The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Code of Conduct

  • Develop robust judicial code of Conduct, Ondo Attorney General charges Acting CJN

    Develop robust judicial code of Conduct, Ondo Attorney General charges Acting CJN

    Ondo Attorney General Dr. Kayode Ajulo (SAN) has charged the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Kudirat Kekere-Ekun to spearhead the development of a new robust and comprehensive judicial code of conduct for judicial officers.

    Ajulo also urged the new acting CJN to ensure the restoration of confidence in the judiciary, pointing out that the new code of conduct would help restore public confidence in the nation’s judicial system.

    President Bola Tinubu on Friday administered oath of office on Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun as the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), pending her confirmation by the Senate.

    The Ondo Attorney General stated this in a statement, stressing that the code of conduct should enshrine ethical and professional standards expected of judges and other judicial officials.

    He said: “It shall ensure the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary, and maintaining the public’s unwavering confidence in the system.

    “Strengthen public trust through unwavering transparency, unimpeachable accountability, and the most steadfast fairness in all judicial proceedings

    “Prioritise a comprehensive agenda of judicial reforms, addressing systemic challenges of inadequate funding, infrastructure deficits, and pressing issue of case backlogs, to enhance efficiency and accessibility of our justice system.

    “Foster a spirit of collaborative synergy between the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches, thereby resolving any tensions and safeguarding the independence of the courts.

    “Invest diligently in the capacity-building of judges and court staff, while leveraging technological innovations to improve efficiency and widen access to justice for all.”

    He charged the new Chief Justice to champion initiatives that shall promote noble ideals of gender equality and diversity within the hallowed halls of the judiciary.

    According to the Ondo Attorney General, this shall undoubtedly strengthen the institution and reflect the diverse tapestry of our society.

    Read Also: Why we increased passport fees, by Immigration

    Ajulo, while congratulating the new Acting Chief Judge, described Kekere-Ekun as a distinguished jurist with customary brilliance and unwavering sense of purpose.

    “Your extraordinary recognition is a true testament to your distinguished career, unwavering commitment to the rule of law, and your unwavering dedication to the fair administration of justice.

    “Your judicial experience, impeccable legal acumen, and principled leadership will be invaluable in guiding the Nigerian judiciary through this transitional period.

    “Your reputation as a jurist of the highest caliber inspires profound trust and assurance that you will uphold the integrity of the Supreme Court and further strengthen the public’s faith in our cherished judicial system.

    “I’ve had the distinct honour of appearing before your esteemed presence on several occasions, and I witnessed firsthand, your formidable intellect, unwavering impartiality, and steadfast defense of the rule of law.

    “This reputation for being a no-nonsense, yet impartial jurist will undoubtedly be instrumental in restoring the public’s confidence in the judiciary,” Ajulo stated.

  • Lawyers disagree over judgment

    Lawyers yesterday disagreed over the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) judgment in the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen case.

    To Babatunde Fashanu (SAN), the decision was not sound, Paul Ananaba SAN said it suggested that “the judiciary is working”.

    The President of Voters Awareness Initiative (VAI), Wale Ogunade, hailed the judgment because, according to him, it showed that no one is above the law.

    In Law teacher Wahab Shittu’s view, the situation calls for  sober reflection.

    The CCT found Onnoghen guilty of violating  the code of conduct for public officers and concealment of assets.

    CCT Chairman Danladi Umar ordered that Onnoghen be removed as CJN and stripped of the National Judicial Council (NJC) chairmanship.

    It also banned the ex-CJN from holding public office for 10 years. The funds found in the five accounts he failed to declare are to be confiscated by the Federal Government.

    Fashanu argued that the CCT had no jurisdiction to try Onnoghen.

    According to him, the body with jurisdiction to try a CJN is the NJC. Onnoghen, the tribunal said, was being tried as a public officer and not a judicial officer.

    Fashanu also disagreed with the 10-year ban imposed on Justice Onnoghen from holding public office, saying that it would have been okay if the CCT had jurisdiction.

    He said if at all the CCT must try Onnoghen, it could only have done that after a disciplinary action had been taken against him by the NJC and the matter was thereafter referred to the tribunal for trial.

    Citing constitutional provisions, Fashanu maintained that it is only the NJC that has the last say on the discipline of a CJN and judges.

    To buttress his position, he cited the Court of Appeal decision in FRN Vs Nganjiwa and argued that until the decision of the high court is overturned, it is still the NJC that has the powers and jurisdiction to discipline the suspended CJN.

    Fashanu recalled that in the course of the trial, Justice Onnoghen objected to the chairman of the tribunal sitting on the matter over some issues raised against him.

    He wondered why the CCT chairman did not recuse himself from the matter.

    He maintained that the discipline of Onnoghen is a constitutional matter and that that power is given only to the NJC by the constitution to exercise.

    The Silk said what the CCT had done was in conflict with the constitution.

    “To that extent, the provisions in the CCT Act empowering it to try the issue of declaration of asset, to decide on it as it did with reference to NJC disciplinary action and provisions of the constitution is not proper,” he  said.

