triumphs as a result of its relentless chicaneries, it will be because voters are not too discriminating to read between the lines of the ruling party’s propaganda. But if the PDP escapes the guillotine by the skin of their teeth and wins the poll, it will be because voters are excessively indulgent. Faced with a Hobson’s choice next month, a choice the judicious will find very unpleasant to make, perhaps the most unpleasant since the founding of Nigeria, voters will troop to the polls in fewer numbers than they used to, hold their noses, and cast their ballots with a hiss and a regret.

    To make the outcome certain, however, the Muhammadu Buhari presidency in quick succession last week dragged Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for offences connected with non-declaration of assets, and are lying in wait for Atiku Abubakar, currently travelling in the United States, whom they accused of having a hand in the collapse of Bank PHB. There will be more jokers and shenanigans in the coming days. For now, the most topical of all the subterfuges orchestrated by the presidency is the Justice Onnoghen case, a case that has bitterly divided the country into almost two equal halves, with lawyers and laymen disputing the propriety of the case using complicated and extenuating legal and moral arguments. The case is anchored on two counts: one is that the government has acted in good faith on point of law, and the other is that the government has acted mala fide both morally and legally. The gravamen of both counts is that the Buhari presidency, according to some critics, has been reckless and short-sighted.

    Aware that one half of the country has stridently argued that the case against the CJN was a conspiracy by the presidency, a conspiracy anchored on Justice Onnoghen’s alleged opposition to the government and refusal to do the government’s bidding, Vice Presidnt Yemi Osinbajo has suggested on his honour that the president did not even know until the evening of January 12, 2019 that the CJN would be dragged before the CCT. He did not indicate how the president got to know. However, according to him, “I can tell you for a fact that (the president) did not even know about this until Saturday evening.” Then he added: “He did not even know that there will be any kind of arraignment until Saturday evening. He has said categorically, ‘do not interfere with whatever institutions are doing’; sometimes, it has consequences such as we have today; such that people say how can such an important person be subjected to a trial without the federal government knowing? But I can tell you without any equivocation whatsoever that he was not even in the know because it is a specific instruction that he gave.”

    The public doubt the vice president because the federal government does not have a tradition of not micromanaging the country and subordinating and subjugating the country’s institutions. They are uncomfortable with the legislature and judiciary running independently, especially at cross-purposes with them, and are hostile to and wary of anyone in government having a mind of his own. Though the Kaduna State governor, Nasir el-Rufai, has tried to corroborate the argument of the vice president, few people think he is really convincing. According to Mallam el-Rufai: “Why should the President know about the prosecution of anyone? Let us please stop personalising institutions. Won’t you be worried if the President is worried about prosecution? Institutions should be allowed to function. I am the governor of Kaduna State. The constitution requires that I declare my assets before being sworn in. Also, the constitution states this specifically, in plain language. This is not law; we don’t need law to tell us this. I don’t have to know if the Attorney-General of Kaduna State goes and murder or rape someone, and the police arrest him; I don’t need to know. They should charge him to court. Institutions should be allowed to work, and we should stand up to protect the integrity of institutions. Saying that the President doesn’t know, I think it is a compliment to the president; it shows that he does not interfere with institutions and doesn’t get involved in it.”

    Could the vice president and Kaduna governor be right? The balance of argument shifts badly against them on closer examination. Dennis Aghanya, the civil society activist who authored the petition against the CJN, was a ranking member of the president’s former party, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC). He was a media aide to the president in their CPC days, and publicity secretary to the same party. Since 2015, he has had a history of siding with the president on controversial issues such as spending money to buy arms without appropriation, and was a chief convener of one of the president’s myriad support organisations. No one has resolved the question of how Mr Aghanya procured the CJN’s assets form. Crucially, too, Mr Aghanya presented the petition to the CCB on January 9, 2019, and in two days, the bureau had concluded investigations into the matter, obtained a badly worded and panicky response from the CJN, and then filed a six-count charge at the CCT. The pro-government forces make light of the indecent and unprecedented haste, insisting that the public should instead focus on the CJN’s admission of guilt, an admission they have ridiculed. But they are mistaken.

    Even more damning, say critics, is the synchronisation between the Justice minister’s furiously fast directive to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) to freeze the CJN’s accounts and the other actions taken against the eminent jurist. The directive to freeze the accounts was dated the same day the trial was to commence, January 14, 2018, implying a preconception days or weeks before the execution. The NFIU also received the letter the same day. The entire affair was obviously synchronised. By Thursday, January 17, the federal government had filed another motion before the CCT asking the court for an interlocutory order to compel the removal of the CJN and for the president to replace him with the next in rank, Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, their preferred candidate for the great office since the departure of the former CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, in 2016. Clearly, the intention is to attack Justice Onnoghen on many fronts until he caves in. Whether he will throw in the towel is not known, however. But there is no doubt that the attacks are coordinated.

