The lawyer to the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) has explained why his client resigned.
Awomolo, while confirming that Onnoghen resigned on Thursday, said he (Onnoghe) said he acted in the interest of the judiciary.
The lawyer said: “I have just spoken with him. He confirmed to me that he resigned yesterday.
“He said he resigned in the interest of the Judiciary.”
Details shortly…
…Parties to adopt final addresses April 12
Suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen ended his defence on Wednesday in his trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for allegedly breaching the code of conduct for public officers.
Onnoghen, who called his personal driver, Lawal Busari as his first witness on Monday, failed on Wednesday, to call more witnesses.
His lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) had, on Monday informed the tribunal that the defence would call between two to three witness, including Mrs. Theresa Nwafor, a director, on whom a subpoena was issued at the instance of the defence.
At the resumption of proceedings on Wednesday, lawyer to the defendant, Chris Uche (SAN) informed the tribunal that the defence was satisfied with the evidence it has provided so far and was willing to close its case.
Uche said: “My lords, today is for continuation of trial. But my lords, after a deep review of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, the defence has come to conclusion and we have closed our case.
“Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Practice Direction of this honourable tribunal, we apply to file our final written addresses.”
Prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN) confirmed to the tribunal that the defence had hinted him of plans to close its case on Wednesday.
Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar has adjourned to April 12 this year for parties to adopt their final written addresses.
Details later…
The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, on Wednesday, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Abuja, closed his defence in his ongoing trial on the charges bordering on assets declaration breaches, after calling his driver of 20 years as his first witness.
Lead counsel to Onnoghen, Chief Chris Uche(SAN), told the court that after taking a deep consideration, the defence closes its case.
“Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Practice Direction of the CCT, we will be applying to file our final written addresses.’’
Uche asked the court gove the counsel in the matter 14 days within which to file in their written addresses.
He also applied to be obliged with the proceedings before the tribunal.
The prosecution led by Aliyu Umar, SAN, also prayed the court to be accord counsel enough time in order to file their own written address.
“Because time for filing of written address is not expressively provided for in the Practice Direction, that makes it a matter of discretion of the court,’’ Umar said.
However, the Chairman of the tribunal. Danladi Umar said that the tribunal has given the defence three working days, from April 4 to April 8 file their address.
The Chairman said the prosecution should file their address from April 9 to April 11.
He further adjourned the case until April for adoption of written addresses.
NAN reports that Onnoghen’s 60-year-old driver, Lawal Busari to the tribunal as his first defence witness following the March 29, ruling of the tribunal dismissing his no-case submission.
Busari entered the witness box, the tribunal issued an order of subpoena, on a director at the Code of Conduct Bureau, Mrs. Theresa Nwafor, to appear as the suspended CJN’s next witness on Wednesday.
This followed an earlier oral application by Onnoghen’s defence lawyer, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), on Monday.
The lead prosecuting counsel, Umar, did not oppose the application for the subpoena.
In a bench ruling, the tribunal chairman ordered the issuance and service of the subpoena on Nwafor directing her to appear at 10 am on Wednesday.
Asked by the tribunal chairman, Awomolo said during the Monday’s proceedings that the defence had proposed to call “two or three witnesses for now.”
With Busari’s testimony concluded on Monday, it was not clear if the defence would close its case after Nwafor’s evidence on Wednesday or whether the suspended CJN himself would testify.
Testifying earlier, Busari, who described himself as the Chief Driver/Mechanic at the Supreme Court of Nigeria, said Onnoghen submitted his assets declaration form in 2010.
This was contrary to one of the six counts preferred against Onnoghen that he did not declare his assets between 2005 and 2016.
Led by Awomolo, Busari, who gave instances of how he had been well treated by Onnoghen, said the suspended CJN obtained his asset declaration form from the Asokoro office of the Code of Conduct Bureau in Abuja on July 28, 2010 and submitted same after completing it on November 4, 2010.
He said he drove Onnoghen to the CCB office where the
Proceedings ended abruptly and on a rowdy note on Friday at the resumed hearing in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code of conduct Tribunal (CCT) as his lawyers protested what they viewed as the highhandedness of the tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar.
Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), who led the team of lawyers for Onnoghen, accused the CCT chairman of oppressing the defendant and his lawyers when, shortly after delivering a ruling on the no-case submission made by the defendant, Umar insisted that the suspended CJN must open his defence on Monday (April 1, 2019).
Awomolo told Umar: “Stop oppressing us. This is not justice.”
He repeated the statements about three times when the CCT Chairman refused to yield to his appeals that the defendant be afforded sufficient time to prepare for his defence and be allowed to return next week Friday.
