The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Onnoghen

  • How we investigated suspended CJN, by CCB investigator

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) heard on Monday how investigators from the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) investigated the petition against suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen and obtained statement from him in relation to allegation of non-assets disclosure brought against him by the CCB.

    An investigator with the CCB, James Akpala told the CCT that a team of three investigators from the CCB, upon being handed a petition written against Onnoghen, proceeded to conduct investigation, including visiting his office to obtain his statement.

    Akpala spoke at the commencement of trial in the case against Onnoghen on Monday before the CCT.

    Akpala, who testified as the first prosecution witness, was led in evidence by lead prosecuting lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN), and was later cross-examined by lead defence lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN).

    Under cross examination by Awomolo, who alleged that the six-count charge against his client was drafted before the conclusion of the investigation, Akpala, who was part of the investigation team, explained how the investigation took place.

    The witness said his team was assigned the petition, written against Onnoghen, on January 10.

    He said his team commenced investigation immediately by writing to the named banks for statements of the suspended CjN’s accounts.

    Akpala said his team arrived the suspended CJN’s office at about noon on January 11 to obtain his statement.

    He said: “What happened next was that, we explained the petition to the defendant and handed over to him a copy of the petition.

    “He (the defendant) read through the petition and gave an oral explanation to the allegations contained in the petition. He gave the explanation to the team.

    “My superior, Samuel Madojemu, requested if he was ready to record his oral explanation in writing, or the team should go back and come back some other time.

    “The defendant said he was ready. He brought out a plain paper, but we team informed him that the CCB had cautionary statement form and he was equally informed that he needed a witness to observe the statement.

    “The team then informed him that the witness might be a lawyer or a reputable person. The defendant then called his secretary, Jane Etu, to witness the statement.

    “She sat beside the defendant and the defendant recorded the statement in his own handwriting.

    “Intermittently, he went into his inner chambers to seek audience with his visitors. After some time, he would come back and continued until he ended the statement.

    “The defendant signed the statement. The witness, Jane S. Edu, counter-signed. Samuel Madojemu and I (the witness) equally signed,” the witness said,

    He confirmed that the petition was minuted to his team for action on 10th of January 2019.

    “We requested for statement of the accounts from the bank on the 11th of January,” he said.

    When handed copies of the charge, list of witnesses, list of exhibits and some other documents, the witness confirmed that they were dated January 10.

    Awomolo then asked the witness to confirm that as at when they (members of the team of investigators from CCB) were obtaining the defendant’s statement on January 11, the charge was already prepared.

    The witness said he could not confirm the statement because his team was not involved in the filing of the charge.

    He said: “We were in his (Onnoghen’s) office between 12.30 and 1.45pm on January 11. When he gave his statement the team had no idea that a charge was already filed.

    He said the team left the defendant’s office at about 2pm and concluded writing its report at about a quarter to 3pm, and later handed the report to the Deputy Director, Intelligence and Investigation, CCB.

    Earlier, while being led in evidence by Umar, Akpala said the investigation team included a Deputy Director, Intelligence, Investigation and Monitoring with the CCB, Simon Isaac (who acted as the leader); an Assistant Director, Intelligence, Investigation and Monitoring of the bureau, Samuel Madojemu, as a member and himself.

    Apala said Onnoghen submitted two assets declaration forms on December 14, 2016.

    He said one of the forms had two Union Bank accounts of the suspended CJN while the other had seven bank accounts with two kept with Union Bank and five others with Standard Chartered Bank.

    The witness said the first form earlier admitted as Exhibit 2, covered the period June 8, 2005 when Onnoghen was appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court till November 22, 2014.

    He said the second form admitted as Exhibit 3 was for 2015 but declared after the defendant assumed office as CJN in 2016.

    The witness said the two forms were received by an official of the bureau, Awal Yakassai, on December 14, 2016.

    He confirmed that the two forms had acknowledgment slips, with the same date.

    Umar tendered some documents through the witness, which the tribunal admitted as Exhibits 1 to 6.

