The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Conduct Tribunal

  • Senate under fire over plan to seize Conduct Tribunal

    The Senate came under heavy criticism yesterday over its passage on Thursday of a controversial amendment in the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

    The thrust of the bill is to transfer the power to exercise authority over the bureau from the President to the National Assembly.

    Some individuals and groups who spoke with our correspondent on the development in different interviews yesterday, however, described the move as a self-serving effort by the lawmakers to shield themselves from prosecution in case they engage in acts of malfeasance.

    Retired Catholic Archbishop of Lagos State, Cardinal Anthony Olubunmi Okogie, described the amendment as a “scratch my back and I scratch your back gesture.”

    Ethnic youth groups in the country also vowed to stage a public protest against any action of the senators that is not in the interest of the masses.

    Speaking in a telephone interview with The Nation, Okogie asked: “What are their reasons for doing that?

    “If you examine the issue very well, you will see that it is either the senators have a soft spot for one or two of their members.

    ” It is a matter of you scratch my back, I scratch your back. That s why the country is going down every day .

    “With the way things are going in the country, I don’t know where we are going to end up.”

    The vocal cleric added: “A lot of the senators don’t pay attention during proceedings. They only follow the crowd. Just watch when they are debating.

    “It is only when the President or somebody wants to borrow money that you will see their eyes wide open.

    “But when it comes to this kind of issue, you will see them looking at each other’s faces to see who will first say yes so that others can chorus it.

    “They do this simply because they want to protect their future.

    ” How can we have a good nation when we have such people who are just making jest of the law?

    “When there is an issue that affects the country, you will hardly see some of them say anything.

    “But when there is a matter that will affect them as senators in the future, you will see them screaming.

    “Is that why they are there?

     

    Senior lawyers berate action

    Some senior lawyers yesterday came down hard on the Senate for its amendment of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) Act, transferring the President’s power over the bureau to itself.

    The action, they said, was ill-timed and in bad taste.

    Chief Gani Adetola-Kaseem, Mr. Seyi Sowemimo and Mr. Sebastian Hon, all Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), faulted the genuineness of purpose behind the Senate’s action.

    Adetola-Kaseem reasoned that the action was pointless.

    He said: “I think even if the Senate had a point – and I don’t think they do – the timing is wrong. I don’t see what point they are trying to make, but even if they did, they are pushing it at the wrong time.

    “Wrong time in the sense that the leadership of the National Assembly – don’t forget that the Senate President is the leader of the National Assembly – is under trial at that level and they also want to control, as it were, the activities of the CCT, I think the timing is wrong.

    “They should allow it to be as it was. After all, the Court of Appeal yesterday received the appeal of the Senate President seeking to challenge the competence of the CCT to continue to try him.”

    He noted that as far as Senator Bukola Saraki’s trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal was concerned, the Senate’s action was a waste of time.

    “Whatever decision the National Assembly makes now will have no retrospective effect; it will only affect future cases, not cases currently before the CCT over which the old law will apply.”

    Sowemimo described the amendment as bad in taste and timing.

    He said: “It is in bad taste and the timing is wrong. There’s nothing wrong with the law that was in place.

    “It is normal that it should be the Presidency that should deal with that. The job of the legislature is to pass laws and it is not their business who are appointed to these judicial bodies.

    “The law has been that way since the 1999 Constitution came into effect. Why is it that it is when the Senate President is facing trial that they find it necessary to amend it?”

    Sowemimo added that the Senate had not inspired confidence in its handling of the amendment.

    He said: “The way the Senate bas been going on about matters of national importance has not been very encouraging. So I think it’s in very bad taste and I hope they don’t go through with what they are doing.”

    The executive chairman of Coalition Against Corrupt Leaders (CACOL), Debo Adeniran, condemned the Senate’s action.

    He said: “If truly the National Assembly members have a sense of shame, they ought to have asked the President of the Senate to step aside pending when he clears himself of the allegations at the CCT.

    “But instead of doing that, they are trying to amend the laws so that they can emasculate the CCT, believing they may be able to dictate to the tribunal on what to do.

    “They forget that the tribunal has a life of its own in the Constitution. So, it is unthinkable that those who are supposed to make laws are the ones muddling things up.”

    Youth leaders threaten action against lawmakers

    The President of Arewa Youth Council, Comrade Shetima Yerima, also strongly condemned the amendment.

    Shetima said: “I am not in any way surprised that the Senate passed the amendment to the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

    “Where you have many former governors as senators, it is not unexpected that they will arrive at such a decision.

    “They have done this to make a kind of protection for themselves because the same fate could befall any of them in the future.