While Awomolo was still on his feet, pleading with the tribunal Chairman to reconsider his position, Umar stood up, announced that the proceedings have been adjourned till Monday and walked away, leaving the two other members of the tribunal to scamper after him.
As Umar and the other members of the tribunal walked out of the tribunal’s sitting venue, many lawyers in the defence team shouted in protest, saying: “This is not how to do justice.”
A dejected Awomolo, who appeared to have been taken aback by Umar’s conduct, said: “If this is justice, then, God bless Nigeria,” a statement he repeated about four times.
Proceedings had commenced earlier in the day on a friendly note, with the tribunal Chairman exchanging pleasantries with lawyers to both the prosecution and defence, when the case was called.
Shortly after, argued the defendant’s no-case submission and urged the tribunal to discharge and acquit his client on the grounds that the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.
Awomolo faulted the entire evidence led by the prosecution and exhibits tendered and urged the tribunal to hold that it is not worth it calling on Onnoghen to defend himself.
He said the entire proceedings have become a nullity because the process leading to the commencement of the trial did not comply with the procedure provided for in the CCB’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 2017.
Awomolo made a lengthy submission, during which he cited many decided cases, including a 2013 ruling by the tribunal (a copy of which he later offered the tribunal), urged the tribunal to be guided by past decisions.
At the conclusion of his submission, the CCT Chairman commended Awomolo for his brilliant and “well-articulated” argument.
Prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar offered a counter-argument and urged the tribunal to reject Onnoghen’s no-case-submission and order him to enter defence.
The prosecution lawyer said the prosecution’s case was simple and relates mainly to the defendant’s failure to declare his assets.
He said; “We are not accusing him of having $300m in his accounts. What we are saying is that he failed to declare his assets on his appointment as Justice of Supreme Court and that he operated domiciliary accounts since 2009 and 2010 without declaring them.”
After listening to the arguments by parties, the tribunal Chairman, to the dismay of most of those at the proceedings, announced that ruling would be delivered in two hours’ time.
When the tribunal resumed around 2pm, Umar read his ruling, in which he rejected the submission by Awomolo.
He rejected Awomolo’s argument that the process leading to the filing of the charge was not in accordance with the procedure provided in the CCB’s SOP.
Umar note that the SOP, which was a creation of the former board of the CCB, led by Sam Saba, was no longer in use because it had been abused by that board.
CCT Chairman said the operations of the CCB were currently being guided by the Constitution since it has discarded the SOP, which he said, the former board abused.
The CCT Chairman accused the defendants of deploying technicalities to prevent the hearing of the case despite the glaring evidence, suggesting that the defendant has a case to answer.
Umar said the tribunal was not bound by technicality, but was interested in always ensuring justice.
He refused the no case submission and said the tribunal was convinced that the prosecution has established a prima facie case, warranting the defendant to enter his defence if he has any.
The tribunal Chairman added: “The defendant himself, made a written admission, without duress, that he forgot to declare the domiciliary accounts maintained in Standard Chartered Bank. That is, the euro account, the dollar account, the pound sterling account and the two naira accounts.
“His confessional statement is more than enough to warrant the defendant to enter defence, if he has any.
“The tribunal shall never be swayed from exercising justice, no matter who so ever appeared before it, irrespective of his/her status in life. After all, all of us are from the same source – dust.”
Umar added that by the evidence led by the prosecution through its three witnesses, and the documents tended, including the statement by the defendant, “where he confessed that he forgot the accounts and that he made mistakes in not declaring the accounts,” are sufficient to make the tribunal demand that the defendant defend himself against the charges.
He said the need for the defendant to defend himself was “to clear his name, because the name has been tainted so much.” He proceeded to reject the no-case submission and ordered the defendant to “enter a defence.”
At the conclusion of the ruling, Awomolo applied that a certified-true-copy (CTC) of
The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has scheduled ruling for 1.30pm on Friday in the no-case submission made by suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Wanter Onnoghen.
Onnoghen is being tried for non-declaration of asset, in a six-count charge instituted by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).
CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar announced, after taking arguments from parties this morning, in relation to the no-case-submission, announced that ruling would be delivered this afternoon.
Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) who argued for Onnoghen, urged the tribunal to discharge and acquit his client on the grounds that the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case against him.
Awomolo faulted the entire evidence led by the prosecution and exhibits tendered and urged the tribunal to hold that it is not worth it calling on Onoghen to defend himself.
He said the entire proceedings have become a nullity because the process leading to the commencement of the trial did not comply with the procedure provided for in the CCB’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 2017.
Prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar offered a counter-argument and urged the tribunal to reject Onnoghen’s no-case-submission and order him to enter defence.
Umar said the prosecution’s case was simple and relates mainly to the defendants failure to declare his assets.
He said; “We are not accusing him of having $300m in his accounts. What we are saying is that he failed to declare his assets on his appointment as Justice of Supreme Court and that he operated domiciliary accounts since 2009 and 2010 without declaring them.”
Details shortly…
The prosecution in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen closed its case on Thursday after calling three witnesses.
Onnoghen is being tried before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on allegation of non-declaration of assets in violation of the code of conduct for public officers.
The prosecution, led by Aliyu Umar (SAN), called two witnesses on Thursday, 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 took charge of the management of Onnghen’s accounts in 2015.
The witness confirmed from a bundle of documents, which include 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 while the fifth: 5001062693 was opened in February 2011.
Still reading from the documents, the witness gave the balance in each of the accounts to include, that the first had an opening balance of €30,178.58 in January 2018 and a balance of €10,187.18 as at December 2018.
For the second account: 0001062667 the witness said the balance by January 2018 was N34, 280,904.61 while it has N2, 656,019.21 as at December 2018.
The third account: 0001062650, the witness said, has, by January 2018, a balance of $80,824.25, while it reduced to $56,878 by January 2019.
She said the fourth account: 5001062679 have a balance of £39,456.08 in January 2018, which reduced to £13,730.70 by December of the same year.
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 of the same year.
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 Network Customers, sometime in 2015.
When asked how to know if an account was dormant, the witness 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 reactive 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 can’t recall her bank or her informing the defendant that any of his account is dormant or should re-activate.
Under cross examination by 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, like 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 bank advised the defendant to invest in other profit yielding investments, and that interests on these investments were regularly credited to these accounts
The witness said there was no evidence in the account statements that showed the defendant made 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, the said he did not know the group that wrote the petition that informed Onnoghen’ 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 asset declaration forms kept with the bureau.
At the conclusion of the prosecution witness’ testimony, Umar announced the closure of the prosecution’s case, following which Awomolo said, the defence plans to make a no-case submission in line with the provision of Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA.
Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar then adjourned to March 29 for adoption of parties’ addresses in respect of the defence’s no-case submission.
Earlier before the commencement of proceedings on Thursday, tribunal Chairman noted that the last proceedings on March 18 this year 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 misrepresent proceedings in 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 hesitate to ensure that such journalist is incarcerated.
“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.
The prosecution team in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has opened its case by calling its first witness.
Proceedings were put off in the case on March 12 this year over report that the suspended CJN was ill.
Onnoghen, looking smart, is at the CCT proceedings, which commenced Monday a little over 10 am.
Lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN) informed the tribunal that he was ready with his witnesses, following which he invited his first witness after obtaining the tribunal’s permission to proceed.
The first prosecution witness, James Opala, a Senior Investigation Officer of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), has been invited to the witness box to tell all he knows about the case.
Details shortly…
*Sits on chair brought by his aides
The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has ordered further proceedings in the trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen be conducted on a day-to-day basis.
Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, in a bench ruling on Monday also elected to reserve, till the conclusion of the trial, decisions on applications by Onnghen, which challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction and another asking Umar recuse himself from the case.
Umar said Section 296(2) &(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) support the position he took.
The CCT Chairman’s decision was unexpected by many, because shortly before delivering his bench ruling, he had sought the views of lawyers on both sides on how the tribunal should proceed in view of the provision Section 296(2) of the ACJA vis a vis the applications just argued.
Umar had sought the lawyers’ views after the tribunal took arguments from both sides in relation to the two applications by Onnoghen.
In his contribution, lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN) said, by the provision of Section 296(2), the tribunal could reserve its ruling in the application that challenged its jurisdiction.
He said the tribunal cannot afford to proceed without ruling on the other application, querying the tribunal Chairman’s integrity and demanding that he excuse himself from further proceedings on grounds of likely bias.
On his part, lead defence lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) said, in view of the issues raised in both applications, which are contesting the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the integrity of its Chairman, and his ability to be fair in his handling of the case, the tribunal cannot proceed without first, ruling on both applications.
After listening to both lawyers, the CCT Chairman proceeded, there and then, to write his ruling, which he delivered about 20 minutes later, refusing to adopt either of the positions suggested by Umar and Awomolo.
He said in line with the provision of Section 296(2) of the ACJA, the tribunal has the powers to consider any motion per application challenging its jurisdiction or the competence of a charge pending before it, along with the substantive case and makes its ruling at the time of the delivery of judgment.
