The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Justice Walter Onnoghen

  • We’ve not removed Onnoghen, Fed Govt, AGF tell Supreme Court

    •Court to decide suspended CJN’s fate May 17

    The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, has not been illegally removed from office, the Federal Government and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) said yesterday.

    Faulting claims by the Cross River State Government that the embattled CJN has been eased out of office, the government and the AGF explained that Justice Onnghen was suspended to enable him stand trial for the charge of breach of code of conduct, before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    Solicitor-General of the Federation (SGF) Dayo Apata spoke for the government and the Office of the AGF at the hearing of a suit by Cross Rivers State, in which it challenged Onnoghen’s suspension and asked that the decision be set aside.

    Apata contended: “There is a clear distinction between suspension and removal.  There is no evidence before the court to show that the CJN was removed or dismissed from office.”

    He argued that Justice Onnoghen’s suspension was not arbitrary, and that President Muhammadu Buhari acted on a valid order made by a competent court, the suspended CJN has now appealed.

    The solicitor-general was reacting to an argument by plaintiff’s lawyer, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), to the effect that Onnoghen’s removal from office by the executive was a violation of the Constitution, attack on the Judiciary and a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

    Apata argued the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection and counter affidavit, filed in response to the plantiff’s originating summons.

    He urged the court to uphold his objection and dismiss this suit, marked: SC/45/2019, for lack of locus standi,on the grounds that the subject matter does not qualify as a dispute between

    He said: “Our submission is that there is no dispute between Cross River State and the Federal Government of Nigeria on the subject matter of this case or the charge pending before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    “In the absence of any dispute, the original jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked by the plaintiff. The office in question is the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, not the Chief Judge of Cross River State.”

    On the competence of the suit, Apata faulted Nwosu’s argument that it was intended to protect the Constitution and current its violation by the Executive in the manner Onnoghen was removed from office.

    Apata argued that as against the plaintiff’s position, the suit seeks to obstruct the efforts of the defendants to protect the interest of justice as provided in Section 174 of the Constitution, where the AGF is enjoined to ensure that every prosecution should be done in the interest of justice.

    “The interest of justice is being done with the decision by the Federal Government to prosecute the CJN before the CCT. By this suit, the plaintiff is seeking to frustrate that effort, so the case of Fawehinmi and Akilun cited by the plaintiff’s lawyer, does not support their case,” Apata said.

    He also faulted Nwosu’s reference to the oath he took, on being conferred with the rank of SAN, to protect the Constitution and defend the country’s interest.

    Apata argued that Nwosu was not the plaintiff, but a lawyer to the plaintiff. He noted that if Nwosu was interested in keeping faith with the oath he swore to, he should have instituted the suit himself.

    He added: “The lawyer is not the plaintiff here, but the Cross River State Government.  And since the subject is not a dispute between the Cross River State and Federal Republic of Nigeria, the objection should be sustained.”

    Apata urged the court to resist the attempt by the plaintiff to make it determine a criminal proceedings that is still pending at the Court of Appeal, which has not been determined.

    He said that as at yesterday (Wednesday), the Court of Appeal reserved judgments on appeals on the same subject matter as this case. “This is a case of abuse of court process and forum shopping,” he said.

    When asked if the parties at the Court of Appeal were the same as those in the case before the Supreme Court, Apata said no, but that the subject matter is the same.

    In his argument, Nwosu urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ objection and grant all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.

    Nwosu argued that, by their objection, the defendants sought to treat the Office of the CJN as personal to Justice Onnoghen, being an office created by the Constitution, with responsibilities.

    He added: “The seat of the CJN is an institution specifically established by the Constitution of Nigeria, which also makes it tenured, to the effect that the occupant should stay there until his/her retirement age.

    “And the only way he/she can be removed before his/her retirement age, has also been stated in the Constitution. This dictates that even if there is any transgression, this procedure must be followed.”

    Nwosu described the Supreme Court as the proper forum for the case to be decided. He said, since the case was brought by a state, the Constitution says, where there is a dispute between a state and the Federal Government on any constitutional issue/question, the Supreme Court shall be the proper venue.

    Nwosu distinguished both cases and argued that the one before the Supreme Court was not personal to Onnoghen, but meant to cure a violation to the Constitution and the prevent such violation in future.