    “There is nothing the Presidency can do about what is happening. It is left for Nigerians to rise up against this desperado move by the senators.

    “We should not watch very few individuals plunging the whole country into a ditch because of their selfish interests.

    “We would mobilise like minds and progressives to root out any action by political office holders that is not in the interest of the masses and the country at large.”

    Speaking in the same vein, the President of Yoruba Youth Council (YYC), Eric Oluwole, berated the senators for taking the action.

    He said the senators should stop using their power to pursue causes that are undemocratic and inconsistent with upholding their vows of promoting justice and democratic ethos in the country.

    Oluwole said: “The action of the Senate is not right. We are totally not in support of the amendment that does not seek to improve our democracy.

    “The senators should not abuse the power conferred on them by the masses in the name of supporting and protecting one of their own. It is reprehensible.

    ” The leaders of national ethnic youth groups in the country will be meeting very soon to look into the state of things in the country, and this is one of the issues that we will be looking at.

    “The YYC will not hesitate to join other groups across the country to protest against any action of any arm of government that is not in the interest of the masses.

    “I also want to use this opportunity to call on civil societies to rise to the occasion and rescue our democracy from those that are determined to strangulate it.”

    The President of Ohanaeze Youth Council, Mazi Okechukwu Isiguzoro, frowned at what he described as power tussle between the executive and the legislators.

    He said: “This kind of development is unhealthy for our national development, especially at this time that the country is facing scathing economic recession.

    “Each arm of government has clear-cut roles. Therefore, no organ should usurp the role of the other to the detriment of justice and well being of the masses.

    “We are watching the whole drama, and if nothing is done to stop all this, we would mobilise our people and colleagues across the country to checkmate the enemies of our nascent democracy.”

    But a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Ladi Williams, said the Senate did not act outside the provisions of the constitution.

    He said: “What is happening is a tussle between the executive and the legislators.

    “The senators have the power to do what they did because they acted within the provisions of the constitution.

    “If you are talking about morality, that is another thing entirely. But morality is not known in law.”

    Buhari may withhold assent

    Indications, however, emerged yesterday that President Muhammadu Buhari may not assent to the ammendment.

    A source in the Presidency yesterday disclosed that President Muhammadu Buhari will not interfere with the ongoing amendment of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal (amendment) Act by the National Assembly.

    The Presidency source, who pleaded anonymity, said the President respects the Constitution and will allow the legislature carry out its functions unhindered.

    Rather than engage in open warfare with the legislature, he said, the President will rather wait for the final amendment bill to be submitted to him for assent.

    At that point, the source said, the President will decide to sign the amendment bill into law or withhold his accent, depending on what is presented before him.

    He said: “Mr. President is a law abiding person and will not interfere with the work of the National Assembly.

    “He will be the last person to ever engage in open warfare with the legislature or the judicial arm of government.

    “The President will definitely wait for the National Assembly to finish work on the amendment bill and submit it for assent.

    “Based on whatever is presented before him, the President has the right to sign it into law or withhold his assent.”

    Some of the amendments effected in the Act by the Senate were in Section 18(1) and (2), Section 20 (4), Section 3(d), Section 20(2), and Section 4 (2).

  • Senate to seize Conduct Tribunal from President

    Senate to seize Conduct Tribunal from President

    SENATORS passed yesterday the controversial amendment to the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

    The thrust of the bill is to relocate the power to exercise authority over the Bureau from the President to the National Assembly.

    It was an emotional session in which senators spoke on top of their voices.

    Senate Leader Mohammed Ali Ndume moved that the consideration of the report of the Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee, which considered the bill, should be suspended.

    Senator Barnabas Gemade (Benue North East) seconded the motion.

    Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu, who presided, put the motion to voice vote. It was defeated twice.

    But some senators insisted that the consideration of the report should be suspended to allow them take a second look at the provisions of the bill.

    Senator Ahmed Lawan (Yobe North) said: “The Senate is a moderator on legislation. This bill emanated from the House of Representatives and our colleagues there passed it. I agree totally with the submissions of some of our colleagues here that we don’t have to hurry to pass it.

    “We will be doing ourselves and this National Assembly a better service if we step down this thing, move on with some other things that will make this a better bill only when we convince ourselves that what we are trying to do is not for our sake.

    “If we are affected today because perhaps either one of us or some of us are before the Tribunal or something. This is not a permanent situation and when we legislate we legislate for maybe centuries and we legislate dispassionately, not for ourselves. Mr. chairman, I feel very passionate about this that whatever we feel about any situation that we are in, let’s make sure that that thing doesn’t get into us when we legislate for the sake of our people.”