    The documents include the petition written by Dennis Aghanya of the Anti-Corruption and Research-Based Data Initiative against Onnoghen, dated January 7, 2019 and was received by the CCB on January 9, 2019.

    Also tendered were two assets declaration forms (Forms CCB1) submitted by the defendant to the CCB on December 14, 2016; Onnoghen’s account-opening package of his Standard Chartered Bank account.

    The account opening package included copies of Onnoghen’s travel passport, his Supreme Court identity card and a Standard Chartered Bank’s document dated January 25, 2009 stating “original copy sighted”.

    Onnoghen’s hand-written statement, obtained from him on January 11, 20w9 by the three-man investigation team was also admitted as exhibit.

    Although Awomolo queried the competence of some of the exhibits, he promised to address the issue at the address writing stage.

    Further hearing in the case has been adjourned till March 21.

  • CJN’s trial at CCT: prosecution opens case, calls first witness

    The prosecution team in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has opened its case by calling its first witness.

    Proceedings were put off in the case on March 12 this year over report that the suspended CJN was ill.

    Onnoghen, looking smart, is at the CCT proceedings, which commenced Monday a little over 10 am.

    Lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN) informed the tribunal that he was ready with his witnesses, following which he invited his first witness after obtaining the tribunal’s permission to proceed.

    The first prosecution witness, James Opala, a Senior Investigation Officer of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), has been invited to the witness box to tell all he knows about the case.

    Details shortly…

  • UPDATED: CCT orders day-to-day proceedings in Onnoghen’s trial

    *Sits on chair brought by his aides

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has ordered further proceedings in the trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

    Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, in a bench ruling on Monday also elected to reserve, till the conclusion of the trial, decisions on applications by Onnghen, which challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction and another asking Umar recuse himself from the case.

    Umar said Section 296(2) &(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) support the position he took.

    The CCT Chairman’s decision was unexpected by many, because shortly before delivering his bench ruling, he had sought the views of lawyers on both sides on how the tribunal should proceed in view of the provision Section 296(2) of the ACJA vis a vis the applications just argued.

    Umar had sought the lawyers’ views after the tribunal took arguments from both sides in relation to the two applications by Onnoghen.

    In his contribution, lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN) said, by the provision of Section 296(2), the tribunal could reserve its ruling in the application that challenged its jurisdiction.

    He said the tribunal cannot afford to proceed without ruling on the other application, querying the tribunal Chairman’s integrity and demanding that he excuse himself from further proceedings on grounds of likely bias.

    On his part, lead defence lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) said, in view of the issues raised in both applications, which are contesting the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the integrity of its Chairman, and his ability to be fair in his handling of the case, the tribunal cannot proceed without first, ruling on both applications.

    After listening to both lawyers, the CCT Chairman proceeded, there and then, to write his ruling, which he delivered about 20 minutes later, refusing to adopt either of the positions suggested by Umar and Awomolo.

    He said in line with the provision of Section 296(2) of the ACJA, the tribunal has the powers to consider any motion per application challenging its jurisdiction or the competence of a charge pending before it, along with the substantive case and makes its ruling at the time of the delivery of judgment.

    The CCT Chairman said: “It is to be noted that, in view of the sensitive position of the third arm of government, that is the Judiciary, which is the formidable arm of government, and in consideration of the importance of the judicial arm of government, which is at the heart of the stability of the nation, it is imperative that the tribunal expedite proceedings in this trial in order to prevent anarchy, lawlessness and chaos.

    “The tribunal deems it fit to treat this matter with utmost dispatch, hence the need to accelerate the hearing and determination of all motions and the substantive matter together and render its decision.”

    Umar further said the tribunal “shall be strictly guided by the provisions of the ACJA 2015, which encourages speedy trial of proceedings.”

    The Chairman proceeded to order that all rulings in the applications argued before the tribunal on Monday, shall be ruled upon, along side the substantive case, in accordance with the provision of Section 296(2) of the ACJA.

    He added that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 296(3) of the ACJA and Paragraph 5(5) of the Practice Direction of the tribunal, and in View of the fact that both applications of the defendant bother on the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the tribunal shall henceforth conduct the case on day-to-day basis.

