The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

  • APC lawmaker behind my proposed CCT’s arraignment – Bayelsa Speaker

    Speaker of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly, Dr. Kombowei Benson, on Wednesday identified a lawmaker representing Brass Constituency 1, Isreal Sunny-Goli as the brains behind the recent decision by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to schedule him and others for arraignment.

    Speaking in Yenagoa on his proposed arraignment for abuse of office, Benson said the move originated from the lawmaker’s claims that the leadership of the House was yet to pay his allowances.

    He said though the matter had become a subject of litigation, all salaries owed to Sunny-Goli had been paid despite the lawmaker’s alleged absence from his official duties for nearly a session.

    He said Sunny-Goli was expected like other lawmakers to sign and collect other allowances but that he failed to do so because of his long absence.

    Read Also: Ogun APC demands interest on workers deductions

    “Hence consistent with a state policy, all unpaid salaries and allowances are paid back to state coffers at the end of every financial year”, he said.

    Benson added: “If there’s any display of misconduct and abuse of office, it is Israel Sunny-Goli that is culpable not me. For a whole legislative session, he has only attended about two sittings. Such action has denied his constituents inputs in legislative processes and bills passed in the House.

    “It is common knowledge that salaries and wages including allowances are paid only to those, who have performed their duties. I wondered why he is desperately going this far to drag innocent people to issues created by his failure to do his work.

    “Besides, it is the practice of the House that individual members sign their financial entitlements. Hence, the Speaker is constraint to accessing money meant for others. If Sunny-Goli his not able to access his benefits, it is his own fault”.

  • Breaking: CCT says it has jurisdiction to try Onnoghen

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has held that he has the power to try the former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen on charges of breach of code of conduct for public prosecution.

    The tribunal said it was trying Onnoghen as a public officer, not as a judicial officer.

    Hence it said there was no need to first refer the charge against him to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    In two ruling on Thursday, tribunal’s Chairman, Danladi Umar dismissed two motions by Onnoghen.

    The first challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction to try Onnoghen when the allegations against him had not been presented before the NJC.

    The second asked the tribunal Chairman to recuse himself from further sitting on the case on the grounds that he had been charged with demanding bribe.

    Read Also: Onnoghen’s resignation not enough – SANs

    Umar, in the ruling, said the he has been absolved of the allegation that he demanded bribe from a defendant.

    He added it was impossible for the Chairman to step down from a case, because where there is no Chairman, there is no tribunal.

    The tribunal Chairman also held that the CCT is not under any supervision of any body, including the NJC and therefore, not subject to the directive of the NJC.

    Umar reversed the tribunal’s earlier judgment in the case of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta on the grounds that its finding in the Ngwuta case was based wrong legal principles and narrow interpretation of statute.

    The judgment in the Ngwuta case had upheld the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Justice H. Nganjiwa, to the effect that any allegation of misconduct against a serving judicial officer must first be referred to the NJC.

    ‎Umar is currently reading the tribunal’s judgment in the substantive trial.

     

    Details shortly…

  • The fall of Onnoghen

    Since the news of the non-declaration of some of his assets broke, it has been one allegation after the other against the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen. The contention is that his action amounted to a violation of the Code of Conduct for public officers. Justice Onnoghen’s ready made answer was that he forgot to do so. Many never expected the custodian of our law, the nation’s  number one  judicial officer, for that matter,  to say such a thing. But he did.

    From then, things moved at a dizzying speed, with the Federal Government seeing in it a way to make a scapegoat of Onnoghen under its anti-graft crusade. From the outset, Onnoghen was a marked man. The government knew he has such a baggage, but still appointed him as CJN in March 2017. The appointment was a subtle way of telling him that “look, you must behave yourself as long as you remain in office, or we will expose you”.

    His resignation last week may have brought closure to this sordid episode, but it calls to question the integrity of our judiciary. Onnoghen, who is standing trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), was ready to fight to the end until he read the handwriting on the wall and threw in the towel last Friday. The National Judicial Council (NJC), which he headed until his travail began, might have done him in with its report following its investigation of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) petition against him. The council recommended that he should be retired with full benefits.  His exit should be an opportunity to beam the searchlight on the judiciary and do all that can be done to cleanse this critical institution.

