The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Code of Conduct Bureau

  • Probe Okorocha over ‘statues of Zuma, Johnson-Sirleaf’ – SERAP to ICPC

    Probe Okorocha over ‘statues of Zuma, Johnson-Sirleaf’ – SERAP to ICPC

    Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, (SERAP) has asked Dr Muhammad Isah Acting Chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and Professor Bolaji Owasanoye Acting Chairman of Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to “jointly investigate allegations of incompatibility and/or apparent conflict of interest situation, and abuse of office involving Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State in connection with the exercise of his public functions and leadership of the Rochas Okorocha Foundation, and to collaborate with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in any such investigation.”

    The organization said that “Such investigation would help to improve public confidence in public authorities, and minimize the risks of bad government by public officials.”

    In the petition dated 10 November 2017 and signed by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumuni, the organization expressed “serious concern that Governor Okorocha may have spent over N1 billion of public funds to build statues of South African President Jacob Zuma and Liberian President Mrs Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.”

    According to the organization, “the spending on statues and apparent misuse of public resources may have violated constitutional provisions and international standards on code of conduct for public officers. The initiatives cannot be justified under any circumstances whatsoever, especially at a time when Imo state is unable or unwilling to pay teachers’ salaries and pensioners’ entitlements.”

    The petition copied to Ibrahim Magu Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) read in part: “Inviting Zuma and Johnson-Sirleaf to attend the opening of his Foundation and then ‘honouring’ them with statues suggests abuse of office and apparent conflict of interest situation, as such acts were undertaken by Governor Okorocha in the exercise of his public functions to presumably promote and advance the commercial and other interests of the Foundation.

    “SERAP believes that rather than serving the common interest of the public, spending over N1 billion possibly of public funds on Zuma and Johnson-Sirleaf in the context of their participation in the opening of the Rochas Okorocha Foundation would seem to put Governor Okorocha in a conflict of interest situation.

    “SERAP notes that the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended) and UN Convention against Corruption to which Nigeria is a state party prohibit conflict of interests and set ethical standards for public officers. Indeed, both the Constitution and the Convention require public officers to abstain from all acts that may compromise the exercise of their public office and functions, or are inconsistent with their entrusted positions.

    “Public officers also must discharge their public duties truthfully and faithfully, abide by the constitutional code of conduct, observe the primacy of public interest, and not allow their personal interest to influence their official conduct.”

    “The CCB and ICPC should carry out a joint investigation in collaboration with the EFCC of the allegations of conflict of interest, abuse of office and apparent misuse of public funds by Governor Okorocha. SERAP also urges the CCB and ICPC to prosecute Governor Okorocha after leaving office if there is relevant and sufficient admissible evidence of abuse of public office against him.

    “Conflict of interest represents a situation where the person exercising a public function has a personal interest of patrimonial or commercial nature, which could influence the objective fulfilment of the duties incumbent on public officers under the Constitution and international standards.

    “Conflict of interest arises from a situation in which a public official has a private interest which is such as to influence or appear to influence the impartial and objective nature of his or her official duties in order to promote private interests, which would be contrary to the public interest.

    “According to reports, Governor Okorocha recently hosted two African presidents—South African President Jacob Zuma and Liberian President Mrs Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and built statues in Owerri to ‘honour’ them. The statues reportedly cost over N1 billion to build. Further, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Zuma Foundation and the Rochas Foundation was signed, while Mrs Johnson-Sirleaf visited the newly established Rochas Foundation College of Africa (ROFOCA).”

  • ‘Saraki wrong to earn double salaries as public officer’

    ‘Saraki wrong to earn double salaries as public officer’

    An official of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Samuel Madojemu on Thursday insisted that Senate President, Bukola Saraki was wrong to have earned monthly payments from the Kwara State governor at the same time when he was already elected to the Senate. 

    Madojemu, who is the Head, Intelligence Unit of the CCB was emphatic when he said:  “A public officer is not permitted to earn two salaries from public treasuries, using two government positions at the same time.” 

    The CCB official spoke while testifying as the third prosecution witness at the resumption of proceedings in Saraki’s trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on charges of false assets declaration.