    But Senator Shehu Sani (Kaduna Central) insisted that since they had the courage to begin the consideration of the report, it should be concluded.

    Sani said: “We have already moved to discuss this bill. Laws are not made for individuals and for a specific period of time. They are made for posterity, for future generations. We will all some day stand to account for the laws we make in this chamber and I believe it will be suspicious of Nigerians to start this process now and midway we simply stop it. There is no controversy in it; what is right is right, what is wrong is wrong. We are not making laws for the convenience and comfort of somebody whether in or out of government. As far as I am concerned, I believe that since we have wisdom to table this we should have the courage to see it through.”

    Sensing confusion, Ndume interjected: “Before we put this on the order paper, actually it originated from what the chairman said because it is a House bill, which is before us for concurrence and because of the little considerations we referred it to the committee as he rightly said and if we look at it there is the need for us to do certain things to this Act.

    “For example, the age and the number of the members that constitute the Tribunal and that is something that needs to be amended.

    “But I observed now after I moved the motion and it was supported that we should resolve to the committee of the whole to consider the report. I observed that emotions are coming up, which is human, and that is why I personally again stood up to say if this is the case ,we will decide whether to stand it down and then resolve and take a look at it again.”

    Ekweremadu added: “For the purposes of the public, I think we need to put this in proper perspective. This bill came as a House bill and like other House bills we concurred but in reference to this we decided to send it to the committee so that they can have another look at it, we would have passed it that same day.

    “But we sent it to the committee and it came up this morning. The question was put whether we should consider it and the answer was yes. So, we didn’t just consider it because we wanted to consider it. The question was properly put whether we should resolve to committee of the whole to consider it and everybody said yes.

    “Now we are taking it clause by clause but we have not jumped to any particular clause. Sometimes we take two or three clauses but here because of the sensitive nature of this we are taking it clause by clause and we are even bending over backwards to reconsider issues.

     So it will be unfair to us to accuse ourselves here of being unnecessarily hasty and that is not fair to this Senate. So, please if the Leader wants to change his mind about reconsidering the bill I don’t have problem with it. But we should not create the impression that there is any haste in reconsidering this bill and we have followed the rules to the letter up to this moment.”

    The bill originated from the House of Representatives. After passage, it was referred to the Senate for concurrence.

    It was first introduced in the Senate in April, 2016 by Senator Peter Nwaoboshi and suddenly withdrawn following massive public outcry that the bill was self-serving and meant to weaken the powers of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal.

    The House of Representatives also introduced in April 2016 and passed in May, 2016

    The passage of the bill followed the consideration of the report of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, which did “critical examination of the bill preparatory to concurrence of the Senate.”

    Committee chairman Samuel Anyanwu explained that the political situation of the time when the bill was first introduced in the Senate was not conducive for its continued processing and it was suspended.

    Anyanwu listed objectives of the bill, among which is to amend the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap.C15 Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 by:

    Altering the tenure of the office of the Chairman and Members of the Bureau; Amend entry age of the Chairman and Members of the Bureau; Relocating the power to exercise authority over the Bureau from Mr. President to the National Assembly, Extending power of the Attorney-General of the Federation to prosecute to private legal practitioners to enable the Bureau prosecute its cases; and Making certain provisions clearer and more elaborate.

    Section 1(2)(b), which sought to reduce the entry age of the chairman and members of the Bureau from 50 years to 30 years was rejected by the Senate.

    The upper chamber retained 50 years as the entry age of the chairman and members of the Bureau.

    Section 1(4), which sought to reduce the tenure of the Chairman and members from serving until they are 70 to a term of five years, subject to renewal for one further term only, making a total of 10 years in all was passed.

    Also passed was Section 3(d), which sought to make it compulsory for any case of breach or non compliance to be brought to the notice of the person concerned to enable him make a written admission of such breach or non compliance, and where such is done, there shall be no reference to the Tribunal.

    The lawmakers however turned down Section 4(2), which sought to transfer the power to make rules and regulations for the Bureau from the President to the National Assembly.

    The rejected Section 4(2) seems to be in conflict with Section 18(1) and (2) where the lawmakers accepted that the powers assigned the President will now be performed by the National Assembly.

    The Senate resolved that “Section 18(1)(2) under “Exemption” is amended by substituting ‘President’ with the ‘National Assembly’ and to substitute in sub section 1 ‘him’ with ‘it’.

    The Senate amended Section 18 by adding new sub section 3 thus: “Failure to comply with sub section 2 above shall constitute misconduct.”

    Section 18 (1) in the Principal Act states “The President may by order exempt any cadre of public officers from the provisions of this Act if it appears to him that their position in the public service is below the rank which it considers appropriate for the application of those provisions.”