    I have a lot of respect for judges because they are society’s conscience. They are men and women who have sworn to uphold the scale of justice to ensure that no man is cheated nor deprived of his right. Painfully, the society’s conscience has, in the course of time, lost its moral and legal bearing, to judge others. Justice, the saying goes, must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. How then can a corrupt judge live up to this age-long maxim when justice is for sale?

    In an October 6, 2016 piece titled : Justice for sale (see bromide), which was prompted by the NJC’s sanction of some corrupt judges then, this writer warned against creating room for  judicial officers to turn the bench into their public limited company (PLC). We did not know then that even the council, which should be an holy sanctuary, could be as rotten as some of those it probes. Onnoghen’s case has shown that we must rejig the membership of the almighty NJC. If as NJC chair, he could forget to declare some of his assets, how are we sure that such misdemeanour does not run down the line?

    Read Also: The Onnoghen dilemma

    Honestly, if we desire a council, which will be the pride of our nation, and not one that will shield its members who soil their reputation and bring opprobrium to it, we must overhaul it. A stain on NJC is a dent on the nation’s image, so we cannot treat lightly any allegation of corruption against its members. Are there still other Onnoghen in the council? There may be because since as the head, he had such a baggage, it is likely that he would tolerate others who tread the same path with him.

    The nation does not deserve a tainted judiciary. This is why the government must weed out judges who perceive the bench as the place to amass wealth at the expense of their judicial duty and the time to do that is now, no matter how some people feel. We cannot build a just society with a cash and carry judiciary.

     

    Will Buhari act?

    IN 2015, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) settled for Senator Ahmad Lawan as Senate president, but the action did not go down with outgoing Senate President Bukola Saraki, who joined forces with Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) senators,  to snatch the plum job. Four years after, APC seems not to have learnt anything from that bitter enterprise. It has tipped Lawan again for the coveted seat in the incoming Ninth Senate, which will be inaugurated in June. Senators Ali Ndume and Danjuma Goje are not comfortable with his choice. Ndume, especially, is fighting tooth and nail for the job. He is accusing the party of not carrying him and other aspirants along before settling for Lawan.

    Ndume may have a point. But where there is discipline, members are expected to fall in line with whatever decision their party takes. After all, as they say, the party is supreme. Having been anointed by the party, Ndume and others must rally round Lawan to get the job so that they do not play into the hands of PDP as they did four years ago. PDP is waiting in the wings to reap from APC’s internal strife as it did in 2015 and ran away with the deputy Senate president. APC should be firm on this matter. It should stand by its decision and ensure that it is complied with by its senators, no matter how powerful and connected some of them may think they are. President Muhammadu Buhari should not keep quiet too. If he is backing Lawan, he should say so unequivocally and let the other aspirants know. This is not a time for ‘’you can go and vote for whoever you like’’. It is a time for him to take charge and let the APC senators know where he stands. To start with, what about inviting Lawan, Ndume and Goje over to the Villa to knock some senses into their heads? Doing that will douse the tension over this matter. APC, beware, so that 2015 does not repeat itself.

    The party must show that it has balls by sticking to its choice and doing all it can to make him Senate president. It must not allow the PDP to seize the initiative again as it did four years ago. If PDP could be in power for 16 years and ran the show the way it liked in the National Assembly, I do not see why APC cannot do the same now that it is ruling the roost. What is power if you do not know how to use it?

  • ‘Onnoghen down with high BP, toothache’

    SUSPENDED Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen is suffering from high blood pressure and toothache, his lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, told the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) yesterday.

    The embattled CJN is standing trial before the CCT in relation to his alleged breach of code of conduct for public officers.

    He was arraigned by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) over alleged infractions in his asset declaration forms.

    Justice Onnoghen, who attended proceedings on Monday when the tribunal ordered a day-to-day hearing in the case, was absent at the resumption of proceedings yesterday.

    His lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, (SAN), told the tribunal that he (Awomolo) was informed Monday night that Onnoghen has developed tooth-ache.

    Adegboyega tendered a medical report in support of his claim.

    Lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar, (SAN), also said he got a copy of the medical report, which was signed by one Dr. Francis Uche, the Medical Director of Ideal Medical Services.

    Umar said he could not make any observation in view of what the doctor said about the blood pressure of the defendant, which was said to have risen to 410/121.

    The prosecution lawyer added: “As an old man, I know how dangerous that could be.”

    He said the medical report suggested that Onnoghen was given 72 hours bed rest.