    But Ananaba added that without prejudice to Onnoghen’s right of appeal, the judgment could be an indication that the judiciary was being tested.

    Ananaba said: “The judgment means that the judiciary is working, even though this court (CCT) is an administrative court.”

    Responding to whether the judgment is a victory for the anti-graft war of President Muhammadu Buhari, Ananaba said: “It depends on who is looking at it. One thing very sure is that it shows very clearly that even a Chief Justice of the Federation can also go through the judicial process.

    “However, this (the Onnoghen case) is not corruption as such; he was not charged with fraud, he was charged with failure to declare assets, so, it shouldn’t be translated to anti-corruption as such.”

    Is the judgment a confirmation that the CJN can be removed by judicial process?

    Ananaba said: “Well, he can be removed based on the constitutional provisions. The Constitution says that he can be removed in this instance; the only thing is that it has not been a general practice, it is new, this is the first time this is happening, but it has happened. It will be tested at the appellate courts.”

    Wahab Shittu, an EFCC counsel, noted that the CCT’s conviction was not the end of the matter.

    Read also: Onnoghen appeals Code of Conduct Tribunal conviction

    He said: “I believe that the Code of Conduct Tribunal made its own pronouncement but that is not the end of the matter.

    “I see Onnoghen exercising his constitutional right of appeal; the matter might be protracted and get up to the Supreme Court.

    “It is a sad commentary on our judiciary as no one should celebrate what has happened in this situation where the number one judge in the country has found himself in this kind of predicament.

    “It does not call for celebration; it calls for sober reflection and deep concern.

    “I want to reserve further comments until the machinery of justice is fully exhausted because I feel the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court will make further pronouncement.”

    Ogunade urged that corruption investigations should not be politicised.

    He said: “For such a step to be taken against a high ranking official, particularly against the head of the judiciary, then there is smoke behind the fire, I knew something was wrong and, indeed, he was found guilty.

    “I was convinced that he was guilty when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) wrote a petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC) which recommended his resignation and so on.

    “I was one of those who suggested, when he started, that he should eat the humble pie and resign as an honourable man but, unfortunately, he allowed himself to be misled by his kinsmen who believed that it was politics.

    “Law and politics are like water and oil, there is no way you can mix the two; law will always stand and politics will fall like what you have seen.

    “It also shows that there is no sacred cow; those who think they are above the law now know they are under the law; it does not matter that you are the chief law officer.”

  • Sagay knocks SANs for misleading public over Onnoghen

    Eminent professor of law Itse Sagay (SAN) on Thursday asked senior lawyers to stop misleading the public with lies that Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen is not a public officer and subject to the code of conduct.

    He condemned the “fraudulent misconduct of some crooked lawyers” who he said have been lying “glibly” on television that judicial officers are not public officers.

    Sagay referred to Part 2, paragraph 5, Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, which defines a public officer thus: “Public Officers for the Purposes of the Code of Conduct:…(5) Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice of the Supreme Court, Presidents and Justices of the Court of Appeal, all other Judicial Officers and all Staff of Courts of Law.”

    Sagay said: “You can now see that these lawyers, senior advocates and all have been indulging in monumental lies on television, misleading the public.

    “Another major lie is that a public officer, who commits a breach of the Code of Conduct by failing to declare some of his assets, is free from liability, provided he makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance. For this, they rely on the proviso to Section 3 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act 1989.

    “However, if one refers to the provisions of the Constitution, there is no such exemption from punishment. I refer specifically to the 5th Schedule Part 1, Paragraph 18 of the Constitution. That paragraph provides for the punishment for a breach of the Code of Conduct.

    “These punishments are: (a) vacation from office, (b) disqualification from holding office for 10 years, (c) seizure and forfeiture to the state of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.

    “There is absolutely no proviso whatsoever to the effect that an admission in writing of the offence will relieve the public officer of liability from punishment.

    “On the contrary, paragraph 18(3) goes further to state that the three punishments listed above are without prejudice to the penalty that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence.”

    Sagay said there was, therefore, a clear conflict between the provision of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and the 1999 Constitution.

    Read Also: CCT orders IGP to arrest Onnoghen

    According to him, where there is a clash between the Constitution and any other law, Section 1(3) of the Constitution provides that the “Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of inconsistency be void”.

    Besides, Sagay said where there is conflict between two pieces of legislation covering the same matter, the latter in time prevails.

    “The Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act were enacted in 1989. On the other hand, the present Constitution took effect from 1999. So either way, the provisions of the Constitution prevail over the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

    “It can, therefore, be seen that there is no exemption from punishment whatsoever for a public officer who admits his guilt with regard to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

    “One other opportunistic matter that the defenders of the Chief Justice are now raising, is the query that if the EFCC could petition the National Judicial Council (NJC) regarding  the $30, 000 allegedly deposited  in the Chief Justice’s Bank account, why was the earlier matter of the failure to fully disclose his assets not sent to the NJC?

