The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Onnoghen’s suspension

  • Supreme Court rejects Cross River’s suit against Onnoghen’s suspension, trial

    The Supreme Court has rejected a suit by the home state of the immediate past Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen – Cross River State – faulting his suspension from office by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    President Buhari had, upon an ex-parte order issued by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on January 23 this year, suspended Onnoghen from office pending the conclusion of his trial before the CCT on charges of breach of Code of Conduct for Public Officers.

    Onnoghen remained on suspension until he retired and was, on April 18 this year , convicted by the CCT after finding that he did not declare some of his assets.

    In a judgment on yesterday,  six members of a seven-man panel of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Olabode Rhoes-Vivour, held that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, because the Attorney General of Cross-River State, in whose name the suit was instituted, lacked the requisite locus standi to initiate the case.

    The lead judgment, authored by Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, was read by Justice Paul Galumje, where he also said  the Supreme Court was not the appropriate forum to ventilate whatever grievances the plaintiff may have in relation to the cause of action.

    The lead judgment, which five other members of the panel agreed with, upheld the preliminary objection raised against the suit by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and struck out it (the suit) without examining the merit, on the grounds that it had earlier held  that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Justice Ariwoola said: “The plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute this action, which in turn renders the Supreme Court incompetent to adjudicate on it.

    “The preliminary objection is sustained and this action, without any further ado, is liable to be struck out. This, to say the least, is not the appropriate court for any any aggrieved party to ventilate whatever grievance is said to exist. That is, the suspension of the Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen, GCON, from office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    “Having come to the above irresistible conclusion, there is no need to further consider the merit of the originating summons filed by the plaintiff. The preliminary objection succeeds and it is upheld. In the final analysis, this suit is hereby struck out.”

    Those who agreed with the lead judgment are Justices Rhodes-Vivour, Dattijo Muhammad, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, Inyang Okoro and Sidi Bage (who retired recently to become the Emir of Lafia, Nasarawa State).

    He was said to have written his contribution to the judgment before he retired.

    Justice Mary Odili, however, dissented and wrote the minority judgment, in which she struck the preliminary objection filed by the AGF and assumed jurisdiction over the case.

    She  held that Cross Rivers State, Onnoghen’s home state, has the locusý standi to sue, and that the Supreme Court is the appropriate forum to institute such suit.

    Justice Odili further held that the January 23, 2019 ex-parte order of the CCT, on which President Buhari relied to suspend Onnoghen, was unlawful, because the tribunal had no jurisdiction, in the first place, to entertain the charge brought against the ex-CJN by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    She was of the view that, Onnoghen being a judicial officer, the case made against him by the CCB ought to have been taken before the National Judicial Council (NJC) first before any trial could be conducted at any other forum.

    Justice Odili said:”In my judgment, I dissent. I do not want to agree with the lead judgment. I see no merit in the preliminary objection as the Cross River State Government has the locus standi to bring this action.

    “On my part, I dismiss the preliminary objection.I went into the merit and came to the conclusion and answered all the questions raised affirmatively.

    “I went further to say that the justification of obeying the ex parte order to which the subject of the order, Justice Onnoghen, was not given a hearing, is a lame excuse since the Code of Conduct Tribunal itself ought not to venture into the matter.

    “In the first place, the first port of call about the complaint against a judicial officer is the National Judicial Council before going to the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    “The originating summons is successful, in my view.The plaintiff is entitled to all the prayers it seeks,” Odili said.

    The plaintiff’s lawyer, Lucious Nwosu (SAN), had, while arguing the case on February 28, 2019, contended that the Supreme Court was the proper forum for the case to be decided because the issue at stake was not personal to Onnoghen but a violation of the Constitution.

    He said since the case was brought by Cross River 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.

    “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, who urged the court to reject the preliminary objection filed by the defendants – the AGF and Federal Republic of Nigeria – 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 said.

    In a counter argument, defendants’ lawyer, Dayo Apata (Solicitor General of the Federation and Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Justice), had urged the court to uphold his objection and dismiss this suit, marked: SC/45/2019.