    Led in evidence by lead prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), Madojemu also said Saraki failed to declare, among others, his mortgage and the property he acquired through mortgage in London. He added that Saraki failed to declare his liability of about $3.4m in an America Express Card.

    “Your lordship, a public officer who has a mortgage abroad is expected to declare the mortgage. Having fully paid the mortgage, the public officer is expected to declare the property in his asset declaration form. But the defendant did not declare any mortgage in London.

    “He (Saraki) gave instruction to his banker, the GTB, to transfer £1,516,000 in two days to a bank in Fortis Bank for a mortgage in London. There was no declaration for the property in London.”

    Madojemu also said the Senate President made a single deposit of N77m cash on September 5, 2007, when his monthly salary, as governor of Kwara State, was N254,412.25.

    The witness, who read from a statement of Saraki’s account with the Guaranty Trust Bank Plc, said the N77m was deposited in the defendant’s account in one day.

    “Your lordship, the cash lodgment deposited is not consonant with the income of the defendant as a governor. It cannot be attributable to his legitimate income. Your lordship, the defendant was earning 254,412.25 for a month. 

    “Within that same period, in one single day, as shown in the statement of account made available by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), there was lodgment of N77m in his account in one day.

    “From Exhibit 15, the salary of governors as of August 12, 2007, was N254,412.25.”

    On his role in the investigation of Saraki’s case, the witness said: “My role with reference to the exhibits mentioned already, was to compare the exhibits with the asset declaration forms of the defendants to see if there was any infraction with regards to his declarations.Those exhibits were sourced by EFCC officials in my team.”

    Under cross-examination by the defence lawyer, Paul Erokoro (SAN), Madojemu was shown the contradiction in the number of Saraki’s asset declaration forms that the prosecution had tendered in court and the number of the forms which the CCB official had linked to Saraki in an affidavit.

    While seven of Saraki’s declaration forms had been tendered before the CCT, Madojemu had stated in the affidavit that Saraki had only declared four.

    When asked by the defence lawyer if four and seven were the same, the witness said no.

    Responding to further questions, the witness confirmed that he had earlier stated that it was unlawful for a public officer to trade in rice and sugar commodities.

    The witness said a public officer was permitted to own shares in companies, and when asked further, he said nothing stopped such public officers from owning shares in companies trading in rice and sugar.

    He confirmed that he never met Saraki in person and never asked him if he had shares in any company trading in rice and sugar.

    Madojemu said: “Public officer is allowed to own shares in a company. Nothing to my knowledge stops a public officer from owning controlling shares in a limited liability company. A public officer can be allowed to own controlling shares in a company that trades in rice and sugar. 

    “I did not ask the defendant whether he had shares in the company that traded rice and sugar. I did not find out if any of the companies in which the defendant owns share trades in rice and sugar. I have never seen the audited account of the defendant’s companies,” the witness said.

    Earlier, Saraki was re-arraigned on an amended 18-count charge filed by the prosecution, t which he pleaded not guilty.

    Saraki is, in the amended charge, accused of failing to make a written declaration of his “properties and assets”, that is, N77m paid into his account with Guaranty Trust Bank, GRA, Ilorin branch on September 5, 2007.

    It was also alleged that the sum of N77m was “not fairly attributable” to Saraki’s “income, gifts or loan approved by the Code of Conduct for Public Officers”.

    Further hearing in the case is adjourned to March 2.

  • ’40 SUVs recovered from perm sec’

    ’40 SUVs recovered from perm sec’

    The Federal Government said it has recovered 40 brand new SUVs and other vehicles from a former Permanent Secretary who single-handedly appropriated the vehicles to himself when he left office.

    The Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, disclosed this in a statement issued on Thursday in Lagos on the effectiveness of the anti-corruption strategy of the government.

    Mohammed said that government is being guided by a well-articulated strategy in its fight against corruption contrary to the misconception in certain circles that the government is fighting corruption without a strategy.

    He said the government was not just fixated on the only prosecution, but in taking preventive measures to make corruption unattractive.

    The minister stressed that the strict enforcement of the Treasury Single Account (TSA) has largely reduced the diversion of government funds into secret accounts.

    He said the TSA has also reduced the constraints in fishing out ghost workers in the public service in most states in the country.