    “The answer is simple for anyone thinking in good faith. The non-declaration of assets is Constitutional and mandatorily a matter for the Code of Conduct Tribunal exclusively.

    “On the other hand, payment by a lawyer into the account of a judge including the Chief Justice constitutes an offence committed by the judge as a judicial officer. Therefore, that matter according to the wrongly decided Nganjiwa’s case, goes to the NJC.

    “Failure to declare assets is not an offence committed in the process of Judge’s activities as a judicial officer.

    “Therefore, any complaint arising from such matter does not go to the NJC but to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (in cases of non-declaration of assets) or the ordinary Courts in other cases,” Sagay said.

     

  • 2019 polls: political parties to sign code of conduct

    SIXTY-eight registered political parties will today sign a new code of conduct for political parties to guide their conduct before, during and after the 2019 elections.

    Speaking at a validation workshop, where the code was adopted yesterday, the Chief Operating Officer of the Political Parties Leadership and Policy Development Centre of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Prof. Habu Galadima, said the code was subjected to rigorous expert review before being presented to the parties to deliberate on and agree upon.

    Galadima said the code is a voluntary Code of Conduct that provides a set of rules of behaviour for political parties and their supporters relating to their participation in the election process.

    He said that centre is a beneficiary of a grant of 2.7 million Euros, under the European Union Support for Democratic Governance in Nigeria (EUSDGN) to implement component three of the project aimed to enhance pluralism, tolerance, internal democracy and equality of opportunity of political parties.

    Project Director of the European Centre for Electoral Support, Davis Le Norte, described political parties as the primary stakeholders in the political system.

    He noted that their conduct impact considerably on the electoral process and outcomes and by extension, the stability of the democratic system.

    “Building a virile political party system in which actors will play politics according to the rule and regulation, and subscribe to minimal ethical standard and code of conduct is therefore a basic condition for consolidation of democracy,” he said.

     

     

  • Alleged N10m bribery: EFCC files charges against Code of Conduct Tribunal chair Danladi Umar

    Alleged N10m bribery: EFCC files charges against Code of Conduct Tribunal chair Danladi Umar

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), has filed a two-count charge against the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Danladi Yakubu Umar, in connection with an alleged N10million bribery scam.

    Umar reportedly demanded for the bribe from a former Comptroller of Customs, Rasheed Owolabi Taiwo.

    Umar is due to face trial in the High Court of Federal Capital Territory.

    In the charge sheet, marked CR/109/18, the CCT chairman was alleged to have collected N1.8million bribe, suspected to be part of the N10million, through his Personal Assistant, Ali Gambo Abdullahi.

    The suspect will be prosecuted by Festus Keyamo (SAN), on behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    The charges read in part: “That you, Danladi Yakubu Umar, being the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal and presiding over a case with Charge No. CCT/ABJ/03/12, involving one Rasheed Owolabi Taiwo, sometime in 2012, at Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did ask for the sum of N10million  from the said Rasheed Owolabi Taiwo, for a favour to be afterwards shown to him in relation to the pending Charge (No. CCT/ABJ/03/12) in discharge of your official duties and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 12(1) (a) & (b) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2003.

    “That you, Danladi Yakubu Umar, being the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal and presiding over a case with Charge No. CCT/ABJ/03/12, involving one Rasheed Owolabi Taiwo, sometime in 2012, at Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did receive the sum of N1,8million from the said Rasheed Owolabi Taiwo, through your Personal Assistant by name Alhaji Gambo Abdullahi, for a favour to be afterwards shown to him in relation to the pending Charge (No. CCT/ABJ/03/12) in discharge of your official duties and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 12(1) (a) & (b) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2003.

    With five witnesses already lined up, the EFCC said it would rely on a petition dated 20th June, 2013, by Rasheed O. Taiwo; the statement of the CCT chairman; the Zenith Bank Statement of Taiwo Rasheed Owolabi.; the Zenith Bank Statement of Ali Gambo Abdullahi and a copy of Zenith Bank Cheque of Taiwo Rasheed Owolabi; a copy of Zenith Bank Cheque of Ali Gambo Abdullahi and all processes and documents in Charge No. CCT/ABJ/03/12.

    The CCT chairman allegedly asked for the bribe from Taiwo, who was a retired Comptroller of Customs.

    The ex-Customs officer was arraigned before the tribunal in Suit CCT/ABJ/03/12 for alleged failure to declare his assets.

    But the judge was alleged to have asked for the bribe to throw away the case.

    The ex-Customs Officer allegedly played along when he paid N1.8million out of the N10million bribe cash into the account of the Personal Assistant to the judge, Ali Gambo Abdullahi.

    It was learnt that Ali Gambo Abdullahi, had appeared before EFCC more than 20 times since 2012 on the matter.

    It was not clear what accounted for the charges against the CCT chairman because the EFCC had claimed that the allegations against him were “insufficient” to establish a prima facie case.

    But in 2016, the President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki asked the CCT chairman to disqualify himself from proceeding with his trial.