    Apata queried the plaintiff’s locus standi and argued that the subject matter did not qualify as a dispute between the Federal Government and a state government.

    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 correct 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.

    The Cross River State Government had,  in the suit marked: SC/45/2019, queried the propriety of Onnoghen’s suspension and trial before the CCT.

    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.

    The plaintiff prayed the Supreme Court to, among others, declare the suspension and trial  illegal on the grounds that it was only the National Judicial Council (NJC) that could exercise disciplinary powers over a serving judge.

    The state urged 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.

  • 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.

  • ‘Why Onnoghen’s suspension was necessary’

    An Aba lawyer and former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Legal Adviser Victor C. Nwaugo argues that the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has the jurisdiction to try Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen without recourse to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    On January 25, President Muhammadu Buhari suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN),  Hon. Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen pending final determination of the case of breach of code of conduct for public officers preferred against him by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    He has since taken his plea after the CCT issued a bench warrant for his arrest.

    The suspension generated mixed reactions by cross sections of Nigerians.

    However, many lawyers see the announcement by the President as a breach of constitutional procedure in suspending a CJN. It is in reaction to the constitutional provision on the issue in point that necessitated this write-up.

    By clear provisions of Section 5 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, the executive powers of the federation shall be vested in the President and may be exercised by him either directly or through the vice president, ministers or officers in the public service of the federation.

    Pursuant to the powers of the president in Section 5 above referred, Section 153 (1) created federal executive bodies through which the president exercises his executive powers.

    Two of such bodies are the National Judicial Council (NJC) and Code of Conduct Bureau.

    Paragraphs 1-4 of Part 1, Third Schedule to the Constitution provides duties and functions of CCB.

    Such duties include receipt of complaint against a public officer, investigating such complaint and preferring a charge at the CCTin the case where the Bureau finds a prima facie case against such public officer.

    Similarly, paragraphs 20-22, Part 1 of Third Schedule to the Constitution created the NJC with membership, powers and functions.

    Two of its functions include recommending to the President, the removal from office of a judicial officer specified in subparagraph 21 (a), one of whom is the CJN including exercising disciplinary control over judicial officers.

    By the provisions of Section 292 (1) (b), a Judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement except by the President acting on recommendation of the NJC that the Judicial officer be so removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment or for misconduct or contravention of code of conduct for Judicial officers.

    Under this subsection, the President can only remove the CJN if he is found to:  (i)          Be unable to discharge the functions of his office or appointment; (ii) Committed acts of misconduct (note that misconduct for a judicial officer is such acts like taking bribe, soliciting for bribe for himself or a brother judge); (iii)      Contravention of the code of conduct or otherwise called Judicial Ethics and Bench Comportment.

    Such code includes, not to be found in the company of persons of questionable character unless by virtue of marriage, dressing strangely, use of foul language or un-couth language, quick and irritable conduct and condescending to meddle with court processes.

    In the case of BAKARE vs. APENA (1986), a Judge who visited the chambers of counsel in a matter to serve hearing notice was adjudge to have infracted the code of conduct for judicial officers.

    I also refer to Judicial Ethics and Bench Comportment; Perspectives from the Bar and Bench, edited by Hon. Justice Umaru Eri, OFR.

    It is in reference to complaint against judicial officers, which includes the CJN under Section 292 (1) (b) that the principles of law established in the case of Nganjiwa takes position to support the argument that a CJN under such allegation must appear and be investigated by NJC and only NJC before such a Judicial officer could be removed from his appointment or office.

    This argument is so in that Section 292 (1) (a) (i) does not contemplate any role for NJC in the removal of a judicial officer where the removal is founded within the subsection.

     

    ‘President as head of government’

     

    It should be borne in mind that by combined reading of Sections 5 and 130 of the Constitution, the President is the head of government and the highest public officer in Nigeria.

    He exercises all the executive powers of the federation by executing and administering national laws and policies by himself and through executive bodies, agencies, boards, committees, commissioners, ministries and advisers.