    Umar further said: “In view of the above observations, the tribunal hereby orders that ruling in the two applications of the defendant/applicant, shall be reserved and delivered along with the decision of the tribunal on the substantive trial.

    “In view of the provision of Section 296(3) of the ACJA, the proceedings in this case shall be conducted day-to-day. In view of the foregoing, the tribunal hereby adjourn This matter till tomorrow, the 12th of March 2019 for continuation of hearing of the substantive case,” Umar said.

    As he ended his ruling, Umar did not wait for the contributions of the two members of the tribunal’s three-man panel before announcing the closure of proceedings for the day.

    As he walked towards his chambers, with the two members of the panel in toe, Onnoghen, who had sat quietly in the dock for the better part of the proceedings, stood up and walked toward his lawyers, with whom he conferred briefly before walking out of the tribunal’s sitting venue, into his waiting official car parked close to the main entrance of the tribunal’s courtroom.

    At the commencement of proceedings, shortly after 10am, Onnoghen, who sat among some lawyers, on the front seat to the right of the courtroom, walked briskly into the dock.

    In the dock, Onnoghen chose to stand, prompting the CCT Chairman to direct officials of the tribunal to fetch a chair for him.

    When a security official of the tribunal offered a chair, some individuals, who accompanied the defendant to the court rejected it. Instead, one of them brought a collapsible chair from outside the courtroom and set it behind the defendant, who wa still standing.

    Onnoghen, who stood for over an hour, later sat on the chair, brought by his aides, for the better part of the proceedings.

    Before arguing the defendant’s applications, Awomolo identified five applications, which his client filed, but chose to argue only two.He said while event has overtaken two, one should be left in the tribunal’s file till a later date.

    He elected to argue the one asking the tribunal Chairman to recuse himself and the other challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    In relation to the application seeking Umar’s exclusion from the proceedings, Awomolo said its substance relates to the doubt whether the defendant would be accorded fair hearing in view of the question surrounding the independence and impartiality of the tribunal.

    He added that the application raised two major points, one of which was that the proceedings before the tribunal “is afflicted with major vires and constitutional issues.

    Awomolo noted that his client doubt the capacity of the tribunal to exercise fairness and independence in its handling of the proceedings where every major player in the case are agents of the Executive arm of government.

    He argued that it offends the principle of fair hearing where the complainant in the case (the Code of Conduct Bureau); the investigator (the Code of Conduct Bureau); the prosecutor (the Attorney General of the Federation) and the judge (the Code of Conduct Tribunal) are all agents of the Executive arm of government.

    Awomolo the fact that the CCT was an arm of the Executive is supported by Umar’s response to a query issued him by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), where he (the CCT Chairman), said he was not answerable to the Judiciary or any of its agencies, but to the Presidency.

    He said another issue raised by the application was the applicant was not likely to receive justice before the CCT, because of issues relating to the credibility of the tribunal Chairman.

    Awomolo tendered a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case Of Rasheed Taiwo Owolabi v. FRN, CA/A623C/2015 delivered on March 2, 2018, which is contained in Law Pavilion 2018LPPELR 44 959. The appellant had accused Umar of collecting bribe from him.

    Awomolo said: “We urge the tribunal to hold that there is the probability, from the circumstance demonstrated in the affidavit, for the applicant to doubt the freedom and impartiality of the tribunal.”

    On the second application, Awomolo urged the tribunal to uphold its earlier decision in the case of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, which he said was similar to this.

    He said the decision in Ngwuta case, which was in line with the Court of Appeal decision in the case by Justice Nganjiwa, remains the current position of the law, to the effect that any allegation of misconduct against a judge must first be determined exclusively by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    In a counter argument, Umar (the prosecution lawyer) urged the tribunal to reject both applications, arguing that they were without merit.

    Umar argued that the question about whether or not the CCT Chairman should be excused from the proceedings was arlaed on appeal before the Court of Appeal, which has reserved judgment on the appeals filed by Onnoghen on that and other issues.