    Saraki had queried Umar’s “moral standing” to try him because he has been under investigation by the EFCC for alleged bribery scam.

    A top source simply said: “We have reached a convenient stage in our investigation to put the CCT chairman on trial. This latest bend of findings supersedes our previous reports on him.

    The EFCC had in a letter to the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Anyim Pius Anyim absolved Umar of bribery allegation.

    “The letter signed by its ex-chairman, Mr. Ibrahim Lamorde said: “We refer to your letter ref. No. SGF.19./S.24/11/451 dated 23rd February 2015 on the above mentioned case reported by one Mr. Rasheed Taiwo (DCG rtd) of 6AB Milverton Road, Lagos against the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Justice Danladi Umar and his Personal Assistant, one Gambo Abdullahi.

    “The complainant who is facing charges at the Code of Conduct Tribunal alleged that Justice Umar made direct demand for the sum of N10 million to quash the charges sometime in 2012.

    “He disclosed that he was compelled to pay the sum of N1.8 million after persistent inundation with phone calls from Justice Umar, who received the bribe through the Zenith Bank account of one Ali Gambo Abdullahi, his personal Assistant in December, 2012.

    “Investigation was extended to one Hon. Justice G.A Oguntade (Rtd) who confirmed that the complainant informed him in 2012 of the issues he had at the Tribunal and the demand being made by Justice Umar. He disclosed that Justice Umar denied the allegation when he called him.

    “There are indications that the Tribunal Chairman might have demanded and collected money from the complainant through his said Personal Assistant.

    “However, efforts made to recover the telephone handset used by Justice Umar proved abortive, as he claimed that he had lost the telephone in 2012. This has made it impossible to subject it to independent scientific analysis with a view to corroborating the allegation.

    “In the same vein, the complainant could also not make available his telephone set for analysis on the grounds that he had lost it. Justice Umar also admitted that he met privately with the complainant in his chamber at the Tribunal. This is a most unethical and highly suspicious conduct on his part.

    “There is a prima facie evidence to however prosecute  the Personal  Assistant, Abdullahi, who could offer no coherent excuse for receiving N1.8million into his salary account from Taiwo, who is  an accused person standing trial at the tribunal.

    “The full money has been recovered from him in May 2014 and aptly registered as exhibit. The fact that he made two contradictory statements on the reason he was paid the money, is clearly an attempt to cover up on the  reason the money was paid to him. He has  accordingly been charged to court in charge no. CR/137/2015 pending  at the High Court of FCT, Abuja.

    “However the facts as they are now against Justice Umar raised a mere suspicion and will therefore not be sufficient to successfully prosecute him for the offence.

    “Above is submitted for the information of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, please.”

    Also, the Secretary to EFCC, Mr. Emamnuel Adegboyega Aremo, in another letter to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation on April 20, 2016 exonerated Justice Danladi of corrupt practices.

    The letter said: “We will like to reiterate the Commission’s position in regard to this matter as earlier communicated to you and state that the allegations leveled against Justice Umar were mere suspicions and consequently insufficient to successfully prosecute the offence.”

  • NURTW members get code of conduct

    NURTW members get code of conduct

    The Lagos State Council of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW), has rolled out a code of conduct to guide the activities of its members.

    Its chairman Alhaji Tajudeen Agbede, announced this during the monthly meeting at the weekend.

    According to him, the measures became necessary to curb alleged involvement of union members in illegal activities with the attendant negative effect on the image of the council.

    The Lagos NURTW boss warned members to stay away from vices like cultism, robbery, hooliganism and anti-union activities

    “I want to use this opportunity to tell our members to desist from any illegal act or shady deals that can dent the image of the union. Henceforth, branch/unit executives are to ensure that members comply with the code of conduct. If you noticed that a member of your branch or unit is of questionable characters or involved in shady deals, please report him to state council before he damage to the image of our union,” Agbede told the members.

    He said the state council will deal with the leadership of any branch which fails to comply, as the executives of such branch will be dissolved and a caretaker committee appointed to oversee the branch

    “Enough of this negative publicity; we shall not fold our arms and allow  a few disgruntle elements destroy our image,” he added and urged the media to cross check with the union before publishing information on anybody purported to be a union official found committing untoward acts.

  • Judicial competence of Code of Conduct Tribunal

    The judicial competence of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) is the dignity, which a tribunal has by a power created by a statute to do justice in causes of complaints made before him. The tribunal has the power to hear and determine cases before it as well as make necessary orders and judgment against the parties before it. The earliest case on the jurisdiction of the code of conduct tribunal was in Nwankwo v Nwankwo  (1995) 30 LRCN  where it was reiterated that the jurisdiction in respect of the assets declaration or matters affecting public officers in their official conduct is on the tribunal.