    It is pursuant to these powers that Section 153 established the CCB and NJC as executive bodies.

    While I agree that paragraph 21 of Third Schedule to the Constitution clearly empowered NJC to exercise disciplinary control over Judicial officers mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of Paragraph 21 of Third Schedule, it does not override the clear provision of Section 292 (1) (b) (i) which does not create any role for NJC in the removal of a Judicial officer or CJN.

    All that this subsection requires is a two third support of members of the Senate to the address of the President praying that the holder of the office of CJN be removed.

    Again, where the CCB receives complaint of non-compliance with the code of conduct provisions for public officers, investigates the complaint and refers such matters to the CCT and the CCT pursuant to paragraph 18 of 5th Schedule to the Constitution finds the Chief Justice who is a public officer by virtue of Part II Paragraph 5 to the 5th Schedule to the Constitution, guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of that code, the CCT may impose such punishment including vacation of office.

    If it is not so, it then will mean that Judicial officers who failed to declare their assets and liabilities would not be subject to CCB and CCT as once NJC acting pursuant to Section 292 (1) (b) recommends to the President that the Judicial officer so recommended for removal is quickly removed by the president, the Judicial officer ceases to be a public officer therefore cannot be subject to CCB and CCT.

     

    ‘CJN subject to both NJC and CCB’

     

    It is important to note that the CJN is both a judicial officer and a public officer who is subject to investigation by both NJC and Code of Conduct Bureau independently depending on the nature of the complaint against him.

    Where the complaint against the CJN is purely based on failure to declare his assets and liabilities, NJC or any other body is ousted from investigating or trying him except the CCB and CCT. I refer to the Supreme Court case of AHMED vs. AHMED (2013).

    In this case, the Supreme Court held that Fifth Schedule to the Constitution has in Paragraph 12 provided for what would occur in the event of any violations of code of conduct for public officers.

    The Supreme Court at pages 228-229 of Vol. 231 of LRCN in Ahmed vs. Ahmed held that the constitution has made it compulsory to take any matter so covered by the 5th Schedule to the Code of Conduct Tribunal and not to any other regular court.

    The Supreme Court said that it is only Code of Conduct Tribunal that has been established with the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all violations contravening any provisions of the Code as per paragraph 15 (1).

    To put this matter beyond argument, let me expressly state that there are three circumstances in which a Chief Justice of Nigeria may be removed from his appointment or office namely: (i)  Under Section 292 (1) (a) (i): In this case, the President acting on an address supported by two third majority of the Senate can remove the CJN from his office or appointment before the age of his retirement.

    Under this sub-section, the Chief Justice would not have committed any misconduct, contravened any code of conduct or failed to discharge the functions of his office or appointment.

    The Chief Justice may be removed because of public peace, public policy, ethnic balance or other similar consideration or where such Chief Justice had taken a nude picture with a harlot in his youth age not being a Judge and before ascending to such office and the scandal becomes public after taking oath of office.

    Secondly, under Section 292 (1) (b), the CJN may be removed by the President acting on the recommendation of the NJC for his inability to discharge the functions of his office and or for misconduct or contravention of the code of conduct for judicial officers.

     

    ‘When NJC can act’

     

    Under this subsection, if there is a petition against the CJN on misconduct, inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment or contravention of the code of conduct for judicial officers, the petition goes to NJC.

    It is under this circumstance that the case of Nkangiwa and Hon. Justice Theresa Uzokwe and Hon. Obiseke Orji come in because the retired Justice Obiseke Orji ought to know that only the NJC has powers to discipline a Judicial officer when the complaint is with Section 292 (1) (b) and not the Abia State House of Assembly.

     

    ‘When CCT can act’

     

    The third circumstance in which a CJN could be removed from his appointment or office is founded under paragraphs 3 (a)-(e), Part 1 of Third Schedule of the Constitution, Paragraph 12, Part I of Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, Paragraph 18 (1) (2) (a) and Paragraph 5, Part II of fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

    Under these paragraphs, where there is a complaint that a public officer has committed a breach of code of conduct for public officers by his failure to declare his assets and liabilities as required under paragraph II, Part I of Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, such complaint shall be sent to CCB, which is empowered to receive complaint for failure to comply with provisions of the code of conduct, investigate the complaint and where appropriate, refer such matter to the CCT for adjudication.