The CCT Chairman said: “It is to be noted that, in view of the sensitive position of the third arm of government, that is the Judiciary, which is the formidable arm of government, and in consideration of the importance of the judicial arm of government, which is at the heart of the stability of the nation, it is imperative that the tribunal expedite proceedings in this trial in order to prevent anarchy, lawlessness and chaos.
“The tribunal deems it fit to treat this matter with utmost dispatch, hence the need to accelerate the hearing and determination of all motions and the substantive matter together and render its decision.”
Umar further said the tribunal “shall be strictly guided by the provisions of the ACJA 2015, which encourages speedy trial of proceedings.”
The Chairman proceeded to order that all rulings in the applications argued before the tribunal on Monday, shall be ruled upon, along side the substantive case, in accordance with the provision of Section 296(2) of the ACJA.
He added that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 296(3) of the ACJA and Paragraph 5(5) of the Practice Direction of the tribunal, and in View of the fact that both applications of the defendant bother on the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the tribunal shall henceforth conduct the case on day-to-day basis.
Umar further said: “In view of the above observations, the tribunal hereby orders that ruling in the two applications of the defendant/applicant, shall be reserved and delivered along with the decision of the tribunal on the substantive trial.
“In view of the provision of Section 296(3) of the ACJA, the proceedings in this case shall be conducted day-to-day. In view of the foregoing, the tribunal hereby adjourn This matter till tomorrow, the 12th of March 2019 for continuation of hearing of the substantive case,” Umar said.
As he ended his ruling, Umar did not wait for the contributions of the two members of the tribunal’s three-man panel before announcing the closure of proceedings for the day.
As he walked towards his chambers, with the two members of the panel in toe, Onnoghen, who had sat quietly in the dock for the better part of the proceedings, stood up and walked toward his lawyers, with whom he conferred briefly before walking out of the tribunal’s sitting venue, into his waiting official car parked close to the main entrance of the tribunal’s courtroom.
At the commencement of proceedings, shortly after 10am, Onnoghen, who sat among some lawyers, on the front seat to the right of the courtroom, walked briskly into the dock.
In the dock, Onnoghen chose to stand, prompting the CCT Chairman to direct officials of the tribunal to fetch a chair for him.
When a security official of the tribunal offered a chair, some individuals, who accompanied the defendant to the court rejected it. Instead, one of them brought a collapsible chair from outside the courtroom and set it behind the defendant, who wa still standing.
Onnoghen, who stood for over an hour, later sat on the chair, brought by his aides, for the better part of the proceedings.
Before arguing the defendant’s applications, Awomolo identified five applications, which his client filed, but chose to argue only two.He said while event has overtaken two, one should be left in the tribunal’s file till a later date.
He elected to argue the one asking the tribunal Chairman to recuse himself and the other challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
In relation to the application seeking Umar’s exclusion from the proceedings, Awomolo said its substance relates to the doubt whether the defendant would be accorded fair hearing in view of the question surrounding the independence and impartiality of the tribunal.
He added that the application raised two major points, one of which was that the proceedings before the tribunal “is afflicted with major vires and constitutional issues.
Awomolo noted that his client doubt the capacity of the tribunal to exercise fairness and independence in its handling of the proceedings where every major player in the case are agents of the Executive arm of government.
He argued that it offends the principle of fair hearing where the complainant in the case (the Code of Conduct Bureau); the investigator (the Code of Conduct Bureau); the prosecutor (the Attorney General of the Federation) and the judge (the Code of Conduct Tribunal) are all agents of the Executive arm of government.
Awomolo the fact that the CCT was an arm of the Executive is supported by Umar’s response to a query issued him by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), where he (the CCT Chairman), said he was not answerable to the Judiciary or any of its agencies, but to the Presidency.
He said another issue raised by the application was the applicant was not likely to receive justice before the CCT, because of issues relating to the credibility of the tribunal Chairman.
Awomolo tendered a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case Of Rasheed Taiwo Owolabi v. FRN, CA/A623C/2015 delivered on March 2, 2018, which is contained in Law Pavilion 2018LPPELR 44 959. The appellant had accused Umar of collecting bribe from him.
Awomolo said: “We urge the tribunal to hold that there is the probability, from the circumstance demonstrated in the affidavit, for the applicant to doubt the freedom and impartiality of the tribunal.”
On the second application, Awomolo urged the tribunal to uphold its earlier decision in the case of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, which he said was similar to this.
He said the decision in Ngwuta case, which was in line with the Court of Appeal decision in the case by Justice Nganjiwa, remains the current position of the law, to the effect that any allegation of misconduct against a judge must first be determined exclusively by the National Judicial Council (NJC).