    According to him, other measures to strengthen the anti-corruption fight,  included the establishment of Presidential Committee on Asset Recovery, Asset Tracing Committee, Asset Register, and the Whistle Blower Policy.

    The Minister announced a plan by the government, through the Code of Conduct Bureau, to commence test-run of electronic asset declaration starting in 2017.

    He said the new method would facilitate compliance and enhance search and retrieval of data on the assets of public officers.

    In addition, he said, the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption is working with relevant MDAs, especially the National Bureau of Statistics, to improve data collection on corruption indicators.

    ”Once perfected, the data will be shared with government periodically if possible, as regularly as government receives data on inflation and unemployment trends.

    “The data will indicate trends in corruption and influence government measures to correct the situation before it gets out of hand as we have now,” he said.

    The minister explained that the Presidential Committee on Asset Recovery will meet regularly to collate reports from key law enforcement agencies on government’s anti-corruption effort.

    He said the committee would share information, intelligence and review challenges faced in anti-corruption efforts and give directives on the way forward.

    The minister added that the Asset Register has made the looting of government physical assets, notably vehicles, very difficult by political appointees, senior and middle-level officers.

    He said the recent approval of Whistle Blower policy was designed to further enhance government’s effort to recover looted funds.

    ”People who give credible and useful information to government that leads to recovery of stolen public assets will be rewarded with between 2.5 per cent to 5 per cent of the recovered fund.

    “Government will keep the identity of the whistle blower absolutely confidential,” he said.

    Mohammed said the government is finalizing the constitution of an Asset Tracing Team to work with internationally reputably bodies to trace and recover public assets in private hands.

    ”In this regard, government will also escalate the use of non-conviction-based asset recovery methods to boost revenue and diminish corruption and the perception that crime pays or criminals can keep their loot,” he said.

    The minister disclosed that the administration is collaborating with  Nigerians in the diaspora and international civil society organisations in the campaign for the return of looted assets.

  • Asset Declaration: Dankwambo, top Gombe functionaries verified by CCB

    Asset Declaration: Dankwambo, top Gombe functionaries verified by CCB

    The Code of Conduct Bureau Gombe State office on Wednesday said that it has verified top government officials in the state for the 2016 asset declarations exercise, said the State Director, Mr Panyi Baira.

    Baira, who disclosed this to journalists in Gombe on Wednesday, said those verified included Gov. Ibrahim Dankwambo, his Deputy, Mr Charles Iliya, 24 members of the State House of Assembly and 14 Special advisers to the governor.

    According to him, civil servants and public office holders in the state had responded positively to the provision of asset declaration.

    He said that the bureau was constituted to check the excesses of public officers in government business.

    “The bureau is to ensure the high level of accountability, transparency and high level of morality in government business,” he said.

    Baira said asset declaration is a constitutional requirement that must be adhered to by all government workers in the country.

    “This is not something of wish, it is a constitutional requirement for any employee of the government to declare assets,” he said.

    According to him, early next year Permanent secretaries and top judicial officers among others would also be verified.

    He said that after this the field verification exercise would be conducted as directed by the Federal Commissioner for Gombe.

    Baira said that it is an offence to over-declare or under-declare asset as well as failure to fill the assets declaration form.

  • Tribunal finds Orubebe guilty

    Tribunal finds Orubebe guilty

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) sitting in Abuja has pronounced former Minister of Niger Delta, Godswill Orubebe, guilty of non-declaration of asset.

    Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Danladi Umar, on Tuesday announced a forfeiture of the property, located in a choice area of Abuja, Asokoro.

    The Judge explained that the testimonies and document presented by the prosecution prove that the former minister is guilty as charged.

    Justice Umar stated that while the minister claimed that the property was on rent from the federal government, the rejection of the claim by his former landlord to allow him to exercise his right over the property rendered the power of attorney useless.

    The former Minister had pleaded ‘not guilty’ for two count charges of false declaration of assets and another two counts of bribery when arraigned before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    Mr. Orubebe was charged by the Code of Conduct Bureau for alleged failure to declare landed property in Kyamu and Asokoro district, both in Abuja, on assumption of office as minister on September 26, 2007.