    Umar said, though prosecution witnesses were present, the trial could not be conducted in the defendant’s absence.

    He added: “Under the circumstance, I will concede that there is a justification for the defendant to be absent.

    “Taking into consideration the order of the court yesterday (Monday) on day-to-day proceedings and the health condition of the defendant, I urge the court to adjourn the matter till Monday when we can have five days straight.”

    Ruling, tribunal Chairman Danladi Umar, said: “In view of the medical report, explaining the absence of the defendant in court and in consideration of the level of his blood pressure, and with the prosecution having agreed for an adjournment till Monday, the tribunal concede to the adjournment of the matter to Monday, March 18 for hearing.”

  • Suspended CJN appeals CCT’s refusal to deliver ruling in applications

    The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen has appealed the decision by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to delay ruling in his applications challenging its jurisdiction and impartiality in his trial.

    CCT Chairman Danladi Umar, in a ruling on Monday, ordered a day-to-day trial in the charge of non-declaration of assets against Onnoghen, saying that ruling in the two applications by the defendants would be delivered at the time of judgment.

    Justice Onnoghen, in a three-ground notice of appeal filed yesterday, argued that the CCT erred in law in its interpretation of Section 369(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) when it ruled that its decision in the applicant’s applications shall be given at the point of judgment.

    The suspended CJN argued that it was wrong for the CCT to refuse to deliver ruling after hearing the application challenging “constitutional jurisdiction” of the tribunal to hear and determine the charges filed against him.

    He also faulted the tribunal for withholding its decision on the other application which challenged the “independence and impartiality of the chairman of the tribunal as his conduct in the proceedings showed bias and prejudiced against the appellant”.

    The Justice argued that Section 396(2) of ACJA could only be the basis for adjourning rulings on such interlocutory applications till the conclusion of trial if the applications had to do with the validity of the charges filed against the defendant.

    He stated that his applications “raised a threshold issue of jurisdiction which should not wait until the conclusion of trial” adding that it “did not relate to the validity of the charges”.

    “The decision (deferment of rulings) is a violation of the right of the appellant to fair hearing,” the notice of appeal also stated.

    Justice Onnoghen noted that the same CCT, had in an earlier proceedings in the case of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, delivered ruling in similar application.

    He added that the CCT erred in the interpretation of Section 396(3) of the ACJA when objections of the appellant to impartiality and independence of the tribunal, particularly the chairman, whose conduct in the proceedings gave indication of bias and absence of independence in the determination of the right of the appellant.

    Arguing further, he said that the application he filed “is not one of the interlocutory applications covered by Section 396(4) of the ACJA. The decision is a violation of the right of the appellant to fair hearing.”

    He urged the Court of Appeal to allow his appeal and “set aside the order of the tribunal made on March 11, 2019”.

    Justice Onnoghen also urged the Court of Appeal to proceed to invoke the provisions of Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, which he noted, empowers the court to hear and determine the applications in respect of which the CCT declined to rule.

  • Onnoghen’s trial: Tension as NBA queries prosecuting SAN, may impose sanctions

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has fired a query at Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN), the prosecutor of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen in the ongoing trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for taking up the brief.

    The association accuses Umar of professional misconduct for accepting the brief.

    It says the senior lawyer’s action contravenes Rule 15 (3) (a) (b) and (c) jointly or severally of the Rules of professional conduct for legal practitioners.

    The query is now generating bad blood in the Bar along North-South divide following an alleged secret move to de-robe and delist Umar as a lawyer because the NBA demanded a copy of his Call to Bar Certificate.

    Some lawyers from the North are threatening to fight back on Umar’s behalf.

    The SAN himself    has fired back at the NBA leadership

    The NBA, in the February 12, 2019 query signed by its General Secretary, Gunu Taidi, directed Umar to respond to the allegation of professional misconduct against him.

    It said: “We received a petition against you and hereby forward a copy for your response within twenty one (21) days.

    “Your response should be in three (3) copies accompanied by a witness statement of your good self sworn before a Magistrate Court, High Court, National Industrial Court or Federal High Court in addition to the sworn witness statement of any witness (es) you may wish to call during the hearing of the petition and attach passport photos of the respective witness (es).

    “Please state your full name, Supreme Court enrolment number, contact address, phone number and email address in your response and attach a copy of your Call to Bar Certificate.

    “The response should be addressed to: The General Secretary Nigerian Bar Association, National Secretariat, Plot 1101 Cadastral Zone A00 Central Business District Abuja.