In a counter argument, Umar (the prosecution lawyer) urged the tribunal to reject both applications, arguing that they were without merit.
Umar argued that the question about whether or not the CCT Chairman should be excused from the proceedings was arlaed on appeal before the Court of Appeal, which has reserved judgment on the appeals filed by Onnoghen on that and other issues.
“We submit that the Court of Appeal has the power to direct that this matter be heard by other members of the tribunal should it feels that the Chairman is bias,” Umar said.
He further submitted that the defendant/applicant did not, in his filings, demonstrate any act of bias on the part of the Chairman or any member of the tribunal.
The lead prosecution lawyer urged the tribunal to depart from its decision in the Ngwuta case and proceed to hear the case against Onnoghen.
He argued that the decision in Ngwuta case was given in error, and asking the tribunal to uphold that decision is like asking it “to continue to proceed in error.”
The Federal Government and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) have faulted claim by the Cross River State Government that suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen has been illegally removed from office.
The FG and AGF argued that, as against Cross River’s claim, Onnghen has not been removed from office, he was simply 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 FG and 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 that “there is a clear distinction between suspension and removal.” He noted that there was no evidence before the court to show that the CJN was removed or dismissed from office.
The Solicitor General was reacting to argument by lawyer to the plaintiff, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), to the effect that Onnoghen’s removal from office, by the Executive, was a violation of the Constitution, attach 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
Apata 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,” Apata said.
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 Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to protect the Constitution and defend the interest of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Apata argued that Nwosu was not the plaintiff, but a lawyer to the plaintiff. He said 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, 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.
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 Onnoghen. He said it is 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 inisted that the Supreme Court was 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.
He added: “The plaintiff is saying, we have seen that you are breaching the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers, which is the foundation on which we agreed to be part of this federation, so we can come here.
“Once a dispute has been established between a state government and the FG, over a breach of the Constitution, this is the appropriate forum. This suit is brought because the Cross River State Government thinks that the Constitution has been violated,” Nwosu said.
He faulted Apata’s argument that similar cases, filed by Onnoghen were currently pending before the Court of Appeal and on which judgments have been reserved.
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.”
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.
The Cross River State Government, in its originating summons, queried the propriety of Onnoghen’s trial before the CCT and urged the Supreme Court to declare it illegal on the grounds that it was only the National Judicial Council (NJC) that could exercise disciplinary powers over a serving judge.
want the court to among others, declare that, by the provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Constitution, there a clear recognition of the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances in relation to the operations of the three arms of government.
The Cross River State wants the court to declare that, by virtue of the provisions of sections 153(1), 158(1(, Paragraph 21(b) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to Constitution, it is the NJC that is exclusively empowered to recommend to the President or Governor the appointment/removal of any judicial officer.
It also seeks a declaration that the CCT, not being the NJC, is not vested with the jurisdiction over any judicial officer for an alleged official misconduct on the part of a judicial officer, without a formal complaint of such official misconduct being first made to and investigated by the NJC.
The plaintiff equally wants the Supreme Court to declare that the filing of the charge, before the CCT, against Onoghen, being a judicial officer, without any formal complaint having been made against him to the NJC, robbed the CCT of jurisdiction to try the charge and all the proceedings relating thereto, amount to a nullity.
It therefore urged the court to grant an order of injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from further initiating or proceedings with any similar charge or charges against Onnoghen or any judicial officer of the superior court created by the Constitution, until a formal report of misconduct is first, made to and investigated by the NJC.
In a supporting affidavit sworn to by an official of of the Cross River State Ministry of Justice, Ibi Mboto, the plaintiff stated that Onnghen is an indigene of the state and the highest judicial officer from the state.
It argued that Onnoghen’s suspension and trial before the CCT, without first, being subjected to the NJC’s process, as didctated by the Constitution, was unlawful and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has fixed judgment for May 17 this year in a suit by Cross River State Government seeking to set aside the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.
A seven-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour fixed the date on Thursday after taking arguments from lawyer to parties.
Lucius Nwosu (SAN) argued on behalf of the plaintiff (Cross River State), while Dayo Apata, Solicitor General of the Federation (argued for the defendants – the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation).
It is the plaintiff’s contention that Onnoghen’s suspension or removal from office by President Muhammadu Buhari, based on an ex-parte order by a lay magistrate (the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal) violates the Constition, particularly Section 292(1).
In a counter-argument, the defendants are of the view that the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to approach the Supreme Court on the issue, because Onnoghen’s suspension was personal to him and cannot be interpreted to amount to a dispute between the Federal Government and the Cross River State Government.
Details shortly….