    Prof Osinbajo may suggest that the president did not know about the Onnoghen arraignment until two Saturdays ago, and Mallam el-Rufai may applaud that unsubstantiated fact, thereby indicating simplistically that it pointed both to the independence of institutions under President Buhari and the president’s own sagacity in letting things run on their own, but few people will believe them. The president’s Justice minister was deeply involved in the plot, despite knowing what the law says on the matter. And because he unfortunately holds the two offices of the Justice ministry and the Attorney General of the Federation, it is totally inconceivable that a Justice minister would hide such a huge case that was certain to reinforce the president’s insensitivity to the South-South. No one knows who the arrowhead of the conspiracy is; but there was undoubtedly a conspiracy. Indeed, the argument about whether there was a conspiracy or not has not even weighed on the minds of the anti-Onnoghen forces as much as the CJN’s so-called admission of guilt and the wrongdoing implied in the controversial assets declaration, especially at a time when the anti-corruption war had become the main focus of public discussions.

    The coordinated but controversial case against the CJN clearly shows that the Buhari presidency does not expect that the case would be resolved in their favour in the courts. In fact, they expect the case to end either in stalemate or, going by precedent, in favour of the defendant. The Justice minister is not so unlettered in law that he does not remember the acquittal eight months ago of Supreme Court Justice, Sylvester Ngwuta, who was also accused of concealing some of his private assets and doing private business contrary to the provisions of the law. In dismissing the case, the same CCT, before which the CJN has been brought, concluded in a ruling read by William Atedze, a member of the three-man CCT panel, that “What this means is that any allegation of official misconduct will first have to be referred to the National Judicial Council to the exclusion of any other body, court or Tribunal”. And citing the Court of Appeal verdict in the Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa case, further held that “Judicial precedent is binding for as long as it is subsisting and until such precedent is overturned by a higher court”.

    Those who support the case against the CJN hiss at the deployment of technicality by the Justices to escape censure. They also point out that in the Justice Ngwuta case, the CCT made a Freudian slip of drawing attention to a distinction between misconduct, as contained in the constitution and official/judicial misconduct, which is not in the constitution. They suggest that the CJN case is one of general misconduct, which the CCT has jurisdiction over, not a misconduct committed in the discharge of official duties which must first be addressed by the National Judicial Council (NJC). But even the most liberal interpretation of the relevant provisions of the constitution dealing with how a judicial officer can be removed does not draw a distinction between ordinary misconduct and judicial misconduct. The constitution speaks of misconduct, nothing more and nothing less. Furthermore, there is no part of the Third and Fifth Schedules of the constitution, nor of Sections 158 and 292, that makes the trial and removal of Judicial officers a complex affair. The provisions may be inadequate — and this column thinks they require amendment — but they are not complicated. Until an amendment is done, however, the law remains the law. The Buhari presidency knows this; and that is why it has preferred to try the case in the media, hoping that public sympathy and pressure would help force the resignation of the CJN.

    The Presidency has tried to give the impression that the CJN case is simply and solely one of fighting corruption. This is not true. The case, despite the legal lacunae enveloping it, is more of politics than anything else. Since 2015, the Buhari presidency has indicated that it trusts no one with sensitive offices but those with kinship ties. Sadly, the choices have been sectional and iniquitous to fairness, leading to allegations of insularity and ethnic bigotry. The government, some suggest, expects the 2019 election to be tight and perhaps controversial, and might end in the courts. In addition, there are a number of pre-election matters that require the input of the judicial hierarchy. The government worries that nothing should be left to chance, hence the rather clumsy efforts to streamline and control things, regardless of public reservations and opposition.

    If, without conceding, the vice president and Kaduna governor are right that the president was not part of the decision to haul the CJN before the CCT, it may mean more frighteningly that the popular impression of a president not really in control of his government may be true after all. Those of his household who draw this conclusion have shouted themselves hoarse about the hijack of the presidency by cabals, and those who describe the president as inattentive to details and the affairs of state may not be as malevolent as presidential aides have campaigned. The president’s views and arguments on the farmers/ herders crisis, the replacement last September of the acting director-general of the Department of State Service (DSS), Matthew Seiyefa from the South-South, with Yusuf Bichi from the North, and the skewing of security appointments in favour of the core North have all given indication of a gross lack of depth and capacity. The CJN affair may very well fit the bill.