    “We submit that the Court of Appeal has the power to direct that this matter be heard by other members of the tribunal should it feels that the Chairman is bias,” Umar said.

    He further submitted that the defendant/applicant did not, in his filings, demonstrate any act of bias on the part of the Chairman or any member of the tribunal.

    The lead prosecution lawyer urged the tribunal to depart from its decision in the Ngwuta case and proceed to hear the case against Onnoghen.

    He argued that the decision in Ngwuta case was given in error, and asking the tribunal to uphold that decision is like asking it “to continue to proceed in error.”

  • NBA denies querying prosecution lawyer in Onnoghen’s trial at CCT

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has faulted media reports to the effect that it has issued a query to Aliyu Umar (SAN) the lead prosecution lawyer in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    NBA’s National Publicity Secretary, Kunle Edun said, in a statement on Sunday that Umar was only required to respond to a petition written against him by another member of the NBA.

    The statement reads: “The attention of the Nigerian Bar Association has been drawn to misleading headlines published by some bloggers and national newspapers giving the erroneous impression to members of the public that the Nigerian Bar Association has issued a query against the person of Aliyu Umar, SAN for appearing as a prosecuting counsel in the case against Hon. Mr. Justice Walter N. Onnoghen at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    “Please, be informed that the said publication is false and misleading. A proper perusal of the content of the letter of the General Secretary of the NBA, Jonathan Gunu Taidi, will bear this out.

    “Any member of the Nigerian Bar Association is entitled to send petitions to the NBA against any member who he perceives to have committed any infraction of our Rules of Professional Conduct.

    “When such a petition is received, NBA forwards same to the colleague against whom it is written for his response. That is what the NBA has just done. It is a long standing standard procedure.

    “The Nigerian Bar Association, in adhering to these laid down procedures is impervious to emotions or sentiments.

    Therefore, it is misleading to say that NBA has issued a query against the learned silk. The NBA urges members to desist from spreading false news over a process that is at its preliminary stage.

    “We should be properly advised and disregard any motive ascribed to the letter, particularly sensational headlines that are contrary to established facts. “

  • FG, AGF to Supreme Court: we have not removed Onnoghen

    The Federal Government and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) have faulted claim by the Cross River State Government that suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen has been illegally removed from office.

    The FG and AGF argued that, as against Cross River’s claim, Onnghen has not been removed from office, he was simply 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 FG and 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 that “there is a clear distinction between suspension and removal.” He noted that there was no evidence before the court to show that the CJN was removed or dismissed from office.

    The Solicitor General was reacting to argument by lawyer to the plaintiff, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), to the effect that Onnoghen’s removal from office, by the Executive, was a violation of the Constitution, attach 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

    Apata 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,” Apata said.

    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 Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to protect the Constitution and defend the interest of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Apata argued that Nwosu was not the plaintiff, but a lawyer to the plaintiff. He said 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, 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.

    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 Onnoghen. He said it is 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 inisted that the Supreme Court was 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.

    He added: “The plaintiff is saying, we have seen that you are breaching the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers, which is the foundation on which we agreed to be part of this federation, so we can come here.

    “Once a dispute has been established between a state government and the FG, over a breach of the Constitution, this is the appropriate forum. This suit is brought because the Cross River State Government thinks that the Constitution has been violated,” Nwosu said.

    He faulted Apata’s argument that similar cases, filed by Onnoghen were currently pending before the Court of Appeal and on which judgments have been reserved.

    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.”

    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.

    The Cross River State Government, in its 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.

    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 Onoghen, 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.

    In a supporting affidavit sworn to by an official of of the Cross River State Ministry of Justice, Ibi Mboto, the plaintiff stated that Onnghen is an indigene of the state and the highest judicial officer from the state.

    It argued that Onnoghen’s suspension and trial before the CCT, without first, being subjected to the NJC’s process, as didctated by the Constitution, was unlawful and unconstitutional.

  • Updated: 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 will be informed when judgments were ready.

    The appeals are CA/A/44c/2019; CA/A/CA/A/63c/19; CA:A/70c/2019 and CA/A/114c/2019.