    Similarly, the former Minister was accused of allegedly accepting bribes totalling N70 million for the award of contracts in favour of his company.

  • I was ‘extremely rich’ before becoming Kwara gov – Saraki

    I was ‘extremely rich’ before becoming Kwara gov – Saraki

    The Senate President, Bukola Saraki said Tuesday that he was “extremely rich” before he became Kwara State governor in 2003.

    He said he had $22million US dollars, about 12million pounds, 2.6m Euro and about N4billion in cash in his various accounts.

    Aside the liquid asset, Saraki said he also possessed landed property estimated at N2billion and 15 vehicles valued at about N263.4m.

    He gave details of the vehicles he acquired as at 2003 to include: Mercedes X320, valued at N16m; Mercedes X500 worth N20m; Mercedes G500, valued at N6m; Mercedes V220 worth 2m and Ferrari456GT, valued at N25m.

    Others are:  Navigator, N15m, MN240 worth N8.5m; Peugeot 406, valued at N2.9m; Mercedes CLK 320 worth N9m; Mercedes E320 valued at N11m; Mercedes G500 bullet proof, worth N45m; Mercedes X500 worth N300m; Lexus jeep Bullet proof, valued at N30m and Lincoln Navigator Bullet Proof worth N25m.

    Saraki’s lawyer, Paul Erokoro (SAN) made this public Tuesday at the resumption of the Senate President’s trial for false asset declaration before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Abuja.

    Erokoro, who was cross-examining the first prosecution witness, Michael Wetkas, identified the assets as claimed by Saraki in the asset declaration form he submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) in 2003.

    Erokoro said he needed to point out that his client was very rich before he became Kwara State governor to erase the wrong impression created by the prosecution that, he could not have acquired the property he claimed to have, without obtaining loans from banks

    The lawyer was however silent on the source of his client’s wealth and how he came about all the property and cash he claimed to have possessed before he became governor in 2003.

    However, Saraki’s profile, as contained in “Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia,” indicated that he was born on 19 December 1962 and studied at the London Hospital Medical College of the University of London from 1982 to 1987, when he obtained his M.B.B.S (London).

    He worked as a medical officer at Rush Green Hospital, Essex, from 1988 to 1989 and was a director of Société Générale Bank (Nig) Ltd from 1990 to 2000. The bank founded by his now late father, Olusola Saraki, had its operating licence withdrawn in January 2006, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

    In 2000, President Olusegun Obasanjo appointed Saraki as Special Assistant to the President on Budget, a position he held until he became governor.

    When asked if it was possible for Saraki to have made anticipatory declaration of asset, Wetkas insisted it was not about whether or not such practice was possible, but that investigation and evidence have shown that the Senate President actually engaged in anticipatory asset declaration.

    The witness pointed out that, in the asset declaration form submitted to the CCB by Saraki in 2003, he claimed to have acquired houses Nos: 15A and 15B Macdonald Street, Ikoyi, Lagos, when in actual fact, such property do not exist.

    Wetkas, a detective with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), said, investigation revealed that the only property with similar description was No15 and Block 15 Flat 1 to 4 Mcdonald Street, Ikoyi, Lagos.

    “In the course of our investigation, when we came across this No.15 A and B, Ikoyi, Lagos, we wrote to the Presidential Implementation Committee on the disposal of Federal Government Landed Property. We also wrote to the Lagos Land Registry.

    “The Lagos Land Registry said they do not have records of No.15A and B, McDonald. The Presidential Committee said the record they have on their system is No.15 Mcdonald, which was sold to the company, TinyTee Ltd, and Block 15, Flat 1 to 4 Mcdonald Ikoyi, which was sold to another company, Bitti Oil Ltd.

    “The evidence I gave was that No: 15 Mcdonald was sold to TinyTee Ltd, belonging to the defendant, which we did not see declared as part of his assets in all the declaration forms, about 6 in all.

    In my testimony on 5th April 2016 I had said the defendant declared, in his asset declaration form – Exhibit 1, in appendix 3, that he bought No: 15A and B, McDonald, Ikoyi, Lagos sometime in 2000 through his company called Calile Properties Ltd, whereas our findings reveals that  No:15 was actually purchased by his company, TinyTee, not Calile sometime in 2006.