    “Please take note that your response may be forwarded to the petitioner for his/her reply or reaction to your defence.

    “Further note that a Panel may dispense with the hearing of the parties to a petition if in its opinion, a prima facie case has not been made out against the Respondent in reliance on the documents before it:

    (A)   Where a Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made out against a Respondent in reliance on the documents before it, it must expressly state so with or without giving a detailed reason of the basis of its decision.

    (B)    Where a Panel finds that a prima fade case has not been made out against a Respondent in reliance on the documents before it or based on evidence led before it, it shall dismiss the petition with or without giving a detailed reason of the basis of its decision.

    “For further enquiries, please place a call through to the NBA Disciplinary Hotline 07080932564 or email us on legal@nigerianbar.org.ng

    The NBA premised the query on a January 15, 2019 petition by another lawyer Mr. Onyeamaechi Bob James.

    James, in the petition through the law firm of Bob James and Co said: “We are constrained to petition your office against Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) for conduct which violates Rule 15 (3) (a) (b) and (c) jointly or severally of the Rules of professional conduct for legal practitioners. TH ACTS

    “Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) is prosecuting counsel in the case of FRN (Federal Republic of Nigeria) vs. Justice Walter Onnoghen in the Code of Conduct Tribunal Abuja.  Justice Walter Onnoghen. GCON is Chief Justice of Nigeria. He is being prosecuted in the tribunal on a six-count charge.

    “In Nganjiwa vs. FRN, the Court of Appeal held that a prosecution cannot be commenced against a serving judicial officer who is subject to the disciplinary powers of the NJC unless the NJC has first considered the facts or circumstances that form the subject matter of the proposed prosecution. That is the position of the law in Nigeria today until set aside by the Supreme Court.

    “Relying on that law, the Code of Conduct Tribunal in 2018 in an earlier case involving Hon Justice Ngwuta struck out the charges then pending against him.

    “By order 15 (3) (c), a lawyer shall not “Knowingly advance a claim or defence that is unwarranted under existing law”, but he may advance such argument or defence ‘if it can be supported by argument in good faith for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. “

    “Mr. Aliyu in prosecuting the CJN in the Code of Conduct Tribunal is knowingly prosecuting a case that was dead on arrival, and it cannot be said that he probably intended a modification or reversal of existing law because the Code of Conduct Tribunal being inferior to the Court of Appeal cannot modify or reverse the court of appeal’s decision in Nganjiwa.

    “Clearly, the conduct of the learned silk brings the legal profession into disrepute. It is a precedent that if allowed will encourage lawyers nationwide to embark on litigation that will serve to subvert legal institutions and make mockery of the litigation process.

    “If Mr. Aliyu Umar gets away with this act, a lawyer in Abia can collect money from a man based in Kano who is claiming land located in Kano from another man based in Kano to file a suit for declaration of title in Umuahia High Court. Junior lawyers will start collecting money from clients to file cases that, in the language of rule 14 (2) (e) are ‘hopeless”, which is nothing but obtaining money by false pretences, and the mass media will become awash with stories of lawyers being a profession of 419 people.

    “I urge you sir to use your good offices to cause a detailed investigation to be made into the role of Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) in this matter.”

    It’s an inspired petition, says Umar

    However, Umar in his response dated March 5, 2019 said the petition was ‘inspired’.

    His words: “Please refer to your letter concerning the above petition, which you attached to your letter to me. Having studied your said letter dated 12th February, 2019 and the petition dated 15th January, 2019, I wish to make the following observations. (But I don’t intend to respond to your letter or the Petition for now until the Prosecution I am doing has been determined by the Tribunal).

    “(A) Mr. Honourable Secretary on 4th January, 2019 there was team of lawyers on behalf of the NBA. Claiming to be holding its brief and the association have been at the Tribunal on any day of its sitting, diligently observing the proceedings. So your inspired petition has no basis as the charge is still alive and was not “dead on arrival”.

    “(b) In your letter you stated that “a Panel may dispense with the hearing of the parties to a petition if in its opinion, a prima facie case has not been made out against the Respondent in reliance on the documents before it”. This clearly established that, you have documents in your possession which you did not make available to me.

    “(c) Solicitors and Advocates of the Supreme Court of Nigeria have been accepting briefs to either defend or prosecute Defendants in criminal cases, and this is to the knowledge of the NBA. But, there was never a time when an attempt was made to intimidate the counsel by an inspired petition.