    Where the CCT finds the public officer guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of the code, it shall impose upon that officer any of the punishment specified under sub-paragraph 18 which includes vacation of office (see paragraph 18 (2) (a) ).

     

    ‘Who is a public officer?’

     

    The question is: who is a public officer for the purpose of paragraph 11 of Part I to 5th Schedule of the Constitution? The answers are founded within paragraph 19 of Part I and Part II, paragraphs 1-16 of 5th Schedule of the Constitution.

    However, for the purpose of this topic, I shall restrict myself to paragraphs 19 of Part I of Fifth Schedule, which is the interpretation section that defines a public officer to be a person holding any of the offices specified in Part II of Schedule 5.

    Part II at paragraph 5 named the office of CJN among other judicial officers as public officers for the purpose of declaration of assets and liabilities.

    It is in this respect that the case of AHMED vs. AHMED comes handy to resolve the issue that only CCT has the exclusive jurisdiction on the issue of none declaration of assets and liabilities.

    Another question on issue in point is whether it is proper for the President of Nigeria to have suspended the CJN pursuant to the order of CCT? By clear provision of Section 11 of the Interpretation Act, which provides that where an enactment confers a power to appoint a person either to an office or to exercise any function, whether for a specific period or not, the power includes power to remove or suspend him. Section 231 of the Constitution empowers the President to appoint the CJN.

    So, since the CCT is the only authority empowered to adjudicate such matters, it is, therefore, proper that CCT is also the authority that can give order to the President to suspend or order the occupant of such office to vacate.

     

    ‘Did Buhari err?’

     

    The question may be asked whether by the President suspending the CJN when he is yet to be found guilty by CCT, his right to be heard has not been breached or whether that does not amount to punishment before the judgment of his case?

    In the case of LONGE vs. FBN PLC (2010), the Supreme Court held that suspension is not demotion and does not entail a diminution of the right of the employee given him under the law.

    In that circumstance, suspension of Hon. Justice Onnoghen is a deserving circumstance in the case to enable the CCT hear and determine the case given the fact that several courts, such as the Federal High Court, Federal Capital Territory High Court and even Industrial Court, all under the direct influence of the CJN, had given several injunctive orders, purportedly restraining the CCT from further hearing of the trial even when the laws, statute and case law barred them from hearing such matter.

    President Buhari must be commended for acting to save the Judiciary and the image of our dear country which was fast being reduced into a circus.

    All that was required of Hon. Justice Onnoghen was to appear before the CCT to explain or defend the allegations against him. But he allowed misguided and partisan interest to take better part of his reasoning before he was compelled to appear through an arrest warrant.

    It should be noted that in England, a Lord Chancellor, Lord Francis Bacon was convicted of corruption and Lord Macclesfied was reputed for his prolific demands for pecuniary aggrandisement.

    However, when they were summoned to appear before the court to defend themselves, they never attempted to pull down England.

  • CCT Chair truly answerable only to Presidency, says NBA

    …..Pleads with FG to stop Onnoghen’s CCT trial

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) said on Tuesday that it agreed with the argument by the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal ( CCT ), Danladi Uma that he and his tribunal were not answerable to the Judiciary, but the Presidency.

    NBA, in a statement issued on Tuesday by its President, Paul Usoro (SAN), said Umar was correct in that argument, but contended that the fact that the CCT was under the control of the Executive informs the urgent need to discontinue charge of breach of code of conduct pending against the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen before the CCT.

    It said: “the Chairman of the CCT, Hon. Danladi Umar, in his response to a petition that was written against him and which was forwarded to him by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) states emphatically that he and his tribunal are answerable and report only to the Presidency, by law and practice. He is absolutely correct.