    A non-public officer is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. What determines whether the code of conduct tribunal has jurisdiction is the fact that the accused is a public officer and that the mental element of commission or omission has to do with the code of conduct of public officers and not narrowly assets declaration. In the case of Ahmed v Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (pt. 1377) 274 the Supreme Court held that it is the tribunal that has the power over a breach of the code of conduct for public officers. The Tribunal has a narrow jurisdiction over corruption and wide powers over misconduct of a public officer. Justice Karibe-Whyte A.G (rtd) in his recent publication in a national daily, asserted that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is confined and limited to the conduct clearly outlined in paragraphs 1-13 of the 5th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. This covers breach of the code, misconduct, failure to declare assets or false declaration or allied matters involving public officers’ immorality.

    The tribunal is a court vested with specific duties by the Constitution and has powers of superior courts of records, but its specific and statutory jurisdiction is to matters which the National Assembly has legislated upon. The judge of the tribunal has an effective jurisdiction in exercising limited judicial powers in areas stated in the enabling legislation establishing the tribunal. Where there are serious questions regarding the interpretation and application of the Constitution as against identified provisions of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, the applicant can approach the Federal High Court.  The unlimited jurisdiction of the Federal High Court envelopes the interpretation of the constitutionality or otherwise of the codes stated in the 5th Schedule of the Constitution.

    The Bureau to the exclusion of other government agencies has the power to refer an allegation that a public officer has contravened the code of conduct for public officers to the tribunal. Where a tribunal finds a public officer guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of the code, the tribunal shall impose upon that officer any of the punishment specified in par 18(2) of the 5th Schedule 1999 Constitution and such other punishment as may be prescribed by the National Assembly. The powers given to the tribunal to order public officers to vacate office, disqualification from office cum forfeiture of ill -gotten property is intended not to really punish, but to discipline and to keep public life clear for public good. In Ogbuagu v Ogbuagu (1981) 2 NCLR 680 the court stated that by paragraph 18 of the fifth schedule of the 19f99 constitution the code of conduct tribunal or a regular court has the power to sanction a public officer by disqualifying him from holding public office for a period not exceeding 10 years.  On the conjunctive construction of s. 36 (1) (5) and 66(1) of the 1999 constitution is ban anyone convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty, fraud, contravention of the code, embezzlement, by a tribunal of inquiry, or a court of law from public office for ten years. For a public officer to be disqualified on the aforementioned ground, he must have been found guilty either by a regular court of law or a tribunal and not an administrative body. See Omoware v Omisore (2010)3 NWLR (Pt.1180).

    Abuse of power has assumed both national and international priorities. This is accounted for by the profligates that we have at the wheel of governance in the name of public officers today. The code of conduct for public officers annexed to the Constitution generally spells out how a country intends to conveniently reduce graft and enhance integrity in its public service. This is a broader effort to fighting graft and raising service commitment in its network of public service than merely focusing on inculcating good values.  It is no news that the pulling force of citizens to appointive or elective offices is spurred by an endless and mindless cash kitting. Hardly a day passes without some new and shocking evidence emerging that corruption is alive and well in public service. In Nigeria, some public officers are proud to hear of their complicity in graft and the resulting hatred of the people, which they wear like a badge and some lie low afterwards to rise later as soon as memory is presumed faded. So the Act in his magnanimity presumes all public officers to be the looters of the national treasury unless the contrary is proved. See sec.15 (3) of the Act and Section 167 (A) of the Evidence Act 2011.

    The constitutionality of burden of proof on the accused is a mixed canvass of virtue and villain. There is a school of thought that believes that the onus of proof placed on the accused by the Act is unconstitutional and so the section should be struck down. A leading jurist of that school of thought is Adolpus Godwin Karibe-Whyte. He argues that the proof of guilt on the accused is unconstitutional being odd with the requirement of section 36 (5) of the constitution. Though the presumption of innocence of an accused is sacrosanct in any offence under Nigeria laws, yet those who disregard the oath of office have the onus to prove to be fit to continue to discharge the trust reposed on them,  the accused persons as long as they remain guilty need equal protection as other victims of crime or other accuser of its status. Under the Act, civil proof of probability to rebut allegation of abuse of office or failure to declare assets is allowed to prove that the property or assets acquired was not in contravention of the code. See sec.15 (3) of the Act. Where a public officer asserts that he complied substantially with the code of conduct, he has the evidential burden of proving same. The tribunal takes judicial notice (Section 122 (2) of the Evidence Act.) of the effortless confetti of guilt worn around by public officers.

    There are two distinct and frequently confused meaning of burden of proof. As regards the burden of proof in this Act, for the accused to discharge the onus recourse will be made to the substance of the offence. A public officer charged with offences relating to failure to declare his assets cannot be prevented from disputing the incorrectness by offering evidence like assets declaration form. Arguably, where failure to declare assets is used in the charges, the mens rea of the offences charged is embedded and disclosed therein. This burden of proof enunciated by the Act should be discharged as soon as the accused introduces acceptable evidence showing a balance of assets and income and reasonable compliance with the code of the conduct for public officers.  Where the accused is charged with illegal accumulation, the items’ constituting the offence is peculiarly within the knowledge of the prosecution and the burden of proving same lies on him. In considering the amount of knowledge necessary to shift the burden of proof, regards shall be made to the opportunity of knowledge with respect to the facts to be proved. See section 136 (2) of the Evidence Act (as amended) 2011).