    “We also found that the second property : Block 15 Flat 1 -4 was sold to Bitti Oil Ltd, investigation is yet to link the defendant with that company,” Wetkas said.

    As Wetkas testified, Saraki, who wore white agbada and a cap, sat quietly in the “accused box.”

    At a point, Erokoro attempted to discredit the form submitted by Saraki in 2003, which he signed on September 16, 2003, by claiming that it must have been tampered with.

    Erokoro hinged his suspicion on his belief that it was impossible for Saraki to have contemplated as at 2003, of buying the Ikoyi property in 2006 and thereby included it in his 2003 asset declaration form.

    In reacting to Erokoro’s position, Wetkas said it was only Saraki, who signed the document, admitting his claims on it that could explain the reason for what Erokoro thinks seems impossible.

    “The Exhibit 1 (the 2003 form) was signed and dated by Saraki on September 16, 2003. As far as I am concerned, Exhibit 1 was duly signed and dated by the defendant on September 16, 2003.

    “I did not insert the properties in the form. Asset declaration form is not just any document. The person declaring his assets is expected to go before a High Court judge to swear on oath. They swear to affidavit, so it is believed that all he swore to, and appended his signature to the truth.  I do not need to see him in person or confront him to believe that his declaration in the form is true,” Wetkas said.

    Earlier, the witness, who was handed an electric calculator by Erokoro, to calculate the value of Saraki’s asset, as stated in the 2003 form, said inquiry into some of his bank accounts and those of some members of his immediate family revealed that Saraki was worth more than N1.5billion as at 2003

    “By Appendix 7A of Exhibit 1, the defendant’s wife’s account in EcoBank showed N1, 500,000 as cahs balance.

    “At page 6 of Exhibit 1: Cash at bank in Nigeria added up to N1, 100,000 in Société General Bank, in the name of Tosin and Seni Saraki (his children below 18 years as at 2003).

    At 3.30 pm, lead defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) sought an adjournment, which the tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar reluctantly agreed to.

    Umar reminded Agabi that parties had agreed at the commencement of proceedings, that the tribunal will only rise at 4pm.

    The tribunal Chairman however changed his mind when other fence lawyers, including Paul Usoro (SAN) added their voices to Agabi’s request.

    Only about three Senators were identified at yesterday’s proceedings as against the practice in the past when up to 20 Senators were always attending every sitting.

    The regulars: Dino Melaye (who occasionally served food and drinks to other Senators when they attend proceedings), Samuel Anyawu and Tayo Alasoadura were absent at yesterday’s proceedings.

    Also, Ajibola Oluyede, the lawyer, who suddenly appeared in the defence team at the previous proceedings to move a motion seeking Umar’s disqualification, was also absent yesterday.

    Further hearing resumes Wednesday.

     

  • We’ve verified assets of Buhari, Osinbajo, others – CCB

    We’ve verified assets of Buhari, Osinbajo, others – CCB

    The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) said Wednesday that it has completed the verification of assets declared by President Mohammadu Buhari, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, Senate President, Bukola Saraki and others top officials of the current administration.

    The agency said, in a statement Wednesday that it was not true, as reported by a newspaper, that it was yet to conclude the verification of assets declared by Buhari, Osinbajo, Saraki and others.

    CCB’s Head, Press and Protocol Unit, Mohammad Idris said, in the statement, that more than ever before, the rate of compliance to assets declaration requirement by public officers has increased since the inception of this administration.

    “The said publication is another trick to misinform the public so as to undermine the on-going trials of cases of false declaration of assets before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    “Since the inception of the present administration under President Muhammadu Buhari, the rate of compliance by public officials in responding to assets declaration has greatly increased.

    “The Bureau will like to use this medium to appeal to those who are yet to declare their Assets to visit the Asokoro Head office of No 23, Halle Salasi Street Asokoro, Abuja to collect, fill and submit same to the office,” Idris said.

     

  • How we discovered Orubebe’s hidden property in Abuja – CCB

    How we discovered Orubebe’s hidden property in Abuja – CCB

    The prosecution in the case against former Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Godsday Orubebe opened its case  n Thursday with its first witness giving details of how the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) discovered a property owned by the ex-minister in Abuja which he allegedly refused to disclose.