    “An insistence, in the circumstance, on the CJN, the head of an independent arm of the FGN, standing trial before a tribunal that is under the Presidency and is answerable only to the Presidency, mocks the concept of and completely erodes the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional separation that should exist between the three arms of the FGN.

    “It is precisely for this reason that our Constitution created the NJC and we are pleased that the FGN has warmed up to the utilization of that due process, as illustrated by the submission of the EFCC petition to the council.”

    NBA’s new intervention in the case is coming a day before the resumption of proceedings in the case before the CCT.

    The Chairman of the CCT, Danladi Umar had, at the last proceedings on February 4 this year, insisted that Onnoghen must appear before the tribunal in person before any further businesses could be conducted in the charge pending against him (Onnoghen).

    Umar gave the directive 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.”

    Read Also: Onnoghen to CCT chair: you’re a biased, tainted arbiter

    Also on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal in Abuja failed to hear the three appeals filed suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    The appellate court had in late January adjourned on February 12, 2019 for the hearing of the appeals

    But, when lawyers to parties got to court on Tuesday, the court could not form quorum (of three Justices) for the purpose of hearing the appeals.

    Parties were told to await information, on a later date, on when the hearing is to be rescheduled.

    The appeals are against the decisions of the Code of Conduct to assume jurisdiction over the charge pending against Onnoghen and the ex-parte injunction granted by the CCT, and on which President Muhammadu Buhari acted to suspend Onnoghen.

    The statement by the NBA reads: “Ahead of the adjourned proceedings in the above-named matter before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (“CCT”), scheduled for tomorrow, February 13, 2019, the Nigerian Bar Association again urges the Executive arm of the Federal Government of Nigeria (“FGN”) to discontinue this Charge against the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honorable Mr. Justice Walter S N Onnoghen, GCON (“CJN”) for the following reasons, amongst others:

    “First, as widely reported, one of the two petitions against the CJN that is currently before the National Judicial Council (“NJC” or “Council”) is an exact replica of the petition that motivated the CCT Charge.

    “The second petition was reportedly presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), an FGN agency. We commend the FGN for adhering to due process by submitting the EFCC petition to the NJC for consideration.

    “In like manner and in adherence to the law and due process, we urge the FGN to discontinue the CCT Charge and allow the NJC consider the initial petition which, as widely reported, has already been responded to by the CJN.

    “Second, the Chairman of the CCT, Hon. Danladi Umar, in his response to a petition that was written against him and which was forwarded to him by the Federal Judicial Service Commission, states emphatically that he and his tribunal are answerable and report only to the Presidency, by law and practice. He is absolutely correct.

    “An insistence, in the circumstance, on the CJN, the head of an independent arm of the FGN, standing trial before a tribunal that is under the Presidency and is answerable only to the Presidency, mocks the concept of and completely erodes the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional separation that should exist between the three arms of the FGN.

    “It is precisely for this reason that our Constitution created the NJC and we are pleased that the FGN has warmed up to the utilization of that due process, as illustrated by the submission of the EFCC petition to the Council.

    “Third, and complementary to the two points afore-stated is the fact that the spectacle of having our CJN, while still holding that title, in the dock before the CCT or any other court, truly diminishes all of us, not least the Executive arm of the FGN.

    “The NJC process allows an initial determination to be made on the petitions against the CJN and if His Lordship is found liable or wanting howsoever, appropriate sanctions would be imposed by the NJC including recommendation for his dismissal or retirement.

    “In that event, he would no longer hold the office or title of CJN and could be prosecuted for any criminal infraction before the CCT or any other Court.

    “An insistence on the CCT prosecution paints a picture of persecution of the CJN by the Executive and such a spectacle in no way ennobles the FGN Executive arm and/or its officials. Such a scenario should be avoided by all means.

    “Given these non-exhaustive considerations and facts, we press on the Executive arm of the FGN to please discontinue the Charge against the CJN when the matter comes up before the CCT tomorrow, Wednesday, 13 February 2019.