    He added: “My Lord, there is a siege on the court. They have broken into your (judges’) houses at night, now they have come for your necks.

    “We do not know who will be next. If we do not act now, you may not be sitting here in the next few weeks. You shall be remembered for what you have done. This is an opportunity for you now to stop this violation of the Constitution.”

    The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that it was outrageous and shameful that Apata claimed that Onnoghen was suspended based on an order of court and proceeded to exhibit a copy of the said order.

    H said: “It is a shame that the Solicitor General of the Federation exhibited the laughable order made by a lay magistrate. Can this court also just order the President to vacate office? If they say an order is an order, maybe you here, should order the removal of the President.”

    Nwosu cited Legal Practitioners Privileges Act, where every Senior Advocate pledges to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, and argued that it will be a gross dereliction of his oath to watch the CJN removed from office in a manner alien to the procedure created by the Constitution.

    After listening to the lawyers, a seven-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour adjourned to May 17 thus year for judgment.

     

  • CCT: Appeal Court reserves judgments in Onnoghen’s cases

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgments in the four appeals filed by the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    A three-man panel of the court, led by Justice Stephen Adah, after taking arguments from parties, in respect of the appeals, said they would be informed when judgments are ready.

    Onnoghen is, by his first appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the charge against him, being a serving judicial officer.  He is, in the second appeal, querying the propriety of the CCT’s ruling of January 14 this year, in which it elected to hear all pending applications

    The third appeal is against the CCT ex-parte order directing Onnoghen to vacate office as CJN and for President Muhammadu Buhari to appoint an acting CJN.

    The fourth appeal challenges the competence of the warrant of arrest issued against the suspended CJN by the CCT.

    The arrest warrant, issued on February 13, this year, was vacated by the CCT on February 15, when Onnoghen voluntarily attended the sitting of the CCT, during which he was arraigned.

    Chris Uche (SAN), who argued Onnoghen’s appeals, urged the court to grant his client’s prayers and reject the notices of objection filed by the respondent (the Federal Republic of Nigeria).

    Umar, who is also the lead prosecution lawyer in the case before the CCT, urged the court to reject all the appeals and uphold the respondent’s notices of objection.

    He argued that there was no material before the court on which it could inquire into the circumstances surrounding the grant of the ex-parte order.

  • Fed Govt, AGF ask Supreme Court to stay off Onnoghen’s case

    •Cross River seeks court’s intervention

    THE Federal Government and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) have asked the Supreme Court to decline jurisdiction over a suit seeking its intervention in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    The FG and the AGF contended that Onnoghen’ trial was personal to him and could only involve the  Supreme Court, where an appeal arises from the Court of Appeal on a decision reached either during or after the trial at the CCT.

    Their position is contained in a notice of objection they filed against a suit instituted at the Supreme Court by Cross River State.

    The state government, in their originating summons, queried the propriety of Onnoghen’s trial before the CCT and urged the Supreme Court to declare it illegal on the grounds that it was only the National Judicial Council (NJC) that could exercise disciplinary powers over a serving judge.

    In their objection, the FG and AGF (listed as defendants in the suit), argued that the subject of the case did not qualify as a dispute between the Cross River State and the Federal Government, as envisaged under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.

    They added: “The subject matter of this suit is personal to Hon. Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel and does not, in any way, affects the Cross River State Government as to confer it with the locus to institute this suit.

    “The reliefs and claims made herein by the plaintiff are not for the benefit of Cross River State, but personal to Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel.

    “The alleged cause of action in the subject matter of this suit is not one that creates the existence or extent of a legal right between the Cross River State Government, in its capacity as a state and the defendants in this suit as stated under Section 232(1) of the Constitution.

    “The Honourable Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel, being an indigene of Cross River State and the highest judicial officer from the state does not confer on the plaintiff the locus to institute this suit.

    “The fact that the suit partly relates to the interpretation of the Constitution does not confer on the plaintiff the locus to invoke the original jurisdiction of this honourable court.”

    The plaintiff, in their originating summons, want the court to among others, declare that, by the provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Constitution, there a clear recognition of the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances in relation to the operations of the three arms of government.

    The Cross River State wants the court to declare that, by virtue of the provisions of sections 153(1), 158(1(, Paragraph 21(b) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to Constitution, it is the NJC that is exclusively empowered to recommend to the President or Governor the appointment/removal of any judicial officer.