    “You may or deliberately refused to remember the Prosecution of the Senate President and two former Chiefs of Air Staff, and Honourable Farouk Lawan which are pending or unsuccessfully conducted.

    “If I may venture to add, a prosecutor’s conduct can only be found unethical after conclusion of a case but depending only on how he conducts himself or the prosecution of the case.

    “Your haste to find a person who will petition against me shows the bias of my association at this point in time. And if I may say, the association is supposed to protect/ discipline members irrespective of geographic locations or any other bias.

    “My certificate of Call to Bar is far away and I cannot now fish it out. I need time to do that, I will not be distracted.

    “My intention in this matter is to present the facts as investigated to enable the tribunal come to a just conclusion.

    “It is in the interest of the association, the Judiciary and the legal profession as a whole that the public do not perceive conspiracy by the legal profession simply because one of our own is a defendant.

    “For the reasons above, I do not wish to put in any response. I hope my association will wait until I have completed the prosecution, then you can charge me with anything you want. I will then have a lot of things to say.”

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who spoke in confidence, said: “The NBA must watch it to avoid splitting this association along North-South divide. Some lawyers from the North are unhappy and they are also threatening showdown if anything happens to Umar.

    “The NBA cannot afford to return to the crisis of the 1990 during Priscilla Kuye’s tenure. We should allow the law to run its full course to save the bench and the bar.

    “I think the bar should not join this fray at all other than being a peacemaker.”

    The CJN is facing a six-count trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).for allegedly not declaring some of his assets,

    Although Onnoghen initially refused to appear before the tribunal, a bench warrant was later issued by the Chairman of CCT Mr. Danladi Umar.

    Following Onnoghen’s appearance, the CCT chairman revoked the bench warrant and adjourned the trial to March 11.

    But ahead of the resumption of the case, NBA has decided to probe some allegations against the prosecutor, Mr. Umar Aliyu (SAN) who was hired by the Federal Government.

  • CCT trial: At last, suspended CJN Onnoghen docked

    It was an unusual proceeding yesterday before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in Abuja as the most senior judge in the country was put on trial, with the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, pleading to a six-count charge.

    This is the first time in the history of the nation’s judiciary, when the must senior jurist would be subjected to a court trial. Onnoghen is charged with the breach of code of conduct in relation to his alleged failure to declare some assets linked with him, as required for public officers.

    Smartly dressed in suit and tie, 69-year-old Onnghen stood in the dock for the entire one-hour long proceedings, during which the charge was read to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, following which tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, admitted him to bail on self-recognisance.

    The tribunal had, at its previous sitting on February 13, issued a bench warrant against Onnoghen, directing either the Inspector General of Police (IGP) or the Director General of the State Security Service (SSS) to arrest him and produce him on February 15.

    As against the tone of the tribunal’s order, the suspended CJN attended Friday’s proceedings on his own. He arrived the CCT’s sitting venue at Jabi, Abuja, around 9.40am, driven in his official vehicle, with his security aides in tow.

    On alighting from the car, he was immediately led to the packed spacious hall, where he sat on the front pew, to the left side of the hall, close to the main entrance, with some senior lawyers sitting to his right and left.

    No known Justice of either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal was present. Normal court businesses went on smoothly at the Supreme Court. A panel of four Justices, led by Justice John Okoro sat on cases and delivered judgments in about 13 cases, when The Nation visited.  Other Justices on the panel were Centus Nweze, Paul Galinje and Amina Adamu Augie.

    Many senior lawyers, who had appeared before the CCT as part of the defence team, like former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Kanu Agabi (SAN), Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), Victoria Awomolo (SAN), were absent yesterday.

    The size of the defence team was also smaller yesterday, with the number of Senior Advocates, whose names were announced, not up to 10. The size of the audience was also smaller than the attendance recorded before yesterday.

    Proceedings commenced around 10.35am when members of the tribunal took their seats, following which the tribunal Chairman directed an official to call the case.

    When the charge marked CCT/ABJ/01/2019 was called, Onnoghen stood up from his seat. His lawyer made move to address the court, but was interjected by tribunal Chairman.

    Pointing towards the dock, Umar insisted that the defendant must step into the wooden cubicle before further businesses could be conducted, a directive Onnoghen promptly complied with and walked briskly into the dock.