    Orubebe is standing trial before the Code of Conduct tribunal (CCT) on a one count charge of false assets declaration.

    The witness, Samuel Madojemu, an official of the CCB, said Orubebe failed to declare the property identified as Plot 2057, Asokoro District, Abuja, while he served as a minister between 2007 and 2011.

    Madojemu said his responsibility in CCB include “intelligence on observed breaches of the code and asset tracing investigation.” He said Orubebe submitted five asset declaration forms to the CCB between 2007 and 2011.copies of the forms were admitted by the CCT as exhibits.

    On how the CCB discovered that the ex-minister owned the property, the witness explained that the Certificate of Occupancy (CoO) for the property obtained from the Department of Land Administration of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) revealed that it  was issued to Orubebe on April 10, 2011 but that the former minister failed to declare it as of the time of leaving office on May 29, 2011.

    Madojemu was led in evidence by lead prosecution lawyer, Mohammad Diri (the Director of Public prosecution of the Federation).

    The witness said Orubebe ignored the CCB’s invitation to him to make statements during the investigation of the case.

    He said: “The defendant declared his assets to the bureau by virtue of his position as a public officer and as a minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    “I was instructed to invite him to bureau for the purpose of obtaining his statement on the allegations and intelligence report that was being handled by the bureau concerning him.

    “I invited him. He promised to respond by sending his legal team. He also promised that he might decide to come in person but he did not come.

    “My Lord, the bureau issued him with Form CCB 1 which is the bureau’s asset declaration form and he made his declaration between 2007 and 2011 – the period under investigation.

    “The Code of Conduct Bureau issued the defendant the Form CCB 1 five times. For those five times, he made hs asset declaration to the bureau.

    “My Lord, after we received the form, we examined the form as part of our procedures investigation to ascertain if there was over-declaration or under-declaration.

    “We conducted intelligence assessment on the declaration made by the defendant. We discovered that there were some other plots or properties that were traced to the defendant, Godsday Orubebe.

    “We conducted record examination by writing a letter to the Federal Capital Territory’s Department of Land Administration.

    “My Lord, in their response, which was in writing, it was indicated that Plot 2057 Asokoro District for which the Certificate of Occupancy was issued on April 10, 2011, belonged to the defendant.

    “We thereafter compared the information arising from response from the FCT land administration department with the information on asset declaration forms submitted to the bureau between 2007 and 2011 and discovered that Plot 2057 Asokoro District belonging to the defendant was not declared even as at May 29, 2011 when he left office.

    “Apart from the letter from FCT land admin registry, we also received Certified True Copy of the Certificate of Occupancy in respect of Plot number 2057 issued to the defendant.

    “We also received the CTC of the Right of Occupancy for that same Plot No 2057 issued to the defendant.

    “Also received from the FCT land administration registry, was a letter of authority, given to one Engineer Rodney by the defendant authorising him to collect the Certificate of Occupancy and the Right of Occupancy from the FCT land registry. It was supported by the (international passport) page of the defendant.”

    “My lords, the question we wanted the defendant was to find out why he did not declare plot 2057 for which the C of O was issued to him on April 10, 2011. Whereas for the period under consideration, 2007 to May 29, 2011, when he made those declarations, he did not make the declaration of the property at the end of tenure asset declaration form 2011. He acquired the property while he was still in office.

    “But my lord, he promised to send legal representative to the bureau or come in person but he did not come. We afforded him the opportunity but he did not come,” Madojemu said..

    Orubebe’s lawyer, Selekowei Larry (SAN) objected to move by Diri to tender copies of the CoO, the Right of Occupancy (RoO), the letter of authority referred to by the witness, which were all attached to a letter dated February 18, 2016 by the Department of Land administration of the FCT.

    Larry contended that the letter along with the documents attached to it was inadmissible under Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, because it was authored by “a person interested” while the case against his client was already pending in court.

    The letter dated February 18, 2016 was authored by Assistant State Counsel of the Lands Administration, Mrs. Funke Audu, of the Federal Capital Territory.

    “These are documents procured during the pendency of this case. The letter is dated February 18, 2016, whereas the suit commenced on October 18, 2015,” Larry said.

    Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Usman overruled Larry and upheld Diri’s argument to the effect that that Audu, who was an employee of the Federal Capital Territory Administration could never be a party interested.

    While the witness spoke, Orubebe, dressed in white traditional attire and a black hat, sat quietly in the accused box.

    Further hearing has been fixed for April 14 for the defence to cross-examine the witness.

  • Ex-Niger-Delta Minister, Orubebe rearraigned

    Ex-Niger-Delta Minister, Orubebe rearraigned

    *Pleads not guilty to one-count charge of false assets declaration

    Former Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Godsday Orubebe on Tuesday pleaded not guilty to a fresh one-count charge of false assets declaration brought against him by the Code of conduct Bureau (CCB).

    Orubebe, who was earlier arraigned before tribunal on November 8 last year on a four-count charge, was re arraigned  before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on an amended charge of one count.

    The former minister was earlier charged with false assets declaration and acceptance of bribe estimated at N70 million.

    At the commencement of proceedings on Tuesday, prosecution lawyer, Mohammad Diri told the court that the prosecution has amended the earlier charge and wished to substitute it with a new charge of one count.

    Diri, the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, said the amended charge was filed in line with provisions of section 214 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. He said it was served on the defence some moments before the proceedings began on Tuesday.

    Lead defence lawyer, Selekowei Larry (SAN), did not object to the amendment.

    In the amended charge, the prosecution alleged that Orubebe failed to declare his Plot 2057, Asokoro District, Abuja when he assumed office as Minister of Niger Delta Affairs on September 26, 2007‎ and on leaving office on June 29, 2011, an offence it said was in breach of Section 15 of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and punishable under section 23(2) of the same Act.

    The new count  reads: “That you, Godsday Peter Orubebe on or about June 29, 2011 while being a minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in charge of the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs in Abuja within the jurisdiction of this honourable tribunal, did make a false declaration of assets to the Code of Conduct Bureau when you failed to declare Plot 2057, Asokoro District, Abuja on assumption of office on September 26, 2007 and on leaving office (at the end of your tenure) on June 29, 2011 and you hereby commit an offence contrary to section 15 of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 15 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under section 23(2) of the same Act.”

    After the charge was read to Orubebe and he pleaded not guilty, Diri, who announced that he intends to call three witnesses, sought an adjournment to enable him present his witnesses.

    Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar adjourned to April 7.

  • Birth of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal

    The Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal are both military inventions. They are part of the military legacy imposed on this nation by four military regimes-Murtala Muhammed, Olusegun Obasanjo, Ibrahim Babangida and Abdusalam Abubakar.

    If you look at the 1966 constitution, there is no reference to such two bodies. The nearest reference on oath is in section 96 of the 1963 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. When the idea of the Code of Conduct was adopted in the Constitution Drafting Committee in 1975, Nigeria was following the footsteps of Tanzania and Zambia. For, apart from Tanzania and Zambia and of late Ghana, there are no other countries in the world where such bodies exist.

    In 1967, the Tanzania leadership code was part of the Arusha Declaration during the tenure of Dr. Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1922-1999), the Mwalimu simply referred to as the ‘Teacher’. Originating therefore as a resolution, the Code of Conduct was adopted at a party meeting and became incorporated into the constitution and rules of the party binding on party members who are within the definition of a “leader”. To rest its binding force on a party resolution would have made it unenforceable against leaders who are not party officials or whose officers are not dependent on party membership. For this reason it was thought necessary to incorporate it into constitution of the country. This was done by means of a constitutional amendment. However the constitutional provisions have a limited application to persons; they apply only to members of the National Assembly, operating as a condition of eligibility for election or appointment to, and membership of, the assembly, subject however to certain exceptions and safeguards. For example, the consequences of breach of the code are not self-operating. They entail an action in the High Court instituted by the Attorney-General. Only if the court finds the allegation of breach established, does the sanction of disqualification or vacation of seat follow.

    The various regulations governing civil servants, councillors and officers of parastatal organizations were similarly amended to incorporate the code. Thus, the source of authority of the code differs for the various categories of leaders: for the M.Ps and ministers it is the constitution, for public servants the appropriate regulations, and for party officials the party resolution. The enforcement machinery is also different for each category of leaders.”