    •To be continued next week

  • Saraki: Tribunal suspends proceedings to rule on application

    Saraki: Tribunal suspends proceedings to rule on application

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT)  on Thursday suspended proceedings for an hour to return for ruling on Senate President Bukola Saraki’s application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of his appeal before the Supreme Court.

    More details soon

  • Pinnick insists on code of conduct

    Pinnick insists on code of conduct

    The code of conduct for players and officials of the various National Teams will soon come into force, so says the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF).

    Speaking from Belgium yesterday, NFF President Amaju Pinnick assured that the document was ready and would be implemented soonest to guide the conduct of players, officials and coaches and minimise areas of conflict and tension in the national camp.

    “A small group had been working on the document and I am happy to say that it is now ready for implementation. This will spell out how players and officials must conduct themselves while in any of the national camps, and minimise the probability of misunderstanding between coaches and players.

    “The recent happening in the camp of the Super Eagles in Belgium was unwarranted but I am happy we have been able to put that behind us.  Coach Sunday Oliseh and  Vincent Enyeama even spoke cordially on Saturday during Enyeama’s meeting with the NFF leadership.”

    At the meeting, Pinnick, in company with NFF 1st Vice President Seyi Akinwunmi and 2nd Vice President Shehu Dikko, told Enyeama in clear terms that the country is bigger than any individual, and that even if he was determined to quit international football, he did not have to do so in a situation of acrimony.

    “I told him that he did so well for Nigeria over the past thirteen-and-half years that he had been there, and by all means, is deserving of a honourable exit. Whatever the situation, whether he decides to return to the team or not, the NFF will organise a worthy testimonial match in his honour because he served the nation so well.

    “However, the head coach is in full charge of the team and the camp at all times, and that fact must be respected. The NFF will support and respect the decision of the head coach of any of the national teams at all times.  Oliseh and Enyeama are true heroes of Nigeria football, if you look at what they achieved at different times. But Oliseh is the head coach now and in charge of the team. We will continue to respect his contract; our role as a Federation is advisory.”

    Pinnick insisted that with regards to the recent misunderstanding, there is no victor and no vanquished. But he hinted that the code of conduct is certain to restrict the use of social media by players to reveal situation in the national camp.

    “No player launches his career through the social media. When players are at their clubs, they don’t broadcast camp situation on twitter, facebook or instagram. The same restraint and discipline must be observed in the national camp.”

  • How powerful is Code of Conduct Tribunal?

    How powerful is Code of Conduct Tribunal?

    Indeed, these are interesting times. Recent events in our country including public declaration of assets by the President and Vice-President and the controversy surrounding the proposed arraignment of the Senate President before the Code of Conduct Tribunal may have forced a closer examination and appraisal of the relevant stipulations on the Code of Conduct for public officers, if for no other reason than the quest for public information and enlightenment.

    However, as a law officer, I will warn myself not to comment on the merits or otherwise of any of the pending cases in court. This approach is in line with ethics and demands of professionalism.

    The preliminary point to be made is that the Code of Conduct Tribunal is statutory being a creation of the constitution. The seriousness of the provisions on Code of Conduct for public officers is underscored by the fact that it is incorporated into the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) under the 5th Schedule Part I. there is also a special legislation enacted for this by virtue of Chapter C15 Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, No. 1 of 1989 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 with commencement date of 1st January 1991 which is an act to provide for the establishment of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal to deal with complaints of corruption by public servants for the breaches of its provisions.

    The Vice president, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), GCON, in a paper titled: “Strengthening the Code of Conduct Bureau”, argued as follows:“The Code of Conduct for Public Officers is a component of the Nigerian anti-corruption and transparency framework. It is perhaps the first formal legislation creating offences and sanctions for official corruption and other acts in breach of the prescribed ethics for public officers.

    Of considerable significance is the fact that the entire code of conduct regime under Nigerian Law is provided for in the Constitution.

    The Constitution provides for the Code of Conduct itself, the categories of public officers who are subject to its provisions, the Code of Conduct Bureau, which  is to enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct, and the Code of Conduct Tribunal-which is to try cases of infraction of the Code of Conduct. This is both its strength and its weakness.  The entrenchment in the Constitution means that it cannot be altered at all as might an Act of the National Assembly .

    This also means that amendments to the provisions establishing the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal is not possible by an Act of the National Assembly without an amendment to the Constitution itself. It is in fact unconstitutional to repeat constitutional provisions verbatim in another Law of the Legislature. [A.G Abia State V. A.G Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763)  264 SC.]

    However Section 15 (4)  of Part 1 of the  5th Schedule of  the Constitution to the effect that National Assembly may confer on the Code of Conduct Tribunal such additional power s as may appear necessary to enable it more effectively discharge the functions conferred on it by the Schedule.