    While in the dock, the defendant chose to stand, he rejected the chair offered by a security official of the tribunal, on the instruction of the Chairman.

    On realising that the defendant was standing, Umar said: “Please give him a chair to sit (pointing to a policeman attached to the tribunal). Let him sit down. My Lord, please sit down.”

    In response, Onnoghen, standing, with his hands held behind him, said: “Thank you sir. I don’t need it (the chair) now. When I need it, I will ask for it,” he smiled as he spoke. The defendant did not request for the chair while the proceedings lasted.

    Upon a request by the lead prosecuting lawyer, Musa Ibrahim, the six-count charge was read to the defendant, with him pleading not guilty to all the counts.

    After his plea, lead defence lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN), applied for bail on self-recognisance, for the defendant. Uche also prayed the tribunal to vacate the arrest warrant issued against his client, which he said was no longer necessary because the defendant voluntarily attended the tribunal’s sitting.

    The prosecuting lawyer did not object to any of the applications, following which Umar granted them, but emphasised that he was granting them on the condition that the defendant would always attend subsequent proceedings.

    Uche subsequently prayed the tribunal for an adjournment. He noted that election was a day away, and that he needed to travel to his constituency, where he planned to cast his vote.

    Though counsel for the prosecution and defence agreed to have the case adjourned until March 18, this year, it took a lot of pleadings, by both lawyers, for the tribunal Chairman, who had chosen February 21 as the return date, to reluctantly agree to March 11 this year for the hearing of all pending applications.

  • CCT orders Onnoghen’s arrest

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) yesterday issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen for undermining the tribunal.

    Ordering either the Inspector General of Police (IGP) or the Director General of the Department of State Services (SSS) to arrest Justice Onnoghen, CCT Chairman Danladi Umar said he (Onnoghen) was given an opportunity to submit himself, but he declined.

    Umar said: “The tribunal, having given an order on the last adjournment, directing the defendant/accused to surrender himself before the raising of any objection about the validity of the charge against him.

    “And, the tribunal, having given the accused/defendant the opportunity to surrender himself today, the tribunal has no option other than to use all the machinery at its disposal to compel the attendance of the accused/defendant in court.

    “Therefore, in the circumstance, the tribunal hereby issues a bench warrant to the Inspector General of Police and or the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) to apprehend the accused/defendant and bring him to the tribunal on Friday for the arraignment of the defendant/accused person.”

    Umar gave the order, after listening to arguments on the application for a warrant of arrest.

    Earlier, when the case was called, an official of the tribunal had noted that the defendant was absent.

    Leading the defence team, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) told the tribunal that the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Court of Appeal in Abuja were simultaneously sitting yesterday on cases relating to the suspended CJN.

    Awomolo urged the tribunal to only take argument on all pending applications, particularly those challenging its jurisdiction and competence, and adjourn to a later date for ruling.

    Lead prosecution lawyer Aliyu Umar (SAN) objected to Awomolo’s application and urged the tribunal to compel Justice Onnoghen to attend its proceedings before the hearing of any pending application.

    Umar drew the tribunal’s attention to the fact that the defendant was not present. He noted that the defendant has never attended proceedings despite being served with the charge and the summons.

    He argued that Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice (ACJA) provides that it is when the defendant has taken his plea that any motion by the defendant could be raised.

    He said Section 6(1) of the tribunal’s Practice Direction directs that where the defendant fails to appear on the day fixed for arraignment, he must be compelled to attend proceedings.

    Umar added: “I hereby apply for a warrant of arrest of the defendant. By the provision of Section 396(2), all the motions are not ripe for hearing, until the defendant is present.”

    Awomolo objected to the prosecution’s application for the issuance of an arrest warrant against the defendant.

    He noted that the case was not adjourned till Wednesday for arraignment, but for the hearing of pending applications.

    Awomolo said: “We are saying that the application for bench warrant is persecution on the part of the prosecution. We are urging the tribunal to reject such invitation to be involved in the persecution of the defendant.

    “What we are saying is that the defendant is entitled to be heard on the application. We urge that the defendant be allowed to argue his pending applications.

    “Every person charged with criminal offence is entitled to challenge the competence of the court. Where the competence of the court is challenged, it must first be resolved.

    “We are also saying that the issue of jurisdiction is the life blood of any proceedings. Where there is no jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal, the proceedings becomes a nullity. Once it is raised, it is in the interest of justice to resolve it first.”