    In Zambia, on the other hand, the constitution is the source of the authority of the code for all categories of leaders. The constitution establishes a Leadership Committee, and authorizes it to draw up a code in the form of regulations which are to have effect as if enacted in the constitution. Compliance with the code is a condition for election, nomination, or appointment to offices specified therein, though the President may, if of the opinion that to do so would be necessary or desirable in the public interest, authorize the nomination or appointment of a person otherwise disqualified, on condition that he complies within three months. Breach of the code by the holder of a specified office (other than the office of the President, judge of the Supreme Court, judge of the High Court, investigator-general, director of public prosecutions and auditor-general) operates to vacate the office, if it is established either on a written admission or by the decision of a tribunal established by the constitution with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. The tribunal consists of a chairman appointed by the Chief Justice and two other persons appointed by the President; the chairman must be a judge or a person qualified to be a judge of the High Court. (The exemption of the President, Judge, etc. from the sanctions of the code is because the constitution provides other machinery for their removal from office).

    In both Tanzania and Zambia the code applies only to leaders, defined so as to cover wide categories of persons: ministers, M.Ps, all party officials, senior officials of organization affiliated to the party and of parastatals bodies and the universities, councillors and civil servants in high and middle cadres.

    The purpose of the code is that a leader should not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his responsibility as leader, or which enables him to exploit others. With certain exceptions, the code therefore forbids a leader or his spouse to draw more than one salary, to employ workers in connection with any trade, business, profession or vocation, including the running of a hotel, boarding house or like establishment for gain or profit; to own a house let out on rent to others; to be shareholders or director in a privately-owned enterprise.”

    These were the prayers of the sub-committee on National Objectives and Public Accountability under Professor Ben Nwabueze in 1975. The committee also made provision for the Ombudsman. General Olusegun Obasanjo implanted the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal into the 1979 constitution but jettisoned the creation of Ombudsman.

    If you look at the fifth schedule of the 1979 constitution from section 1 to section 21, they contain the recommendations of Professor Nwabueze. In 1980, President Shehu Shagari appointed Alhaji Isa Keita (1912-1994), the Waziri of Katsina as chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau but Alhaji Shagari did not appoint the members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, hence the non-functioning of the bureau.

    In 1988, General Ibrahim Babangida appointed a 10-man Code of Conduct Bureau with Reverend Cannon Mohammed as its chairman and Dr. Rex Akpofure as its secretary. In 1998, a constitutional panel review under Justice Niki Tobi was appointed by General Abdusalam Abubakar.

    Justice Niki Tobi panel lifted word for word, line by line, the contents of the 1979 constitution on the Code of Conduct Bureau and Code of Conduct Tribunal to be part of 1999 constitution and they are contained in the fifth schedule of the constitution from section 1- section 19. The present members of the Code of Conduct Bureau are Sam Shaba as chairman. The tenure of the board of Shaba has expired since April this year. President Muhammadu Buhari is yet to reconstitute new members of the bureau. Other members are Dr. Christy Ekoja, Dr. Ademola Adebo, Alhaji Disha Muhammed, Alhaji Ibrahim Mazo, Okechukwu Nwadinobi, Chief Stephen Bekefala while Choo Tony Salle Kyanni is the secretary.

    The question now is, are the punishment contained in the Code of Conduct too wide or too narrow? Should public servants of the middle and lower cadres be included? Is the restriction on the individual freedom of enterprise and of acquisition too severe? What is to be the reasonable balance between the need for individual initiative and the prevention of exploitation? Is the loss to the nation resulting from the exclusion of “leaders” from entrepreneurial initiative a reasonable price to pay for the prevention of exploitation?

    In 2003, the Code of Conduct Tribunal and the Independent National Electoral Commission were put under the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation in other to guarantee their independence. The tribunal was designed to function hence it was implanted in the constitution. It was not set up as a joke. The tribunal is not under the Supreme Court. It is totally independent. It can bark and bite. The earlier the tribunal makes a scapegoat, the more will it be taken seriously.

    • Teniola, a former director at the presidency, stays in Lagos.