    Last week’s performance of the president on the Nigerian Television Authority-organised town hall meeting is an example. It was bad enough that nearly all the answers given by the president were inadequate and uninspiring; it was much worse that he hardly indicated he understood most of the questions. It was not stage fright that numbed and stifled him; he has been around public office for far too long to be discomfited by interviewers, even merciless ones. It had to be a lack of profundity and too much jadedness. The country may in fact be dealing with a leader who cannot seem to tackle issues holistically, nor, more damningly, appreciate the import of his decisions, policies and appointments. There is corruption in the judiciary, as in nearly all facets of the society. But the president has had about four years to inspire lasting reforms to tackle the rot and fight corruption in such a manner that a leg can be amputated without killing the patient. He chose to employ mundane tactics, such as orchestrated public lynching, aka media trial, and promote a disconcertingly archaic and sectional style that humiliates the country and black people everywhere, and hamstrings his own government.

    There will be no let up in pressuring the CJN to relinquish office. The Justice minister, who has shown a disturbing proclivity for regime protection than advancing the cause of the law and democracy, has already indicated in the government’s motion before the CCT whom they wish to replace the CJN. Justice Onnoghen may have surprised everyone by his response to the CCB investigations, a response he is unlikely to be proud of in the years to come, and many Nigerians may have emotionally already concluded, as is usual in media trials, that the CJN is guilty of corrupt practices. But the framers of the constitution, as exampled by Section 158 (1), were anxious to preserve the independence of, and make co-equal, the three arms of government. The Buhari presidency, despite the sham and intemperate support Mallam el-Rufai gives them, has done nothing visionary and substantial to preserve, protect, and advance the cause of the constitution, nor, worse, help the country make a ‘more perfect union’. For the sake of the future, Nigerians must not pretend to be unaware of the devices of the presidency. They must not because of their position on Justice Onnoghen inadvertently help the Buhari presidency weaken an already imperfect constitution and expose the people needlessly to creeping totalitarianism. Making Nigeria great transcends the sometimes insular goals of the presidency, any presidency for that matter.

  • Charges against CJN not tenable – Lawyer

    Mr Realwan Okpanachi, a senior lawyer in the FCT, says that the charges against the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, are not tenable.

    Okpanachi said his contention was based on the provisions of sections 292(1a)(i) and 292(1b) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

    The senior lawyer made this known in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria on Friday in Abuja.

    The lawyer also made reference to the subsisting decision of the Court of Appeal in Nganjiwa vs FRN (2017) LPELR-43391 case.

    NAN recalls that Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa had appealed the decision of the High Court of Lagos State in 2017, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and determine the instant information against her.

    Nganjiwa was by 14-Count information charged for offences ranging from unlawful enrichment by a public officer to making false information.

    NAN also recalls that the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) had filed a six-count criminal charge bordering on alleged refusal to declare assets and operating foreign bank accounts, against the CJN.

    Okpanachi said that the Code of Conduct Tribunal could have the jurisdiction to try the CJN based on the fact that he was neither above the law, nor entitled to immunity.

    “But the jurisdiction of the tribunal has not been effectively activated because the conditions for its innovation, as laid down in the above court of Appeal decision, have not been satisfied.

    “In as much as I do not agree with the said decision, it is a binding and subsisting decision which must be respected by every person and authority,’’ Okpanachi said.

    He maintained that the issue at stake was not about the merit of the charges against the CJN, but about the rule of law.

    Read Also: El-Rufai urges CJN Onnoghen to resign

    “That is the binding of the subsisting judgment of the Court of Appeal, stating unequivocally that a serving judicial officer cannot be arraigned or tried in any court for a criminal offence.

    “Not until such officer has been investigated, dismissed or recommended for trial by the National Judicial Council,’’ the lawyer said.

    He further said that the lawyers who filed the charges did so in total ignorance for the constitutional provisions and the Court of Appeal judgment in Nganjiwa’s case.

    “In view of the above, I humbly advise the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Attorney General of the Federation to withdraw the charges and apologise for their error of judgment,’’ Okpanachi said.

  • Buhari not aware of CJN’s arraignment – Osinbajo

    Vice President Yemi Osinbajo says he is feeling sad over the trial of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen, on allegations of false and non-asset declarations.

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) had scheduled Jan. 14 for the arraignment of the CJN.

    However, the process was stalled as the CJN failed to appear before the CCT; and a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja also ordered the CCT to halt proceedings.