    It also seeks a declaration that the CCT, not being the NJC, is not vested with the jurisdiction over any judicial officer for an alleged official misconduct on the part of a judicial officer, without a formal complaint of such official misconduct being first made to and investigated by the NJC.

    The plaintiff equally wants the Supreme Court to declare that the filing of the charge, before the CCT, against Onnoghen, being a judicial officer, without any formal complaint having been made against him to the NJC, robbed the CCT of jurisdiction to try the charge and all the proceedings relating thereto, amount to a nullity.

    It, therefore, urged the court to grant an order of injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from further initiating or proceedings with any similar charge or charges against Onnoghen or any judicial officer of the superior court created by the Constitution, until a formal report of misconduct is first, made to and investigated by the NJC.

    At the Supreme Court yesterday, lawyer to the defendants, Dayo Apata (who is the Solicitor General of the Federation), told the court that his clients have just filed some processes, including a memorandum of appearance, notice of preliminary objection and a counter affidavit to the originating summons.

    Apata said he was able to serve the processes on the plaintiff’s lawyer shortly before the court began sitting yesterday.

    Lawyer to the plaintiff, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), acknowledged the service of the defendants’ processes on him.

    Nwosu said, in view of the importance of the case, he would urge the court to grant a short adjournment to enable him respond to the defendant’s processes.

    Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, who presided over a seven-man panel of the court, adjourned to February 28 for the hearing of the defendants’ objection along with the substantive suit.

  • Court of Appeal fails to hear Onnoghen’s suits

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has postponed its planned hearing of the three appeals filed by the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, to February 27.

    It was the third time, in one month, that the court will postpone hearing in the appeals filed against the decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), before which the suspended CJN is standing trial for alleged breach of code of conduct for public officers.

    Justice Onnoghen is, by his first appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the charge against him, being a serving judicial officer.

    He is, in the second appeal, querying the propriety of the CCT’s ruling of January 14, this year, in which it elected to hear all pending application.

    The third appeal is against the CCT ex-parte order directing Onnoghen to vacate office as CJN and for President Muhammadu Buhari to appoint an acting CJN.

    The court had, in late January, scheduled hearing in the appeals for February 12.

    When parties got to court, the court could not form a quorum for the purpose of hearing the appeals. Two of the three justices required to form a quorum were said to be attending a seminar.

    The court subsequently adjourned to the next day. It could also not hear the appeals on February 13, owing to a request by the Federal Government to be allowed to engage a new lawyer.

    Oyin Koleoso, who represented the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), told the court that the AGF has instructed that Aliyu Umar, SAN, (who is prosecuting the charge at the CCT) to take over the case of the respondent.

    Koleoso 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 case of the respondent.

    Lawyers to the appellant, Chris Uche (SAN), objected to an adjournment, but he was overruled by a three-man panel of the court presided over by Justice Abdul Aboki.

    The court further adjourned hearing in the appeals till February 20.

    When parties got to court on Tuesday, Umar, who appeased the respondents, said he has filed an application, in which he, among others, sought to be afforded time to familiarise himself with what had been filed in the appeals so far.

    Appellant’s lawyer, Uche, did not object to a request for a brief adjournment, following which the court adjourned till February 27.

  • Again, Appeal Court fails to hear Onnoghen’s appeals

    · Reschedules hearing for Feb 27

     

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Tuesday postponed its planned hearing of the three appeals filed by suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen to February 27.

    This is the third time, in one month, the court will postpone hearing in the appeals filed against the decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) before which Onnoghen is standing trial for alleged breach of code of conduct for public officers.

    Onnoghen is, by his first appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the charge against him, being a serving judicial officer.

    He is, in the second appeal, querying the propriety of the CCT’s ruling of January 14 this year, in which it elected to hear all pending application.

    The third appeal is against the CCT ex-parte order directing Onnoghen to vacate office as CJN and President Muhammadu Buhari to appoint an acting CJN.

    The court had, in late January this year, scheduled hearing in the appeals for February 12 thus year.

    When parties got to court, the court could not form a quorum for the purpose of hearing the appeals. Two of the three Justices, required to form a quorum, were said to be attending a seminar.