    Awomolo noted that the tribunal granted the prosecution and ex parte application on January 23 without bothering about appearance.

    He added: “The application of the defendant challenging the competence/jurisdiction of the tribunal, should also be taken in his absence. He should be accorded equal opportunity.

    “We plead with this tribunal, with all sense of humility, that the issue of jurisdiction be first resolved before we proceed. We are pleading with this tribunal to give us opportunity to be heard on the issue of jurisdiction; show us compassion to make our case.

    “We are praying that you exercise your power, magnanimity and humaneness to allow us argue our applications. It is not out of disrespect to this tribunal that the defendant is not here.”

    Responding on point of law, Umar faulted all the authorities Awomolo cited and urged the tribunal to be swayed by the defence lawyer’s resort to appeal to its chairman and members.

    Umar referred to some decided cases on the need for the defendant to attend proceedings before his applications are heard. He promised to supply the tribunal with the authorities on a later date.

    At the conclusion of arguments by the lawyers, everyone in court thought that the three members of the tribunal would, as usual, either stand down proceedings to write the ruling or adjourn to a later date for ruling. But, the chairman took everyone by surprise when he reached under his note, brought out some written sheets and commenced reading.

    Umar noted that he had, on the last date (February 4, 2019), insisted that the defendant must attend the next proceedings of the tribunal.

    He relied on several authorities to justify the need for the defendant to attend proceedings.

    It was when the CCT Chairman ordered the arrest of the defendant that it dawned on all that Umar (the CCT Chairman) has just read a ruling.

    After issuing the bench warrant, Umar announced that the tribunal will reconvene on Friday for the defendant’s arraignment.

    As he rose from his chair, Umar said: “Unfailing on Friday, we want to see the defendant here. We are not here to play.  We are here to work. We mean business.”

    Even when the lead prosecution lawyer drew his attention to the fact that Friday was too close to the day of election, Umar said: “I have given my ruling and adjourned to Friday. I am not going to reverse myself.

    “You must all come here on Friday, including the defendant,” Umar said and walked towards his chambers, with the other two members of the tribunal in tow.

    At the Court of Appeal in Abuja, the hearing of three pending appeals filed by Justice Onnoghen was adjourned till February 20.

    A three-member panel of the court, led by Justice Abdul Aboki, chose the date after the lawyer to the respondent told the court that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) had instructed that Umar (who is prosecuting the charge at the CCT) should take over the case of the respondent.

    Oyin Koleoso, who represented the respondent noted that Umar was (at the moment the Court of Appeal proceedings were on), at the CCT.

    Koleoso sought an adjournment to enable Umar take over the respondent’s case.

    Counsel to the appellant Chris Uche (SAN) objected to an adjournment, but was overruled by the court, which later adjourned till February 20.

    The appeals are challenging the January 14, 2019 ruling of the tribunal, electing to hear applications pending before it; its refusal to be bound by the orders of some High Courts, and the ex-parte order on which President Muhammadu Buhari acted in suspending Justice Onnoghen.

  • Falana advises CCT chairman to respond to query of judicial commission

    Lagos lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) has advised the chairman, Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Justice Dankadi Umar to respond to the query issued and served on him by the  Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC).

    “If he fails to reply the query the Federal Judicial Service Commission may wish to recommend his removal from office to the National Judicial Council pursuant to paragraph 13 (a) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution 1999 which will in turn make appropriate recommendations to the President”, he said.

    Falana recalled that while dismissing the allegation of judicial misconduct arising from the circumstances surrounding the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN),  Justice Walter Onnoghen, the Chairman of the CCT,  Justice Danladi Umar has questioned the power of the Federal Judicial Service Commission to query him.

    “According to him, the Code of Conduct Tribunal is under the Presidency and as such the Chairman and the two other members of the Tribunal only report to the President of the Republic. To justify his queer position, Justice Umar said that a former Chief Justice had warned the members of the Tribunal to stop calling themselves judges.

    But in a statement issued in Lagos  on Sunday Falana contended that the  “CCT is not under the Presidency”.

    Falana stated the Federal Judicial Commission was perfectly in order when it queried the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal with respect to the allegation of judicial misconduct leveled against him.