    The principal Act in Section 18(2) states “The President may by order confer on the Bureau such additional powers as may appear to it to be necessary to enable it to discharge more effectively the functions conferred upon it under this Act.”

    With the amendment, the National Assembly will now perform the function in Section 18 (2) instead of the President, which implies that the National Assembly will determine those to appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    Section 18 (1) specifically sought to enable cases of exemption under the Act to be handled by the National Assembly instead of the President while 18(2) will enable the National Assembly do the conferment of additional powers (if need be) on the Bureau instead of the President.

    The Senate introduced Section 20 (2) to ensure that a minimum of three members of the Tribunal sit at all times.

    The appointment of Tribunal members by the President is subject to the confirmation of the Senate.

    Section 24(2), which sought to enable the Attorney General of the Federation prosecute cases with private legal practitioners as he may find suitable, was adopted.

    Section 24(5) was introduced to make the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011 applicable to the Tribunal where crime is an issue.

     Senators who opposed the amendment include Yahaya Abdullahi (Kebbi North), Abdullahi Adamu (Nasarawa West) and Ahmed Lawan (Yobe North),

    Abdullahi said: “To remove a whole President who has equally been elected by the country is wrong. You cannot approbate and reprobate this substitution of the President with the National Assembly, is wrong. We can hold the President responsible, we are the only institution that can even remove the President in this country under the Constitution. So the President is under our oversight, for us to intrude into the job of the President and adjudicate, I think it is taking this thing too far. Let us be dispassionate about this matter.”

    Before the consideration of the report, Senator Anyanwu said all the 13 members of the committee signed the report.

    He noted that three members signed before the report was mass produced. He said that later all the members endorsed the report.

  • Conduct Tribunal judge seeks extra security

    Conduct Tribunal judge seeks extra security

    The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Mr. Danladi Umar, has written to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, to beef up the security around him.

    The request was said to be sequel to the increasing number of sensitive cases involving politically exposed persons before the tribunal.

    It was learnt that the application of Umar may be referred to both the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies for necessary action.

    More cases involving some former governors and ministers were being awaited in CCT at the time of filing this report.

    Investigation conducted by our correspondent indicated that the CCT judge sent a copy of the letter to the Department of State Security Service (DSS)

    It was gathered that Umar wrote the letter during the week as part of steps to overhaul his security apparatchik.

    Although it was not obvious that the life of the judge was under threat, it was gathered that his mobile lines had come under intense pressure, leading to call restrictions.

    The judge was also said to have restricted his movement to his office and home in order to stave off influence.

    A reliable source, who spoke in confidence with our correspondent, said: “The CCT judge has asked for security beef up in CCT, Umar’s office, home and around his family.

    “The application has been submitted to the CJN for necessary contact with appropriate security agencies.

    “I think the letter was just a pre-emptive step to guarantee adequate security for the judge in view of the increasing number of sensitive matters at the tribunal.

    Responding to a question, the source said: “There is no threat to the tribunal so far, but Umar felt he needed more protection.”

    At press time, it was gathered that the DSS had been served a copy  of Umar’s letter.

    “Security agencies will debrief Umar on what he wants before taking action. What is certain is that there will be enhanced protection for him.

    “The state will not ignore the request from the CCT chairman.”

    Meanwhile, there were indications yesterday that more former governors and ministers will be arraigned before the CCT any moment from now.

    Although the actual number of those on trial list could not be ascertained at the time of filing this report, a reliable source confirmed that “a sizable number of former office holders who refused, padded or hid their assets will be arraigned soon.

    “The Code of Conduct Bureau has gone far in recommending these former office holders for trial and the signing of the necessary warrant is being awaited.

    “As soon as the warrant is signed, we will release the names of those affected. But we do not want to prejudice the ongoing process.”

    The constitution says: “Subject to the provision of this Constitution, every public officer shall within three months after the coming into force of this Code of Conduct or immediately after taking office and thereafter (a) at the end of every four years; and (b) at the end of his term of office, submit to the Code of Conduct Bureau a written declaration of all his properties, assets, and liabilities and those of his unmarried children under the age of eighteen years.

    “The Bureau shall have power to receive declaration by public officers made under paragraph 12 of part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to this Constitution.

    “Examine the declarations in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Conduct or any law.

    “Retain custody of such declarations and make them available for inspection by any citizen of Nigeria on such terms and conditions as the National Assembly may prescribe.

    “Ensure compliance with and, where appropriate, enforce the provisions of the Code of Conduct or any law relating thereto.

    “Any statement in such declaration that is found to be false by any authority or person authorized in that behalf to verify it shall be deemed to be a breach of this Code.