    The court subsequently adjourned to the next day. It could also not hear the appeals on February 13 owing to a request by the Federal Government to be allowed to engage a new lawyer.

    Oyin Koleoso, who represented the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), told the court that the AGF has instructed that Aliyu Umar – SAN – (who is prosecuting the charge at the CCT) should take over the case of the respondent.

    Kolaoso 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 case of the respondent.

    Lawyers to the appellant, Chris Uche (SAN) objected to an adjournment, but he was overruled by a three-man panel of the court presided over by Justice Abdul Aboki.

    The court further adjourned hearing in the appeals till February 20.

    Again, when parties got to court on Tuesday, Umar, who appeased for the respondents, said he has filed an application, in which he, among others sought to be afforded time to familiarise himself with what had been filed in the appeals so far.

    Appellant’s lawyer, Uche did not object to a request for a brief adjournment, following which the court adjourned till February 27 this year

  • 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.

  • NJC issues fresh query to Acting CJN

    *Gives him 7 days to respond
    *Sets up 5-man panel to further probe allegations against Onnoghen, Muhammad

    The National Judicial Council ( NJC ) rose again from its meeting on Wednesday and resolved to direct the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad to respond within seven days, to a fresh petition written against him by the Action People’s Party (APP).

    The NJC also elected to set up a five-man investigation committee to further look examine the allegations against the suspended CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen and Muhammad. The committee is headed by a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice S. A. Akintan.

    It was learnt that all the members of the new committee are members of the NJC.

    A statement issued by NJC’s spokesman, Soji Oye reads: “In continuation of its Emergency Meeting, the National Judicial Council accepted the result of the preliminary assessment of the petitions against Hon. Mr. Justice W. S. N. Onnoghen, GCON and Hon. Mr. Justice I. T. Muhammad, CFR that the petitions were worthy of further investigation and should not be terminated under Rule 17 of the Judicial Discipline Regulations of the Council.

    Read Also: NJC gives Onnoghen seven days to defend himself

    “Consequently, the council constituted a five-member Investigation Committee pursuant to Rule 20 (1) of the Judicial Discipline Regulations under the Chairmanship of Hon. Mr. Justice S. A. Akintan, CON, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

    “A new petition against Hon. Mr. Justice I. T. Muhammad, CFR, by the Action People’s Party (APP) was referred to the Hon. Mr. Justice for his comments within an abridged 7-days.

    “Council directed the Investigation Committee to work expeditiously, determine all the petitions and responses and report to Council for a final decision.”

  • NJC gives Onnoghen seven days to defend himself

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has queried the sources of inflows into the accounts of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    It also said its investigation of the CJN indicated that the inflows “are not typical of the financial transactions of a public servant.”

    The anti-graft agency asked the National Judicial Council (NJC) to consider its petition against Justice Onnoghen and asked him to defend himself.

    Although the EFCC is still conducting more investigation on Justice Onnoghen, it forwarded a preliminary report to the NJC for consideration.

    It was gathered that the decision of the NJC will guide the next action on the suspended CJN.

    It was learnt that once the suspension of the CJN is ratified by the NJC or if Justice Onnoghen is asked to proceed on retirement, the EFCC will be at an advantage to grill him.

    But in its petition, the EFCC  said its investigation confirmed suspicious payments into the CJN’s accounts. Such funds  include  $30,000 allegedly paid by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Joe Agi, who was quizzed last week.

    It said the sources of inflows into some of the CJN’s accounts were questionable.

    “From the investigation conducted so far, it is possible that the payments into the various accounts might be bribes. This is because the sources of the inflows into his accounts other than the salary account in Union Bank of Nigeria Plc are unknown and probably fraudulent, and the nature of the transactions (including structured payments) is not typical of the financial transactions of a public servant.

    The preliminary investigation report on Justice Onnoghen reads: “An Intelligence Report that the above mentioned subject was alleged to be involved in a number of bribery and corrupt activities.

    “Upon receipt of the Report, a preliminary investigation was conducted during which the following actions were carried out.

    • A request was sent to the Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) for a report on the suspect;
    • A letter of investigation activities was sent to Standard Chartered Bank, Union Bank and Heritage Bank to provide the statements of accounts of the suspect;
    • A BVN search through the NIBSS platform was conducted on the suspect and six (6) more accounts were found to be linked or connected to the suspect;
    • The statements of accounts of the suspect were analysed and further to that, a letter was written to Standard Chartered Bank requesting for additional information on suspicious activities in the account.