    Osinbajo, who spoke at the 2019 Online Publishers Association of Nigeria (OPAN) conference on Wednesday in Abuja, said that President Muhammadu Buhari had no prior knowledge of the arraignment.

    The theme of the conference is “Free Press and Objective Reporting in the 2019 Election Year.’’

    According to Osinbajo, Buhari’s approach is that institutions should do their work.

    “ I can tell you for a fact that he did not even know about this until Saturday evening. He did not even know that there will be any kind of arraignment until Saturday evening.

    “He has said categorically, do not interfere with whatever institutions are doing; sometimes, it has consequences such as we have today; such that people say how can such an important person be subjected to a trial without the Federal Government?

    “But I can tell you without any equivocation whatsoever that he was not even in the know because it is a specific instruction that he gave.

    “So , even where somebody else calls a public officer such as Ibrahim Magu of EFCC and says something or the other, he will say `no, no, no, Mr president has said I can do my work.

    “My take is that I would rather not have a situation where senior members of my profession are being tried for an offence; certainly, I will rather not have that kind of situation.

    “ So, I do not feel particularly good about it; as a matter of fact, I feel very sad; that it is going on at all, that is my position.’’’

    Osinbajo tasked online publishers to go after details and check the facts before publishing; warning that online news was losing credibility.

    The vice president said that elections had heightened ethnic and religious tensions and tended to threaten and challenge Nigeria’s unity and security.

    “So, it is even more so, the case today that we just must be more responsive because anybody on their beds can launch a website, post images from anywhere in the world and tell whatever story he wishes.

    Read Also: IGP appoints Mba new Force Spokesman

    “So, the online publisher is essentially in a poorly regulated space and can publish practically anything, even outright falsehoods.

    “Perhaps because the worst that can happen is a libel action if your publication tarnishes a person’s reputation.

    “The problem with the current situation is that online news may lose credibility; and that is a very bad situation because the loss of credibility is bad for everybody, bad for business and weakens an important social tool of public communication.’’

    He suggested the encouragement and promotion of forums for online practitioners to engage and develop by interaction with others.

    “As for elections, I think it affords an opportunity for an online publication to become well established as a credible and speedy source of news and information.

    “News on election results will be so sought after that anyone who can provide them accurately and in a timely fashion will be the go-to-site, even in the future.

    “The point to bear in mind is that integrity pays. Being the first to break the news, especially when it is unverified, might bring in some traffic initially, but it does not take that long to lose reputation.

    “And once the credibility of the publication is damaged, people will not take the news seriously,’’ he said.

    Earlier in a remark, OPAN President, Mr Austin Ogannah, said that the association as founded in 2011.

    According to him, the idea is to have an association that self regulates practitioners in the online news media; so that members can hold one another accountable.

    Ogannah said that the essence of the conference was to understand objective reporting in an election as captured in the theme.

  • CJN in the dock

    Nigeria is a country of many possibilities. Anything can happen. Even things that were hitherto not thinkable in this planet could just occur. One of such possibilities happened last week when the Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB, dragged the sitting Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen, to the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT, over non-declaration of assets. It marks the first time a sitting CJN will be arraigned in court. It also marks the second time, in this administration, that senior judicial officers have been subjected to legal action without recourse to the National Judicial Council, NJC, the disciplinary arm of the judiciary.

    The action against Onnoghen is predicated upon a petition submitted to the CCB by the Anti-corruption and Research-based Data Initiative, ARDI, a civil society group. Although Onnoghen’s chairmanship of the NJC may have presented minor complications if the bureau had reverted first to the NJC, its decision to proceed straight to arraignment presents much bigger complications, and it is not all legal in nature. As it is, there are legal and political aspects to the ensuing controversy.

    Legally speaking, the move by the CCB is a curious case. The CCB’s action at the CCT touches on the discipline of judicial officers, an area which the NJC claims superseding, or in the least, supervisory, powers. Paragraph 18 (1) and (2) of Part I of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, grants the tribunal the power of punishment of public officers for offences in contravention of the Code of Conduct, including matters related to declaration of assets. However, paragraph 21 (b) & (d) of the Third Schedule to the constitution grants the NJC power over the discipline of judicial officers. As such, there is a question of which power supersedes the other.

    Also, it appears that the ultimate aim of the action against Onnoghen is to prosecute and remove the CJN from office. Although the constitution authorises the CCT to remove public officers as a disciplinary measure, section 292 (1) (a) (i) of the constitution specifically mentions the CJN as part of a cadre of public officers who can only be removed from office by the president, acting on an address by two thirds of the members of the senate.