    “Any property or assets acquired by a public officer after any declaration required under this Constitution and which is not fairly attributable to income, gift, or loan approved by this Code shall be deemed to have been acquired in breach of this Code unless the contrary is proved.”

    “Receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of the Provisions of the Code of Conduct or any law in relation thereto. Investigate the complaint and, where appropriate, refer such matters to the Code of Conduct Tribunal.”

  • Saraki loses bid to stop trial at Conduct Tribunal

    Saraki loses bid to stop trial at Conduct Tribunal

    •Appeal Court says his case lacks merit
    •Senate President may go to Supreme Court

    Senate President, Bukola Saraki, yesterday lost his bid to stop his trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja dismissed the Senate President’s appeal challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction over his trial.

    He is standing trial on a 13-count charge of false asset declaration before the CCT).

    In a split decision of two-to-one, the appellate court held yesterday that Saraki’s appeal lacked merit.

    Justices Moore Adumein (presiding) and Mohammed Mustapha resolved the six issues raised in the appeal in favour of the respondents while Justice Joseph Ekanem dissented on the issue of whether an official of the Federal Ministry of Justice was competent to endorse a charge in the absence of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    While Justices Adumein (who read the lead judgment) and Mustapha dismissed the appeal, Justice Ekanem, in his dissenting judgment, upheld the appeal and quashed the Senate President’s trial before the CCT.

    Since, by the tradition of the court, the majority decision forms its judgment, it implies that the position held by Justices Adumein and Mustapha forms the court’s judgment in Saraki’s appeal.

    By the appellate court’s decision yesterday, Saraki’s trial will now proceed before the CCT on the next adjourned date of November 5.

    The CCT had delayed proceedings to await the outcome of Saraki’s appeal.

    Saraki had contended in his appeal that the charge against him was not personally served on him; that the tribunal was not validly constituted because two of its three members currently sit; and that the absence of a substantive Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) had rendered the charges incompetent.

    He also argued that the CCT lacked criminal jurisdiction, was not a court recognised by the Constitution, and that it lacked the coercive power to order anybody’s arrest.

    Justice Adumein, in the lead judgment, rejected all the arguments advanced by Saraki, including his contention that the CCT, being an inferior body to the Federal High Court, ought not to have proceeded with his trial despite an order by the court.

    He held that Saraki’s complaint about not being personally served with the charge “was of no moment, having appeared and taken his plea before the tribunal.”

    “On September 21, his counsel also appeared before the tribunal and made series of applications without raising the issue of non-service,” Justice Adumein said.

    On whether two of the three members of CCT could form a quorum, Justice Adumein, though noted that there was a “lacuna” in the laws, held that “the Interpretation Act has becomes a helpful piece of legislation” by providing that a member of the tribunal and its Chairman could validly sit and conduct proceedings.

    Justice Adumein upheld the argument by respondents’ lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), to the effect that by the provision of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act, two members of the tribunal (including the Chairman) could form a quorum to validly conduct its proceedings

    He also held that by the provisions of Section 174(1) and (2) of the Constitution, where there is no substantive AGF, any law officer in the office of the AGF could validly file charges.

    “M.S Hassan, a Deputy Director in the department of the AGF is eminently qualified to initiate criminal proceedings.

    “The Solicitor-General of the Federation, in the absence of the AGF, may perform any of the duties and shall have the same powers as are imposed by law on the AGF,” the judge said.

    On the issue of the tribunal not being a court, Justice Adumein held that “there is no inherent difference between the tribunal and the court.”

    He noted that “the terminologies and phrases used in the CCT Act, such as “arraignment”, “arrest”, “taking plea”, “guilty” and “conviction” are associated with criminal proceedings.

    “The Code of Conduct Tribunal is a criminal court, albeit with limited jurisdiction,” he held.

    “Having resolved all the issues against the appellant, I hold that the appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Adumein said.

    Justice Ekanem, who dissented on a single issue, held that the absence of Attorney-General of the Federation had made the charge to become defective.

    He was of the view that the failure by M. S. Hassan (who endorsed the charge) to indicate who authorised him to file the charge in his letter to the tribunal seeking leave to file the case, rendered the charge incompetent.

    Saraki’s lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), who spoke with journalists after the court had rendered its judgment, said: “We will be testing the veracity of the Court of Appeal’s judgment at the Supreme Court.”

    Jacobs, who also reacted to the judgment, said the coast was now clear for the CCT to proceed with the case before it.

    He said since there is no pending order staying its proceedings, and that since under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 appeal cannot act stay, the proceedings before the CCT would not be affected should Saraki appeal to the Supreme Court.