    In the report to the NJC, the EFCC gave the details of how cash was remitted into the dollar, pound sterling, Euro and Naira accounts

    The summary of the EFCC’s findings is as follows:

    Standard Chartered Bank USD ($) Account:

    • The balance as at September 19, 2016 is $134,525.40;
    • The turnover in the account from October 2012 to September 2016 is $1,922,657.00

    “The following highlights some of the suspicious activities in the account.

    • Pattern of structured payments of $10,000.00 each in 2012. For example, a total of $630,000.00 was credited to the accounts using this pattern.
    • Similarly structured payments of $10,000.00 amounting to $297,800.00, $50,000.00 and $36,000.00 were deposited in the account in 2013, 2015 and 2016 respectively;
    • There was also a credit of $121,116.00 into the account from 2014 to 2016 from Life Friend Plc. The payments were in four installments, of $30,279.00 each. These payments suggest the suspect has investments;
    • A payment of $482,966.00 from Alicia Redemption Pro and shortly after, $800,000.00 was invested in SCB Investment Subscription. We are in the process of verifying these transactions;
    • Other suspicious transactions in the account are credit of $19,764.00 from Pur of Noble and seven (7) payments of $3,250.00 each amounting to $22,750.00 from Lloyds TSB.

    On the operation of the Pound Sterling account by the CJN, the EFCC added as follows: (a.) The balance as at September 30, 2016 was £108,348.00; (b). The turnover in the account from 2012 to September, 2016 was £138.439.00;

    “The following highlights some of the suspicious activities in the account: (1) There was a self -transfer of £40,268.40 into the  account on May 31, 2016;  (2) There were also self-deposits by the suspect of £49,760.00 from July 2015 to September, 2016,” the report added.

    On the Naira account in SCB, the EFCC put the “current balance as at December 18, 2013 was  N1,276,024.65;

    It said: “There was a turnover of N4,462,000.00 from 2011 to December, 2013.”

    “The following highlights some of the suspicious activities in the account:  A transfer of N41,262.000.00 ($260,000) was made from the Dollar account. The money was used to make payment of N41million to Ad hoc Committee on the Sale of Federal Government Houses, suggesting that he bought a property with proceeds of the transfer;

    “The only other significant transactions in the accounts are six (6) structured cash payments of N500,000.00 each and one payment of N700,000.00 amounting to N3.7mlllion from November, 2013 to August, 2016.

    Regarding the Euro account, the report said “turnover in the account from 2013 to September 2016 was €55,154.00 and the  balance as at September 30, 2016 was €55,154.00;

    “There were no significant transactions in the account from 2013.

    Concerning the CJN’s separate Naira Account (Salary Account) in Union Bank, the report claimed that  “the balance as at October 10, 2016 was  N22,510,636.27 although the turnover in the account from September, 2005 to October, 2016 was N91,962.362.49;

    “His salary in 2005 was N240,202.20 and it rose to  N751,082.3 in February 2008. The salary remains within this range till date;

    “He did not spend from the salary account from March 2015 to October 2016. The salary and allowances accumulated to N22,520,636.27 in October 2016 from N6,132 885.24 in March of same year.”

  • Onnoghen to CCT Chairman: Why I can’t appear before you

    …Says he is a biased, tainted arbiter

     

    Suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen has told the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Danladi Umar that he cannot stand appear before him (Umar) for trial because he has by his conduct and utterances, demonstrated that he was a biased and tainted arbiter.

    Onnoghen, who argued, among others, that justice is rooted in confidence, said he has no confidence in Umar’s capacity to do justice in his case. He accused Umar of being the sole mind behind the ex-parte order on which President Muhammadu Buhari acted to suspend him.

    Read Also:CCT insists on Onnoghen’s appearance

    The suspended CJN, who described Umar as “a tainted arbiter” by virtue of the charge filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), “for receiving money bribe in the sum of N10, 000,000.00 in charge No: CR/109/18 in FCT High Court,” argued that it was impossible for the CCT Chair to act with a fair mind.

    Onnoghen therefore asked Umar to disqualify himself in respect of the non-assets declaration charge pending against him (Onnoghen) before the CCT.