    Nigerian law dictates that specific provisions, as in section 292, supersedes general provisions or references, as in “public officer” in paragraph 18 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the constitution. Although paragraph 5 of Part II of that schedule lists the Chief Judge of Nigeria as one of the “public officers” referred to in Part I, the list also includes the president, who, for obvious reasons, cannot be subject to the authority of the CCT. One can argue that there are reasons that exclude the CJN from its authority as well.

    Then there is the question of the 2017 judgment in the case of Nganjiwa v F.R.N, which has been cited against CCB’s action by some legal practitioners. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that any question of misconduct against a judicial officer is actionable only after the NJC has acted on it and removed the judicial officer. Prof. Itse Sagay, chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council on Anti-Corruption, has argued that the issue of declaration of assets is not a matter that arose “in the course of duty”. Irrespective of his view, Prof. Sagay continues to display shockingly misguided utterances for a supposed legal luminary when he seemed to encourage disregard of the Court of Appeal’s decision in any case, even as it remains binding.

    When the justices of the Supreme Court were raided, arrested and some arraigned by the Department of State Services, DSS, in 2016, the NJC decried the usurpation and disregard of its authority. It stressed the importance of going through the NJC in every matter involving a judicial officer, as a condition precedent to any further legal action. It now seems that NJC’s statement and warning has gone unheeded in the worst possible way. Some lawyers thought that the Nganjiwa judgment provided some cover for NJC’s authority, but the limitations of that judgment are now being clearly tested in this matter. With all the uncertainty, only judicial interpretation can resolve the pressing questions.

    Leaving the legal aspect for the determination of competent authorities, there are political ramifications of the arraignment of Onnoghen that are disturbing. With elections only weeks away, a move on the head of the judiciary cannot but have political gears grinding, with allegations of ill-motive being shouted from the roof tops by opposition parties. Adding to the precarious timing of the petition is the seeming reluctance of the president to confirm Onnoghen in the first place. His confirmation was left till the eleventh hour, with the vice-president almost hurriedly having to send a nomination to the senate for confirmation. Not only that, the executive secretary of the ARDI, Dennis Aghanya, who submitted the petition against Onnoghen, has now been linked to the president. Apparently, he was National Publicity Secretary of President Buhari’s Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, before it merged into the All Progressive’s Congress, APC, with other parties.

    Although all of the connections above are mere conjecture, it has attracted enough attention to cause the Niger-Delta governors to call an emergency meeting. Also, it has made the dormant militants of the Niger Delta to raise their heads from their sleeping state to issue threats. Whether intended or not, the political backlash was always going to be severe in an atmosphere where a long-serving and diligent official in the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, is being castigated in a harmless capacity within the commission. The presidency and all agencies connected to the CJN’s case need to read between the lines of our fragile union in Nigeria and be well advised on decisions that could tip the pot especially at a time like this, so close to elections.

    The polity is being held together at the seams by what remains of our common decency as Nigerians and the belief in a better tomorrow. Decisions that stir the boiling underbelly of tribalism and ethnicity in our fragile union can easily lead to unwholesome consequences at this pivotal time, so close to elections. One is not saying that where there is a clear case of misconduct, it should not be acted upon, but where the question of due process of law is shrouded in uncertainty, there is a greater duty to maintain public peace and confidence in the system than there is to enter into expedited action against senior judicial officers.

    There are many talking points, but none is greater than the fact of the damage already done to the image of the CJN. Details of his accounts have been made public and there is no taking back the impression created by the manner of deposits of foreign currency in his accounts. The year 2011 when the deposits were made was also an election year, and this adds to the suspicions about the financial activity in his accounts. In a profession where the slightest inference of misdeed is catastrophic, the damage has already been done to the CJN. While the legal community has gone up in arms to protect their own, and the CJN’s kinsmen have rallied around him, let us not lose focus of the fact that judicial officers are held to the highest standards and there are indeed questions to be answered by the CJN.

    The important issue is not so much about the executive picking fights with the judiciary, but about constitutional loopholes that should not be exploited in the worst possible manner. Had Bukola Saraki, the senate president, been found guilty of his own case before the CCT, the same issues would have arisen when it comes to what the tribunal has power to do. It is therefore imperative that these overlapping functions arising from the constitution be thoroughly handled when next there is an amendment.

  • Breaking: We did not raid Onnoghen’s residence – EFCC

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) has described as “untrue and evil”, reports in some quarters that its personnel had invaded the Abuja residence of Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Spokesman of the commission Tony Orilade tod the News Agency of Nigeria in Abuja on Tuesday that the fake news “ is being spread by evil men and women to get evil results.”