    “We respectfully urge full compliance with due process by FGN in this matter by allowing the NJC process to take its course in respect of the two petitions against the CJN – a step that has already, commendably, been embraced by FGN in respect of the EFCC petition.”

  • Onnoghen’s suspension: Senate APC caucus seeks to join suit

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) Senate Caucus Monday applied to the Supreme Court to be joined in the suit filed by the Senate challenging the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    The application of the APC Caucus to be joined in the suit is coming despite the withdrawal of the suit by the leadership of the upper chamber.

    The Senate President, Bukola Saraki, had in a statement said that they decided to discontinue the case due to the intervention of the National Judicial Council (NJC) in the matter.

    Senate Leader, Senator Ahmad Lawan, in another statement, said that the APC caucus decided to join in the suit to challenge the inclusion of its members by the leadership.

    Read Also: Onnoghen’s suspensionnot signal to dictatorship – FG

    The statement reads: “The Senate caucus ‎of the All Progressives Congress (APC), consisting 56 senators, being the majority party in the Senate, today Monday, 4th February, 2019, applied to the Supreme Court, to join in the suit purportedly filed by the Senate, against the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as interested parties.

    “The APC senators rely on the Supreme Court (Additional ‎Original Jurisdiction) Act of 2002, which provides that the resolution of the respective chambers of the National Assembly is a prerequisite of filing such suit.

    “The caucus is therefore challenging the said suit and objects to the inclusion of its members.”

    It is not clear whether the Senate APC caucus application to be joined in the suit was made before the Senate withdrew the suit.

    It is also not clear if the caucus will insist on going ahead with the suit.

  • More groups back Onnoghen’s suspension

    By Emmanuel Oladesu, Abdulgafar Alabelewe, Kaduna; Rosemary Nwisi, Port Harcourt; Osagie Otabor, Bénin; Grace Obike, Gbenga Omokhunu, Abuja and Adebisi Onanuga

    The controversy over the suspension of Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen did not abate yesterday.  Many expressed divergent views on the issue.

    Kaduna State chapter of the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, (SCSN) urged Southsouth governors and the Coalition of United Political Parties, (CUPP) to stop their agitation over Onnoghen’s suspension.

    At a news conference jointly addressed by its Chairman, Sheikh Sambo Rigachikun and Secretary, AbdurRahman, SCSN warned that further agitation over the matter would be of no benefit.

    They called on the Federal government not to succumb to any form of pressure from ‘some quarters,’ that may amount to breakdown of law and order and do all it could within the constitutional provision to lay the issue to rest.

    The Muslim body said it is expected of the National Judicial Council, (NJC) to discharge its duty at all cost by making appropriate decision against any judicial officer that is unfit and improper to be a judicial officer in the land, as the trust is on them.

    They warned  those attempting to give the appointment of Acting Chief Justice Tanko Muhammad and other happenings in the judiciary a religious colouration to be mindful of the fact that; “that is a costly trend, it’s an ill wind that will blow no one good, in this country.

    The Shariah Council said: “It is disheartening that the same Senior Advocates that saw the suspension and removal of Justice Salami are now faulting the similar action against Justice Onnoghen. How can a Senior Advocate degrade himself to think within the whim of his ethnicity and religious sentiment?  This is unfortunate.

    “It is quiet fresh in our memory when the then President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Isa Ayo Salami faced the same fate of suspension and removal not on allegation if corruption from his side under the Jonathan’s admistration , but because he tried in his own way to uphold justice,  unfortunately it did not go down well with the then administration.

    “It is a fact that the same administration also suspended the then CBN Governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi for whistle blowing on some missing funds.  Heavens did not fall. No any Muslim protested that his own was removed illegally, simply because he acted patriotically in favor of our dear nation, “the Muslim body recalled.

    The council however urged all Muslims   and the public in general, to be law abiding and pray fervently for peaceful coexistence in the country.

     

    Lawyers politicising CCT trial, says Opadokun

     

    The leader of the Movement for Value Restoration (MVR), Ayo Opadokun, yesterday said Justice Onnoghen and senior lawyers are politicising the trial of the apex jurist by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    He cautioned against what he described as a deliberate misinterpretation of the constitution to suit a particular agenda, adding that the law on asset declaration is unambiguous.