    It is also noteworthy that some of the provisions in several other anti-corruption legislation overlap the Code of Conduct  provisions of the Constitution.“

     

    Analysis

    Against this background, this analysis will focus on the salient provisions of the Code, namely: “conflict of interest with duty; restrictions on specified officers; prohibition of foreign accounts; retired public officer; certain retired public officers; gifts or benefits in kind; restriction on loans, gifts or benefits to certain public officers; bribery of public officers; abuse of powers; membership of societies; declaration of assets; allegation of breach of code; agents and nominees; exemptions; code of conduct tribunal; staff; tenure of office of chairman and members; powers; interpretation.”

    The searchlight shall also cover salient provisions of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and the powers and operational modalities of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

     

    Restrictions on Public Officers

    Every public officer is obliged to forestall conflict of interest with his duties including not to “(a) receive or be paid the emoluments of any public office at the same time as he receives or is paid the emoluments of any other public officer…” the only exception is where the public officer “… is not employed on full time basis, engage or participate in the management or running of any private business, profession or trade but nothing in this sub-paragraph shall prevent a public officer from engaging in farming.”

    There are also restrictions on public officers to maintain or operate a bank account in any country outside Nigeria including restrictions against acceptance of gifts or benefits in kind. Restrictions on loan, gift or benefit also apply to certain public officers who could not draw facilities except from government or its agencies, a building society mortgage institution or other financial institution recognised by law. Further restrictions include prohibitions against bribery of public officers, abuse of powers and membership of societies incompatible with the functions on dignity of his office. More importantly, every public officers shall declare assets at end of every four years and at the end of his term of office and submit to the Code of Conduct Bureau a written declaration of such properties, assets and those of his unmarried children under the age of 18 years, subject to verification by the appropriate authorities. Of course, there are consequences for the breach of any provisions of the Code of Conduct, with complaints on such breaches referable to the Code of Conduct Bureau, the actions of the agents and nominees of such public officers are also attributable to the public officer concerned.

     

    The Code of Conduct Bureau

    The Code of Conduct Bureau is established pursuant to the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act with aims and objectives which include ensuring “…a high standard of morality in the conduct of government business and to ensure that the actions and behaviour of public officers conform to the highest standards of public morality and accountability.” The functions of the Bureau shall be to “receive assets declarations by public officers in accordance with the provisions of this Act; examine the assets declarations and ensure that they comply with the requirements of this Act and of any law for the time being in force; take and retain custody of such assets declarations; and receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of this Act and where the Bureau considers it necessary to do so, refer such complaints to the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by section 20 of this Act in accordance with the provisions of sections 20 to 25 of this Act; provided that where the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, no reference to the Tribunal shall be necessary.”

     

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal is established under the 5th Schedule Part I to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and pursuant to the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act referred to above.

    There are far-reaching provisions detailing “establishment, staff, tenure, powers to impose punishment, rules of procedure and institution of proceedings, power to issue search warrants including interpretation” of the words used under Part 3 of the Code of Bureau and Tribunal Act. In all of these provisions, it is important to examine the jurisdiction, scope of powers of the Tribunal to impose punishment, reference of cases to the tribunal and court to which proceedings on appeal lies for the decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

     

    Jurisdiction

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complaints brought before it by the Code of Conduct Tribunal arising from breaches of the provisions of the Code of Conduct for public officers stipulated under the 5th Schedule Part I of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and breaches arising from the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act No. 1 of 1989 with commencement date of 1st Januray 1991.

    Prosecutions for all offences are instituted in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by the Attorney-General of the Federation or such officers in the Federal Ministry of Justice with authority to institute such proceedings by the Attorney-General of the Federation. It is however not clear whether anyone can challenge such delegated powers by the Attorney-General of the Federation.

     

    Scope of powers

    Section 23(2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act provides: “The punishment which the Tribunal may impose shall include any of the following:  Vacation of office or any elective or nominated office, as the case may be;

    Disqualification from holding any public office (whether elective or not) for a period not exceeding ten years; and Seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.”

    The tribunal also has power to issue search warrants by virtue of section 25 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

     

    Reference of cases to the Tribunal

    Section 3 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act assigns the responsibility of receiving complaints for breach of the code to the Code of Conduct Bureau and reference of such complaints to the Tribunal is also vested in the Code of Conduct Bureau, where any party makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, it will not be necessary for the Code of Conduct Bureau to make any reference of such complaints to the Tribunal.

    “Prosecution of offences shall be instituted in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by the Attorney-General of the Federation or such officers in the Federal Ministry of Justice as the Attorney-General of the Federation may authorize to do so.”

    Private legal practitioners may also obtain a fiat of the Attorney-General to undertake such prosecutions. There is however a caveat to the effect that: “…the question whether any authority has been given in pursuance of this subsection shall not be inquired into by any person.”

     

    Appeals from the Code of

    Conduct Tribunal

    With regard to appeals from the Code of Conduct Tribunal, the provision of section 246(1a) of the 1999 Constitution is important as it provides: “.An appeal to the Court of Appeal shall lie as of right from decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal established in the fifth schedule to this Constitution”.