    The suspended CJN made this argument in a motion filed for him on Monday by a team of lawyers led by Chris Uche (SAN).  The content of the motion seems a direct response to the directive given, on February 4 this year, by the CCT Chairman, to the effect that Onnoghen must attend the next proceedings at the CCT for him to be arraigned on the charge pending against him.

    The motion on notice particularly, prayed the tribunal for an order directing “the honourable Chairman of the tribunal, Honourable Danladi Umar to disqualify/recuse himself from further participating in the adjudication of this case on the ground of real likelihood of bias.”

    The grounds on which the prayer is made, include that “the Chairman has constructively convicted the defendant (The Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria) sought to be arraigned before him without either hearing from him or his being formally arraigned before him.

    “The Chairman authored and signed an ex parte order directing an un-convicted man to step aside on account of a charge not yet before him as the Chief Justice of Nigeria, which is in itself a conviction prior to arraignment and plea/trial.

    “The Chairman had directed the Executive arm of government, contrary to the express provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and without reference to the National Judicial Council, the replacement of the office and role of the Chief Justice of Nigeria by his own nominee and appointee in the person of Hon Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC.

    “The Chairman, on 23th January, 2019, entertained a motion ex-parte not moved by any known prosecutor, bearing the same title, charge number and purported accused person/defendant, Hon justice Waiter Samuel Onnoghen, CJN, GCON, dated 9th January 2019, which substantially predetermined the guilt of the defendant, without an arraignment.

    “Consequent upon the above, the learned Chairman (Hon. Danladi Umar), who purportedly moved, made and signed the order, has put himself in the position of prosecutor, judge and jury to the clear prejudice and bias against the defendant.

    “The learned Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (Hon. Danladl Umar) is a tainted arbiter by reason of a criminal charge at the Instance of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for receiving money bribe in the sum of N10, 000,000.00 in Charge No: CR/109/18 in FCT High Court by an organ under the supervision of the office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation, incidentally the prosecutor and complainant in this matter.

    “With such sword of Damocles hanging over him, and himself not just recusing himself from a quasi-judicial function, is himself not likely to be a fair arbiter, but instead more likely to trade in the charges against him in quasi plea bargaining in the charge against him and enter summary conviction in this proceedings to please the prosecutor.

    “Various comments and decisions/orders made by the Honourable Chairman of the tribunal clearly demonstrate beyond doubt that the Chairman of the tribunal had inclination or predisposition to decide the case in a certain pre-arranged manner without regard to any law or rules of procedure.

    “In the course of the proceedings of this case, the honourable Chairman of the tribunal showed acts of partisanship by making decisions/orders and expressing opinions antagonistic to the applicant and on the other hand demonstrated favourable dispositions towards the respondent.

    “The partiality of the honourable Chairman of the tribunal is not in doubt as there are manifest cases of real likelihood of bias on the part of the Chairman of the tribunal against the applicant by reason inter alia of the disclosures above.

    “The applicant has no confidence in the honourable Chairman of the tribunal to do justice fairly between parties in this case. as he is a man on a mission to please his masters.

    “In spite of the fact that the attention of the tribunal was drawn to four different orders of court, the Chairman, in ruling, abandoned two of the orders and kept on emphasizing on the orders from the Federal High Court and the F.C.T High Court alone supported by Member ll.

    “The tribunal has by the conduct, comments and pronouncements of the Chairman on the 14th of January, 1019 and supported by Member II on the 22nd January, 2019 has predetermined the motion of the defendant, challenging its jurisdiction before even same can be heard.

    “After the rulings of  the 22nd January, 2019, the counsel to the prosecution, again urged the honourable tribunal to make an interim order for the defendant to step aside as the Chief Justice of Nigeria and chairman of the National Judicial Council, but the Chairman of the tribunal in open court stated that the prosecutor should exercise patience, because his motion on notice for stepping aside would be heard at the next adjourned date, which caused all lawyers and members of the public present in court to exclaim in bewilderment before the honourable Chairman struggled unconvincingly to correct himself to the effect that what he meant was for the motion challenging jurisdiction be taken first and thereafter the motion for stepping aside.