    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 (Federal Republic of Nigeria).

    Uche urged the court to, particularly, inquire into circumstances surrounding the grant of the ex-parte order by the CCT a day after parties appeared before the court and agreed to an adjournment.

    He claimed that the prosecution was not represented by any lawyer on January 23 this year when the ex-parte order was made, a claim lawyer to the respondent, Aliyu Umar (SAN) faulted.

    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.

    Umar noted that the appellant failed to tender a copy of the order and record of the proceedings, a claim Uche later countered in his reply on point of law.

  • FG, 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’s 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 trail at the CCT.

    Their position is contained in a notice of objection they filed against a suit marked: SC/45/2019 instituted at the Supreme Court by the government of Cross River State.

    The Cross River 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 subjected 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 Hon. 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,” they said.

    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.

    In a supporting affidavit sworn to by an official of the Cross River State Ministry of Justice, Ibi Mboto, the plaintiff stated that Onnoghen is an indigene of the state and the highest judicial officer from the state.

    It argued that Onnoghen’s suspension and trial before the CCT, without first, being subjected to the NJC’s process, as dedicated by the Constitution, was unlawful and unconstitutional.

    Read Also: Court of Appeal fails to hear Onnoghen’s suits

    At the Supreme Court on Thursday, 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 on Thursday.

    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 this year for the hearing of the defendants’ objection along with the substantive suit.

  • Onnoghen: SAN backs CCT on warrant of arrest

    A Senior Advocate of Ni-geria (SAN), Babatunde Fashanu, has said the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) was right to have issued a warrant for the arrest of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen.

    He said the tribunal’s ruling was in order since the Court of Appeal has given it the nod to try Onnoghen.

    “Technically, having been given the go ahead by the Court of Appeal to continue with the trial of the CJN, the CCT is right to go on and make any order to ensure it goes on with the case,” Fashanu said.­­

    The tribunal has since vacated  the order following Onnoghen’s appearance on Friday. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of non-asset declaration.

    But Fashanu advised the CCT to clear the issue of jurisdiction raised against its competence to try the case first before any other thing.

    Fashanu recalled that Onnoghen, through his counsel, had objected to his trial and challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

    “One would have thought the CCT would first determine it’s jurisdiction before issuing warrant of arrest especially as it is common knowledge that the matter is now being considered by the NJC.

    “Secondly, the suspended CJN has objected to the competence of the Tribunal Chairman to try him. The Tribunal needs to rule on that first before going into any other thing,” he argued.

    Fashanu did not agree with the tribunal on the suspension of Justice Onnoghen.

    “Rightly or wrongly (wrongly in my view), the Tribunal has suspended the CJN for the time being, so, what’s the rush in going on without first determining the competence of the Tribunal Chairman to sit in the case and to determine it’s jurisdiction?” he queried.

     

  • Onnoghen: Matters arising

    The  six-count corruption charge levelled against the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has sparked a debate for Nigerians at home and in the diaspora.

    This phenomenon is a first of its kind in Nigeria, and has divided Nigerians across board. Some argue that the timing is wrong; others claim that the investigation is politically motivated and reeks of partisanship and sectionalism.

    The recent tide of events has made me question our priorities as a nation. Do we really care for accountable leadership? Or are we unconsciously sacrificing national values on the altar of tribalistic, sectionalist ideals and values. My first question is, is there a right time to tackle corruption? If yes, when is the best time? If no, why are we focused on the timing of the investigation and not the crime?

    I have a few more questions for my fellow citizens. Is the embattled Chief Justice Onnoghen innocent of the allegations levelled against him? My answer is yes, and he admitted to it by giving a flimsy excuse for it: “he forgot”. As the CJN, prior to his appointment, has he ever, as a member of the bench, an illustrious judge acquitted a guilty person on the basis of forgetfulness or ignorance? I remember the popular legal parlance “ignorance is not an excuse”, dare I ask the CJN if he is not aware of this?

