…Tribunal to rule July 13
The prosecution in the false asset declaration trial of Senate President, Bukola Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) said yesterday that a fresh application by Saraki, asking the tribunal Chairman to disqualify himself from the case on ground of alleged bias was a desperate move to frustrate his trial.
Lead prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) cautioned the tribunal against granting application on the ground that it was intended by Saraki and his legal team to “obtain from the backdoor, what they failed to achieved at the Supreme Court,” in reference to the February 5 judgment of the apex court which dismissed Saraki’s appeal against his trial.
“They know that this tribunal has only two members, and if the Chairman recuse himself from this trial, the tribunal will stop sitting. What they failed to achieve through their appeal, they now want it through the back door,” Jacobs further said.
Jacobs was reacting to the application by Saraki Saraki, alleging that a comment made by the tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar during the proceedings of June 7, in which he expressed his displeasure at the defence’ delay tactics and warned that the delay would not reduce the consequences that awaits the defendant at the end of trial.
Arguing the application earlier, a member of Saraki’s legal team, Paul Erokoro (SAN) argued that the implicit meaning of the tribunal Chairman’s comment was that the delay will not reduce the severity of his client’s punishment, which he said implied that Umar had concluded in his mind that Saraki would be convicted at the end of the trial.
Erokoro argued that by his statement, Umar has betrayed his inability guarantee fair hearing to Saraki in line with the provision of Section 36(1) of the Constitution.
The lawyer said: “Our chairman will no longer be able to comply with section 36(1) of the Constitution in this trial and that is the point we are making. The fundamental point is that once it is no longer possible for the chairman of the tribunal to be fair to both sides, he has to recuse himself.
“We are saying that once a judge, by word or action, can no longer hold the scale of justice, the judge should withdraw. The prosecution has not disputed the fact that the chairman made this statement. For the avoidance of doubt, the prosecution has implicitly admitted that the Chairman made that statement.”
Erokoro, who referred to the reports of the June 7 proceedings in seven newspapers, quoting the Umar as making the statement, also referred to affidavits of “four concerned Nigerians” who were at the June 7 proceedings, allegedly confirming that the chairman made the statement and reaching conclusion that he (Umar) could never be fair to Saraki, were filed as exhibits.
He identified the deponents to the affidavits as Abubakar Shehu Mahmud, Ogbonna Emanuel Azuke, Omokanye David Adetoyese and Nasir Suberu.
Erokoro said: “The prosecution has said in their counter-affidavit that the chairman assured the defence on June 7 that he would keep his mind open and do justice. No counter-affidavit has said that the tribunal chairman said so. If indeed the chairman said so, it is another reason to be afraid. Why did the chairman have cause to re-assure the defence?
“No reasonable person, who listened to the Chairman would not conclude that the chairman had made up his mind,” Erokoro siad.
Responding, Jacobs faulted the application, arguing that the applicant failed to attach certified record of proceedings, which he is complaining against. He noted that it was only intended by the defence to further stall proceedings or at best ensure further delay.
He noted that Saraki had in the past filed similar application, which the tribunal refused, and which now forms the subject of an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
Jacobs argued Saraki and his lawyers were interpreting the tribunal’s Chairman’s statement to suit their interest.
“The chairman said the consequences of trial, which is either conviction or acquittal. Sections 309 and 310 of the Adminiatration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) are clear on what the consequences of trial are. The consequences of trial is the end/conclusion, which can go either way.
“The Chairman did not use the words consequences of the ‘offence’ or ‘conviction,’ which would have implied that the Chairman had concluded that he will convict the defendant. The Chairman used the word ‘trial.’
“Your lordship is eminently qualified to continue with this trial. Their application is based on false premise and misunderstanding of that word. Every trial has its own consequence, which is conclusion. This is an attempt to further delay trial. Their conclusion is mere conjecture,” Jacobs siad.
Citing a Supreme Court decision, Jacobs described the four affidavits of concern by the four persons attached to the defendant’s motion as extraneous and deposed to by “rash persons”.
Jacobs argued that the affidavits were mere opinions of some individual,s who were seeking political patronage from the defendant, and were not the reasonable common man who had the full knowledge of the case as envisaged by law.
“The affidavits deposed to by the four persons were deposed to by supporters of the defendant. A motion must be supported by an affidavit. Extraneous affidavits such as these are unknown to law. The deponents are obviously supporters of the defendant. They have their interest to serve, and they went to the counsel for the defendant telling him they want to depose to an affidavit of concern.
“Those people are rash persons. Rash! Rash! Rash! The affidavits are opinion of those who do not have full knowledge of the case. They are people who will sit in the gallery seeking political patronage. They just hold on to one word and say the judge is bias. They are not the reasonable common man,” Jacobs said.
He argued that the statement made by the Chairman was justified based on the antecedence of the defence, who has spent 12 days cross-examining the first prosecution witness and was yet to conclude.
Jacobs further argued that even if the tribunal chairman made the statement, it did not imply a threat of conviction, as the “consequence” mentioned in the comment implied the two possible outcomes of a trial.
“What the tribunal Chairman said was an expression of his determination to see the trial to the end despite the delay tactics of the defence. He simply said the defendant will meet the consequence of the trial which could either be acquittal or conviction.
“”What the tribunal said is I must conclude this trial; there must be an end to this trial. I must conclude this trial. His lordship did not express the opinion that I must convict you. Your lordship will have to look at sections 309 and 310 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
“This application is based on false premise. There is a clear intention to delay. The decision of the tribunal cannot be based on conjecture. It cannot be based on an unreasonable application of affidavits of concern that replaced trial in the statement of the chairman with offence,” Jacobs said and urged the tribunal to dismiss the application.
Tribunal Chairman, Umar adjourned to July 13 for ruling.