    NAN reports that this may be connected to the halting of Onnoghen’s trial by the Federal High Court Abuja on Monday.

    Read Also: We’ll not tolerate vote-buying, says EFCC

    The court had asked the Federal Government to put on hold plans to arraign Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    The Federal Government had, through the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), filed six counts of non-declaration of assets charges against Onnoghen.

    However, ruling on two separate ex parte applications, Justice N.E Maha, ordered parties to maintain status quo until Jan. 17.

  • CJN shuns CCT, queries court’s jurisdiction

    JUSTICE Walter Onnoghen, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), scheduled for arraignment for alleged false assets declaration charges, was not anywhere around the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) yesterday.

    His lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told the CCT that the CJN was not properly served the summons. He is to be personally served tomorrow.

    CCT Chairman Danladi Umar called Justice Onnoghen’s case at about 10:08am. But the CJN did not attend yesterday’s proceedings at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), scheduled for his arraignment on charges of non-declaration of assets.

    Olanipekun, SAN, led a retinue of lawyers, including 46 senior advocates, to defend the nation’s chief law officer.

    At the commencement of proceedings and the mention of the charge marked: CCT/ABJ/01/2019, lead prosecution lawyer Aliyu Umar (SAN) informed the tribunal that the defendant had been served with the charge and that the day’s business was for the arraignment of the defendant.

    Umar, however, noted that the defendant was absent and prayed the tribunal to inquire from the defendant’s lawyers why he did not attend proceedings.

    He argued that having been served, the defendant had no reason to refuse to attend proceedings.

    When Umar asked why his client was absent, Olanipekun said he (the CJN) was not properly served with the tribunal’s summons.

    Olanipekun also said his client had filed an application at the Federal High Court, challenging the court’s jurisdiction. He asked that the application be taken without the CJN’s presence.

    He cited many decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to support his argument that while a defendant is challenging a court’s jurisdiction or the competence of the charge against him, such a defendant need not attend court.

    He said: “The position of the law is that where a defendant in criminal trial is challenging jurisdiction, he does not need to appear in court.”

    Olanipekun also cited sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to support his argument that his client was entitled to personal service of the court summons.

    He faulted the information by the tribunal’s registrar that the CJN directed his (CJN’s) Personal Assistant (PA) to accept the court summons on his behalf.

    Olanipekun said while the information by the court official confirmed that personal service was not effected on his client, the acceptance of the summons by an aide to the CJN did not qualify as personal service, which is required under Section 123(a) of the ACJA.

    He argued that under Section 124 of the ACJA, there is need for the prosecution to obtain the leave of the tribunal where it could not effect personal service on the defendant.

    Olanipekun said he was surprised that the prosecution was talking of arraignment when proper service had not been effected on his client and he (the defendant) is appearing in protest to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    On the Chairman’s question whether or not the defendant was not aware of the pendency of the charge, Olanipekun said awareness is not the issue, but that the proper procedure provided in the law must be complied with.

    Responding, Umar argued that no law allows a defendant to stay at home and challenge the jurisdiction of the court.

    He contended that Sections 123 and 124 of the ACJA provide for personal service on the defendant.

    Umar added that since the defendant directed that his PA should accept the summons, it ought to be taken that he had waived personal service.

    He later suggested that the tribunal direct that a fresh service of the summons be effected personally on the CJN, a suggestion accepted by all. Tribunal Chairman Umar ordered a fresh service on the CJN and adjourned till January 22 for the hearing of all pending applications.

    The CJN was charged with six counts of false asset declaration by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) on January 10.

    The charges followed a petition brought against him by a group, the Anti-corruption Research and Data Based Initiative, headed by Denis Aghanya.

    In a statement, the CCT said it received the request for the trial of Justice Onnoghen on Friday and had slated yesterday to commence with the matter.

    But a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja yesterday stopped the planned arraignment of the CJN before the CCT.

    Ruling on two ex parte applications, N.E Maha, a judge, ordered parties to maintain status quo till January 17.

    He ruled that the defendants should be served with all the papers filed and that they should appear in court at the next hearing.

    ‘Law no respecter of person’

     A lawyer, Iyabo Awokoya, said the law should be no respecter of persons. With that foundation, please follow me on this journey.

    She said: “He needs to resign since he knows he cannot be sacked. That is the right thing to do.