    It follows from the above that only the Court of Appeal has appellate and supervisory jurisdictions over the proceedings of the Code of Conduct Tribunal and not any other court.

     

    The Constitution  Vs  the Act

    The Constitutional provisions for Code of Conduct of public officers is very elaborate (see: Part 1, 5th Schedule CFRN 1999) Various sections of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act are in conflict with the Constitutional provisions on the subject matter e.g: ‘The non-liability and indemnity clause enuring for the benefit of the Chairman and Members of the Bureau in any action or litigation against them for liabilities incurred in the course of the discharge of their offices is not recognised by the Constitution (see Section 19 of the Act) unlike the Act, the Constitution obliges the Bureau to make  declaration of assets of public officers available for inspection  of any Citizen of Nigeria on terms to be determined by an Act of the National  Assembly (Compare Para 3 (c) Part 1, 3rd Schedule CFRN and Section 3 (c) of the Act.

    While under the Act, the Bureau’s powers is limited to receiving complaints about non-compliance with the Code of Conduct and referring same to the Tribunal, the Bureau has powers to investigate such complaints, ensure and enforce compliance with the Code under the CFRN 1999. (Compare Para  3 (d) & (e) of the CFRN and Sec 3 (d) of the Act).

    The proviso to Section 3 (d) of the Act in respect of waiver of reference on admission is not recognised under the Constitution.

    While the National Assembly is mandated to make laws for the discipline of staff of the Bureau in the Constitution, the Act mandates the Presidents to make rules in that respect (Compare Section 4 of the Act and para 3 (f) Part 1 Schedule 5 of the Constitution) Under the Constitution, the public officers prohibited from owning foreign bank accounts are restricted to political office holders and do not include members of the judiciary while the Act makes a sweeping generalisation in that respect. (Compare par 3 Schedule 5 of the Constitution with Section 7 of the Act).

    The age of the declarant’s children whose properties must also be declared vary.  Under the Constitution, the age limit is 18 years while the Act peg the age at 21 years. (compare par 11 Schedule 5 of the Constitution with Section 15 of the Act).

    There is no provision in the constitution in respect of declaration of asset by a serving officer similar to Section 15 (c) of the Act.

    Under the Act, the Tribunal’s power to impose the penalty of vacation of office is in respect of all public offices whereas the penalty can only be meted in respect of legislative offices (Compare par 18 (2) (a) & (b) of the Constitution with Section 23 of the Act.

    The power of the Tribunal to issue search warrants under Section 25 of the Act is not stipulated for under the Constitution.

    These and other provisions of the Act are void for being inconsistent with and duplicating the provisions of the Constitution.

     

    Lacunae in Constitutional Code of Conduct Provisions

    No provision for enforcement of compliance mechanism  in respect of powers granted the Bureau in paragraph 3 (d) Part 1 Schedule 3 of the Constitution.

    Providing  for a “without prejudice” prosecution contrary to the “double jeopardy” prohibition provision Section 36 (9)  of the Constitution.  (see par 18 (6) Schedule 5 of the Constitution).

    Non-inclusion of coercive powers of the Code of Conduct Tribunal as contained in the Section 25 of the Act.

    Disregarding the immunity clause in its power-of-prosecution provisions (see Attorney General of the Federation V. Atiku Abubakar (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt 1035) 117.

    Limiting the penalty of vacation of seats only to Legislative Houses members.

    Excluding judicial officers from the prohibition from maintaining foreign accounts. The Code of Conduct provision has since then maintained a permanence of some sort, in the 5th schedule of all constitutions following thereafter; 1989, 1993, 1995 and the current 1999 constitution.

     

    Board membership

    The CCB comprises the following: A Chairman, and nine other members, each of whom at the time of appointment, shall not be less than fifty years of age and subject to the provisions of section 157 of the constitution, shall vacate his office on attaining the age of seventy years.

     

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, there is no doubt that our current legislations on Code of Conduct may need to be strengthened. The focus of any Prospective Legislation on Code of Conduct in the words of Prof. Yemi Osinbajo SAN should address the following areas:

    “Conditions for inspection of  assets declaration forms of  public officers by any Nigerian Citizen Legal Regime for the appointment, promotion, dismissal and general disciplinary control of staff of the Bureau Additional functions of the Bureau in addition to those conferred by the Constitution.

    Expansion of the list of public officers  prohibited from maintaining foreign accounts Exemption of any cadre of public officers from the provisions of paragraphs 4 & 11 of the Code of Conduct.

    Conferring wider powers on the Tribunal to enable it carry out its functions more efficiently Expanding the scope of punishments to be meted by the Tribunal for infraction of the Code of Conduct Enacting rules for the Practice and Procedure of the Tribunal.”

    Finally, the jurisprudence in this area is most likely to be enhanced by the judicial pronouncements and outcomes of the ongoing cases in the land now that activities in this area is currently on the rise.