    He stated that .unlike ministers and staff in the Presidency who can be removed  by the President, the Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal cannot  not be removed from office by the President except upon an address supported by two-thirds majority of each of the House of the National Assembly on grounds of misconduct or for contravention of the code of conduct for public officers.

    He said the retirement age of Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal is 70 years like Justices of the appellate courts adding that they cannot be removed from office before attaining the prescribed retirement age’

    He explained that  the power of the Federal Judicial Service Commission to recommend to the National Judicial Council the removal of the Chairman and members of the CCT  cannot be exercised without  conducting an inquiry into the allegation of judicial misconduct involving federal judicial officers.

    The statement stated in part: “With respect, the Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal are recognised as judicial officers by the Constitution. For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal Chairman shall “be a person who has held or is qualified to hold office as a Judge of a superior court of record in Nigeria …”

    “By virtue of section 36 (1) of the Constitution the Code of Conduct Tribunal shall be constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”, he stated.

    He regretted that  a Tribunal established by the Constitution as an independent juridical organ of the Federation has conveniently reduced itself to an appendage of the Presidency.

    “Apart from the Chairman and members who are appointed by the President on the advice of the National Judicial Council,  the staff of the Tribunal are not appointed or seconded by the Presidency.

    “It is expressly stated in the Constitution that the power to appoint the staff of the Tribunal and to exercise disciplinary control over them shall vest in the members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal and shall be exercisable in accordance with an Act of the National Assembly. Contrary to the embarrassing position of the Tribunal Chairman, Paragraph F of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, 1999 as amended provides that the Federal Judicial Service Commission shall advise the National Judicial Council in nominating persons for appointment and removal of federal judicial officers including the Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    “Paragraph 15 of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint the Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council”, he stated.

  • 1,000 youth groups back Buhari over Onnoghen suspension

    With the dust from the suspension of ex-Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen yet to settle, almost 1000 youth groups across the country have backed President Muhammadu Buhari’s action.
    The embattled judicial chief is facing trial over non-declaration of assets.
    In a statement released by Comrade Aaron Tobias  Turner, Secretary of the Communique Drafting Committee, on Monday, Mr Buhari has no fault in the decision taken.
    According to the group, Mr Onnoghen would have done the needful by stepping aside hence avoided such dramatic and shameful exit.
    “Questions about the integrity of Justice Walter Onnoghen are not new. What is new is that there is finally an administration that is bold enough to take steps that will save the judiciary from the transactional culture that had turned the courts in Nigeria into shams where justice is bought and sold. The hesitation in naming him as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) was informed by the knowledge of his pro-corruption tendencies.
    “Upon being found out, if he were a patriot and one that is conscious of his oath of office, Justice Onnoghen should have recused himself from judicial duties for the length of time it would have taken to defend himself before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) after which he could return to his post should he be able to prove himself as innocent. He would have gone down in history as a great Nigerian had he threaded this path instead of turning himself into the lead character in the unfolding drama of absurdity.
    “Justice Onnoghen, in a previous ruling, had himself affirmed the independence of the CCT being a creation of the Constitution and one that cannot be challenged by other courts. It is only proper that President Muhammadu Buhari follows the order of the CCT that directed him to suspend Justice Onnoghen to answer charges of false assets declaration against him.

    Read Also:We don’t have money to dash out, says Buhari

    “The offence of failure to properly declare his assets including the secret bank accounts and operating foreign accounts in contravention of the law are now being overshadowed by the unnecessary drama that have been whipped up by his supporters. The duplicity of using the elections as blackmail has not obliterated the fact that Justice Onnoghen violated the law and this in spite of his untenable defence of mistake and forgetfulness.
    “The composition of those speaking in defence of Onnoghen is suspect. Those canvassing for his reinstatement are clearly people that stand to benefit from his continued stay in office. They include leading opposition figures, the same people that have been accused of bribing him with the money found in his undeclared bank accounts. His support base include militants and separatist terrorists with members standing trial. Like the opposition politicians, their members could be handed death sentence, they have cases that would be appealed up to the Supreme Court. The nature of those that have spoken in favour of Justice Onnoghen therefore constitute a fresh crisis of interest for him.
    “Justice Onnoghen supporters have recruited foreign interests and other countries to undermine Nigeria’s sovereignty in an attempt to block the country’s ability to fight corruption. The opposition and their civil society arm are now creating a precedence where Nigeria must get the approval of the United States, United Kingdom, the European Union and just any other western country before taking any action in furtherance of citizens’ interest.”