    “As for me, I would continue to urge the FGN to bring all these issues to the public, not minding the times or seasons. We need to hold public officers accountable & they need to hold themselves accountable. The CJN, having admitted wrong doing needs to resign honourably. If you support anything else other than the CJN to resign you are biased,  corrupt and an enemy of the country.”

    CJN not above the law, says Ogunye

    Another lawyer, lawyer , Jiti Ogunye, said the CJN is not above the law.

    He said:  “If an ordinary Nigerian forgets to declare his assets, the same judiciary will cast him into kirikiri. God will judge our Judiciary and its officer for introducing sentiments into this while some of our brothers are dying in prisons just for urinating in the public. God will judge all una double standards. When he sacked and compulsorily retired many judges, it was all good and fine but he himself is now above the same law he swore to uphold. We want a better Nigeria and yet we continue to speak with two mouths. Our judiciary is our greatest problem in this country. When it favours them, they will quickly make reference with advanced democracies and right now nobody has been able to tell us any country whereby the chief justice is above the law.”

    Akure NBA chair: CJN bound by Code of Conduct

    Ogunye’s position is supported by Ola Dan Olawale, the Chairman of the Akure branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).

    He said: “It is without much ado that one can safely submit that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, His Lordship Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen is a Public Officer. His Lordship is also bound by the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers as contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic.

    “What is the AGF proposing to do? Nothing but complying with the law. Then why the hullabaloo? Those who oppose the step being taken by the Federal Government have advanced basically three arguments. First, they claim that independence of the judiciary is paramount. They have however forgotten to differentiate between the person of Mr. Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen as a Nigerian who is not above the law and who could commit offence: a Nigerian who is not immuned and who is not better than many others His Lordship had tried and sentenced. The proponents of independence of the judiciary have failed, whether by commission or commission, to see that the office of the CJN is what is meant by judicial independence and not the person in the office. They have refused to appreciate the necessity of subjecting every person to equal treatment before the law, knowing that failure to so do portends great risk to our commonwealth.

    “The second reason being put forward by defenders of His Lordship, Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen CJN is that the timing of the arraignment is suspect. According to them, the proposed charge is akin to an attempt by the ruling political party to compromise Election Petitions. This argument, every trained legal mind who agree, is fallacious. An offence can only be reported and tried when discovered. The CJN must be prepared to face and stand trial. And the burden is on His Lordship to prove his innocence as Paragraph 11.3, Part 1 of Schedule V of the 1999 Constitution deems a defendants guilty until the contrary is proved.

    “Admittedly, the premise upon which the third argument is based is true but the conclusion drawn therefrom is false. The premise of the argument is that the Federal Government cannot remove the CJN without following due process, that is through the JSC. Yes, that is the law and it has received judicial backing in the case of NGANJIWA v. FRN,  However, the conclusion drawn by anti-prosecution of Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen CJN is fallacious. Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen CJN cannot be removed except by recommendations of the National Judicial Service Commission. His Lordship can however be prosecuted by the Code of Conduct Bureau and a conviction by the Bureau can be a basis for NJC’s recommendation for removal.

    “Let us allow the rule of law and not the law of rulers. Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen is just another Nigerian who should subject himself to laws that govern all Nigerians.”

    Gana, Obi, Ekweremadu urge caution

    Presidential Candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Prof. Jerry Gana, Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu and the Vice-Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Peter Obi yesterday cautioned the Federal Government against  the trial of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    The former minister of Information, who briefed reporters in Abuja on the state of the nation, said the Federal Government should follow the rule of law in Onnoghen’s case.

    Gana said: “The obvious violation of the Constitutional provisions on the trial and removal of the CJN embedded in Article 292 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) raises the suspicion that the proposed arraignment and trial of the CJN over alleged failure to fully declare his asset is premeditated.”

    Obi decried what he tagged “Intimidation of the Judiciary”, and asking “Where is Due Process?”  Obi spoke yesterday at Shagamu, Ogun State where he represented Alhaji Atiku Abubakar at the Strategy Meeting of the PDP and in reaction to the orchestrated arraignment of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) on allegations bordering on assets declaration.

    “It is also revealing that this scenario is not novel in today’s Nigeria. It is the same CJN that was also subjected to all manner of traumatic experience before his emergence as head of the Nigerian Judiciary. From the way and manner we are going, the judicial arm that helps to defend, guide, guard and direct democracy and its institutions is being overawed, intimidated and undermined preparatory to the General Elections. Wherein lies our hope in Nigeria?”

    Ekweremadu urged the Federal Government to immediately withdraw the charges against the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, and also apologise to the nation’s judiciary.