    “The honourable Chairman later rightly informed the prosecution counsel, in open court, that he was not going to make any interim order for the defendant to step aside, because the issue of jurisdiction raised was fundamental and then adjourned the matter to the 18th January, 2019 for the hearing of motions.

    “Surprisingly, on the 23rd of January, 2019, a day after the proceedings of 22nd January, 2019, wherein matter was adjourned to the 28th January, 2019, the Chairman and Member 11 purportedly issued an order ex-parte, directing the defendant to step aside as the Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial Council and also directed the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to swear-in the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial Council.

    “The Chairman and Member II of this tribunal gave the prosecution/complainant/respondent, through the back door, what they seek by their notion on notice dated 10th January, 2019. Following the said order ex-parte, which was never served on the applicant or the National Judicial Council, the President purportedly suspended the Defendant/Applicant from office on the 25th of January, 2019 and appointed Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad as the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial Council.

    “There is a clear case of bias against the Defendant/Applicant from the facts narrated above. The defendant/applicant has become totally apprehensive of the proceedings of the honourable tribunal and cannot continue in the proceedings because it has become palpable that he cannot get justice from the conduct and disposition of the Chairman and Member II.

    “The honourable tribunal, especially the Chairman, has constituted himself as the prosecutor and accuser of the defendant/applicant and cannot in good and clear conscience continue to be part of the proceedings and trial of the applicant.

    “It is most honourable for the honourable Chairman and Member II to recuse and disqualify themselves from the proceedings so that a person of firm and unbiased disposition can be appointed to preside over the proceedings of this matter.

    “The Chairman has constructively convicted the defendant (the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria), sought to be arraigned before him, without either hearing from him or his being formally arraigned before him.”

  • Updated: CCT Chair insists on Onnoghen’s appearance

    *Adjourns to February 13
    *Appeal Court to hear adjourns to Feb 12

    The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal ( CCT ), Danladi Umar has insisted that the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen must appear before the tribunal in person before any further businesses could be conducted in the case pending against him (Onnoghen).

    Umar gave the directive at the resumption of proceedings in the case on Monday, shortly before agreeing to the request by parties for adjournment to February 13.

    He said: “Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), a defendant, who is served with a charge and represented by lawyers, must take his plea before raising any objection.

    “The defendant has continued to stay away from this tribunal. I am going to grant this adjournment at the instance of the prosecution and defence, but must state that the defendant must attend court at the next adjourned date so that all the issues would be resolved in his presence.”

    The suspended CJN is accused of violating code of conduct for public officers by allegedly failing to declare some of his assets.

    At the commencement of proceedings on Monday, an official of the tribunal noted that the defendant was absent.

    Lead prosecuting lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN) said the case was adjourned to February 4 for the arraignment of the defendant and the hearing of pending applications.

    Lead defence lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) said he had a discussion with the prosecutor to allow his application for adjournment in view of some recent developments in the case.

    Awomolo said: “We filed a process this morning, indicating that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) forwarded a petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC). It is the same petition that was forwarded to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) that founded the complaint before this tribunal.”

    He added that the NJC has, in the exercise of its powers, forwarded the petition to the suspended CJN for his comment within seven days. He noted that the seven days, given Justice Onnoghen to respond to the petition, will lapse on this Wednesday.

    Awomolo expressed optimism that the NJC will meet shortly after receiving Justice Onnoghen’s and take a position on the issue.

    Read Also: CCT serves Onnoghen trial notice

    He added: “Our application is that the proceedings be further adjourned to prevent the defendant from suffering double jeopardy. Parties are ready to argue the pending applications, but in the interest of justice and due process, we seek an adjournment to enable the NJC take a decision.

    “No harm will be done to the rest. The integrity of this tribunal will be enhanced if this application is granted and the NJC will be afforded time to take a decision in this matter,” the defence lawyer said.

    Awomolo said an adjournment will prevent a situation where the defendant is made to suffer double jeopardy.
    Responding, Umar admitted engaging in discussion with Awomolo before the tribunal commenced its sitting.
    Umar said he was not opposing an application for adjournment, but that his decision to agree to the defence’s request for adjournment was not because the AGF has forwarded the same petition to the NJC.

    The prosecution lawyer hinted about the possibility of the charge being withdrawn by the AGF, in the exercise of his power. He said it was within the discretion and power of the AGF to discontinue the proceedings.