    Let us be honest with ourselves: is Chief Justice Onnoghen the only high-profile person occupying office that the CCT has gone after? No, the number three citizen, president of the Senate, Bukola Saraki sat in office throughout his investigation, and is still occupying that position after the investigation. The fact is, no one has come out to say the CJN is innocent. The ordinary Nigerian, various professionals, his fellow legal luminaries and other high-profile individuals have not denied his wrongdoings.

    Here is the procedure stipulated by the 1999 Constitution for the removal of judicial officers from office: The Third Schedule, Part 1 of the 1999 Constitution stipulates how a judicial officer may be removed from office. It states: “The National Judicial Council (NJC) shall have power to recommend to the President the removal from office of the judicial officers specified in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers.

    The officers listed therein are the CJN, Justices of the Supreme Court, the President and Justices of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judges and Judges of the Federal High Court.  iIn Section 292 paragraph 1, there are four points. It says the Chief Justice can be removed by the President for unfitness for office, either physical, mental, misconduct and, finally, that he has broken the Code of Conduct.”

    The President can remove him if he does all this. Before removing him, he has to send his name to the Senate and if the Senate adopts the proposal of the President by two-thirds of the majority, then the President can finally remove him.

    Now the question is: why did he suspend him before sending his name to the Senate? The answer is, he has not removed him. He has merely suspended him because there is serious charge against him and he ought not to be in office. He will now send the name to the Senate and it will be deliberated upon. If they confirm the President’s charge, then that is when he stands removed.

    If they fail to confirm it, then the CJN is restored to office. This is an imminently fair and balanced approach, especially given that the constitution and other laws really do not provide clear guidance in how to proceed in a case whether the CJN is the defendant under this unique fact pattern” (Bola Ahmed Tinubu, January 28, 2019) if the CJN is exonerated, then he will return to his position.

    I am tired of the reckless and ignorant bickering coming from and within the opposition party about the legality of this suspension. The truth still remains that the majority of this mudslinging is coming from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), who for selfish reasons have decided to tie a rope around the average Nigerians’ neck and figuratively lead them to the slaughterhouse. It is important that the certain elements within the PDP recheck their dictionaries, and possibly the constitution before they come out guns blazing, carrying cutlasses to a gunfight.

    They need to research, and ascertain the difference between being sacked and being conditionally suspended. In this case, this conditional suspension is on the basis of exoneration. We see the reach of anti-nationalistic tendencies in the PDP as they capitalise on the delicate nature of this case, cause political mayhem in the country by sponsoring the rapid spread of panic, screaming at the rooftop,tyranny, tyranny.

    There is an admission of guilt on the CJN’s part, a clear indication that of a wrongdoing, some may even argue an indication of corruption. Should we then turn a blind-eye to this misconduct because it is a sin that is familiar to the PDP? Or ignore it because “it is wrong timing”?.

    Then again why is the PDP after the reinstatement of the CJN, especially before the elections my compatriots? Have we all wondered? Is it coming from a place of love or great concern for our great nation?

    It is so disheartening that after courageously standing up to the British to gain independence from their colonization, we, at the slightest internal conflict or disagreement go knocking on the doors of the European Union (EU), United States or the very British that we fought for our independence.

    It is similar to couples consistently and constantly seeking the input of in-laws, siblings, friends and community members for help on every small domestic matter. Over time, that marriage will become public property. We are an independent nation, how long will our elected officials keep soliciting foreign interference in our national/domestic politics?

    In conclusion, I would advise Nigerians, foot soldiers, the Peoples democratic Party (PDP), and agents of mass propaganda, to focus on campaigning with facts rather than half-baked truths, unscrupulous and unbecoming information. We cannot over-emphasise the power of social media and publicity in campaigns, but it is also important to know that elections are not won on social media.

     

    • Ezerika is Coordinator, All Progressive Congress (APC), Sweden.

     

     

  • Onnoghen: Sagay knocks senior lawyers for ‘misleading public’

    Eminent professor of law Itse Sagay (SAN) has accused some senior lawyers of misleading the public by claiming that suspended 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.

    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 was 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.