Tag: Code of Conduct Bureau

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) is created under the Third Schedule, Part 1A of the 1999 constitution (as amended), and is principally empowered to enforce the responsibility placed on it, by the Fifth Schedule, Part 1, paragraph 11 and 12 of the constitution.

The responsibility include: to receive and keep custody of the declaration of assets form of public officers, investigate the declaration, enforce compliance, investigate non-compliance and on terms make such asset declaration forms available for inspection by Nigerians upon terms as the National Assembly may prescribe.

The CCB is empowered to refer any breach, where appropriate to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), which itself is a quasi-judicial body also created by the constitution, under the Fifth Schedule, Part 1, Paragraph 15. In furtherance of its powers, the CCB had dragged such eminent persons as the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, former Senate President, Bukola Saraki, former governor of Lagos State, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and many others before the CCT.

Between the CCB and CCT, are enormous constitutional powers to rein in corrupt practices amongst public officials. Perhaps the quasi-judicial powers invested in the two special administrative bodies are to circumvent the herculean challenges posed by the criminal procedure laws in criminal trials. Granting it limited powers on the punishment it can mete out, the constitution created the specialized bodies to tame the desire to see public service as avenue for personal aggrandizement, and to prevent its convicts from using unlawfully acquired wealth to perpetuate themselves in power.

The sanctions or punishments clearly target the unlawfully acquired assets and further opportunity to hold public office. The sanctions as provided in paragraph 18(2) of the Fifth Schedule to the constitution, include ‘vacation of office or seat in any legislative house, disqualification from membership of a legislative house and from holding any public office for a period not exceeding 10 years, and seizure and forfeiture to the state of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.’

To show clearly the limitedness of the sanctions prescribed by the constitution, paragraph 18(3) provides that “the sanctions mentioned in paragraph (2) hereof shall be without prejudice to the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also criminal.” From the above provision, the CCB and CCT is to aid public accountability, without lowering the higher evidential burden required to convict in a criminal charge. Recognising the general responsibility of all in the fight against corrupt practices in public life, the responsibility of ensuring compliance is vested in the Bureau as well as the general public.

So, any request for information on the declaration of assets by public officials is constitutionally guaranteed. The responsibility vested in the general public can be inferred from the provision of paragraph 3(c) of the Third Schedule, Part 1A of the 1999 constitution (as amended). It is therefore unconstitutional for the CCB to rebuff the demand by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) for the details of the asset declarations of the former presidents and governors from 1999 to the present submitted to it, on the laughable excuse that the declaration is private information.

Far from that. The asset declaration forms are public documents which any Nigerian is constitutionally entitled to access on fulfilment of “such terms as the National Assembly may prescribe.” According to media report, the CCB has refused the request from SERAP on the ground that “asset declaration form is a private information,” and “would offend the right to privacy of presidents and state governors.” If the report is true, then the CCB may have read the constitutional provision upside down.

To determine what constitutes a public document, we only have to look at the S. 102 of the Evidence Act 2011. It provides: “The following documents are public documents: (a) documents forming the acts or records of the acts of – (i) the sovereign authority; (ii) official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or elsewhere; and (b) public records kept in Nigeria of private documents.” Like a multiple trap, the document in question is caught by both paragraphs ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the above section.

So, to contend that the document requested by SERAP is a private document is to offend the provisions of the constitution and the Evidence Act. Ordinarily without much ado, the assets declaration form filed with the CCB should be available on fulfilment of basic administrative condition, to enable the public to enjoy a constitutional right, as aforementioned. However, to forestall unnecessary inhibition to public access of public documents or private documents in public custody, the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 was enacted by the National Assembly.

Section 1 of the Act provides: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, law or regulation, the right of any person to access or request information, whether or not contained in any written form, which is in custody or possession of any public official, agency or institution howsoever described, is established.” Clearly the purport of the act is to ensure the free flow of any information that will regulate public conduct. According to media report, the CCB refused to accede to the request, claiming prohibition under section 14 of the FOI Act.

A perusal of section 14 of the Act shows that it is not an omnibus provision seeking to take away what the Act gave by its S.1. Moreover the act not being a repeal of the Evidence Act, cannot by the provisions of S.14 redefine what a public document is. Indeed, by no estimation can the act have the power to restrain a right granted by the constitution, which is the grundnum on which our constitutional democracy rests. Interestingly, S.14(3) provides a further exemption on the restrictions listed in paragraphs a-e of the section.

The said sub-section 3 provides: “Where disclosure of any information referred to in this section would be in the public interest, and if the public interest in the disclosure of such information clearly outweighs the protection of the privacy of the individual to whom such information relates, the public institution to whom a request for the disclosure is made shall disclose such information ….”

It is therefore difficult to appreciate why the CCB did not accede to the request from SERAP when clearly the disclosure of that information would be in public interest, considering the debilitating effect of corruption on the nation.

Moreover, in Marbury vs Madison 5 US 154 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshal of the United States held: “Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate… that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” Everything considered, the CCB must under no guise deny a constitutional right, hiding behind an ordinary statute.