  • CJN Trial: Let the Law take its course – APC

    The All Progressives Congress(APC) has said that the law should take its full course on the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    Malam Lanre Issa-Onilu, APC National Publicity Secretary, stated this at a news conference on Monday in Abuja.

    The CJN was expected to appear before the CCT on a case of Constitutional infraction for false declaration of his assets before assuming office.

    Issa-Onilu maintained that the country’s democratic and constitutional institutions must be allowed to operate without interference and undue pressure from partisan and sundry interests as being done by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its cronies.

    He explained that the CCT trial was a legal matter, adding that the law should be allowed to take its course.

    “The CJN must go through the instrumentalities of the courts, more importantly as an institution he represents. Indeed, this is the true test of our Constitution, rule of law and will deepen democracy.

    “Where there are contestations on institutional procedures, we must allow same institutions to perform their functions unhindered, autocorrect if necessary and set good precedence on future matters.

    Read Also: Atiku to Supporters: Reject APC

    “This is the only way we can build strong and lasting institutions.

    “While we would not want to be lured into discussing issues that are presently before the court and for which any respectable political party hoping to hold positions of responsibility should restrain itself.

    “We regret to suggest that PDP has been attempting to hoodwink Nigerians into believing that there is a political motive behind the charges brought against the CJN’’, he said.

    This, the APC spokesman said, it might itself be indicative of some unholy alliances between the PDP and the judiciary.

    He added that the likely affinity existing between the PDP and a section of the judiciary was further accentuated by the non-appearance of Justice Onnoghen before the CCT.

    Issa-Onilu, however, noted that this was in line with the suggestions made by PDP South South governors on Sunday.

    He wondered if Nigerians expected to see this as a mere coincidence and if the PDP and their governors were acting a script.

    He said this was especially worrisome knowing that the PDP’s campaigns had been receiving a cold shoulder everywhere they had gone to campaign.

    “We have also noticed the very dangerous attempt to designate the CJN’s arraignment along ethnic and religious lines thereby trying to heat up the polity by evoking primordial sentiments which would do the country no good.

    “This is an ungodly ploy when we consider that the CJN is an officer of the federation rather than that of any region.

    “We, therefore, urge Nigerians of good conscience to caution the PDP as the country is bigger than any political party or the interest it represents,”he said.

    Issa-Onilu stressed that nothing should stop the country’s steady march into sustainable democratic governance.

    He noted that the PDP was always defending cases of corruption anytime they arose.

    He said the call by the PDP’s South-South Governors for the CJN’s boycott of the CCT trial further cemented APC’s position.

    Issa-Onilu reiterated that nobody, no matter how highly placed, should be above the laws of the land.

    He said the attack that had come from the PDP in the wake of the trial of the CJN over alleged false asset declaration was particularly worrisome and suspicious.

    This, he said, was especially so when the PDP had in fact called for the removal of virtually all heads of government’s arms, particularly the Chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Inspector-General of the Police over frivolous issues.

    He said it had become apparent that the PDP and its presidential candidate were facing imminent defeat in the coming elections and might be searching for some unorthodox means of forcing itself on Nigerians.

    “If this were not so, the PDP should, before coming to these distracting conclusions, have taken cognisance of the facts of the allegations made against the CJN and his admission to the facts so stated,”Issa-Onilu said.

  • Judge halts FG’s planned trial of CJN

    Justice Evelyn Maha of the Federal High Court, Abuja has halted the planned trial of the Chief Justice of Nigeria ( CJN ), Justice Walter Onnghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on charges of non-declaration of assets.

    Justice Maha, while ruling on two ex-parte applications on Monday, ordered parties to maintain the status quo.

    The judge ordered parties not to take any further steps in respect of the trial until January 17 when all parties to both suits are to return.

    Justice Maha also ordered the service of court”s documents in relation to the substantive suits on the defendants and adjourned to January 17 this year for parties to appear for possible hearing.

    Read Also: CJN shuns CCT, queries its jurisdiction

    The first suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/27/2019 was filed by the Incorporated ‎Trustees of the Centre for Justice and Peace Initiative (CJPI), while the second, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/28/2019 was by the Incorporated ‎Trustees of the International Association of Students Economists and Management (IASEM).

    Listed as defendants, in the first suit, are the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), CCT Chairman, the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and President of the Senate.

    The second suit has, as defendants, the AGF, the CCT Chair, the CCT, the CCB, the Chairman of CCB, and the IGP.

    R. A. Lawal-Rabana (SAN) argued the ex-parte motion filed with the first suit, while Jeph Njikonye argued the ex-parte filed with the second suit.

    Details later.