    Opadokun said the violation of that law by the chief justice is a matter for trial by the CCT, wondering why senior lawyers are insisting that the matter should first be reported to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    He said: “The violation of the declaration of assets provisions as contained in the Fifth Schedule, Part 1 of the 1999 Constitution was a misconduct not done in the performance of Justice Onnoghen’s official duty. It is therefore, not a matter constitutionally expected to be referred to the National Judicial Council (NJC) as is being wrongly suggested by political opponents of the government and perharps, innocently by those who are ignorant of the law.”

    Opadoun said the insistence that the matter should be reported to the NJC meant that the body has been invested with the “police power of investigation.”

    He reminded the pro-Onnoghen lawyers who claimed to be fighting due process that Onnoghen is not covered by the immunity provision in the constitution.

    Opadokun told reporters in Lagos  that it is curious that Onnoghe wanted to remain in office as chief justice, despite admitting that in his own statement that he had violated the law.

    He queried: “How can Justice Onnoghen preside over any matter violating the provisions of the constitution when he has been caught red-handed as a violator, but hoping to hang on unfounded technicality to remain in office?”

    The lawyer and pro-democracy activist said the argument against time has no legal basis, except an intention to politicize constitutional violation, adding that tie does not run against the state in criminal prosecution.

    He said some lawyers have pretended to be defending the rule of law, although they are are fighting for self–preservation because they are facing criminal prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Opadokun alleged that a partisan directive on court boycott was manipulated in a way to make it appear as the decision of the Nigeria bar Association (NBA), thereby causing division at the bar.

    He chided the United States and the United Kingdom for meddling in Nigeria’s affairs at a time the US government is trampling of democracy through the disenfranchisement of the minority groups.

     

    ‘Legal profession, judiciary on trial’

     

    For Nigeria’s first female Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mrs Folake Solanke, the legal profession and judiciary are on trial.

    Solanke, who spoke at a special valedictory court session organised by the Oyo State judiciary in honour of the late Justice Dulcie Oguntoye, said the development arose because the profession was engulfed in corruption and needed reformation to restore its golden age.

    Solanke said Nigeria was troubled and groaning under the trauma and tragedy that led to the suspension of  Onnoghen.

    She said the legal profession had monumental challenges and needed to reform itself because the profession was supposed to be in the forefront of the war against corruption.

    “There is professional lamentation in the land and the bar and the bench must rise up to their professional responsibilities to cleanse the filthy augean stable of Nigeria.

    “I can only appeal again to the professional reprobates to stop polluting the stream of justice.

    “Their egregious conduct inflicts mud on and taints the innocent with corruption.

    ‘However, not only the erring lawyers or judges are to be blame, the people who corrupt them must also share in the infamy which engulfs the profession.

    “Sadly,  the legislature, executive, law enforcement agencies and the private sector are also tainted with corruption,’’ Solanke said.

    She called on the NBA and body of SANs  to find a solution to the challenges in the judiciary.

     

    Free-for-all at Court of Appeal in Rivers

     

    There was a rowdy session at the Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt yesterday as some party supporters attacked and beat up the Port Harcourt branch chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Sylvester Adaka.

    Trouble started when some lawyers under the aegis of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), led by Adaka stormed the court to appeal to a sitting Judge to adjourn proceedings for the day.

    The presiding Judge, Justice A. A. Gumel, condemned and cautioned the lawyers, accusing them of desecrating the temple of justice.

    Gumel said: “Lawyers who are ministers of the court which is the temple of justice should not desecrate it by turning the courts into a public square, where lawyers will carry placards to disrupt court proceedings.”

    He said he was in the court just to take records of processes but will hear motions at an adjourned date.

    But when members of the NBA insisted that the day’s sitting be adjourned, some party supporters who were in court attacked the NBA chairman and other lawyers who were with him.

    The matters slated for the day were the controversial All Progressives Party (APC) appeals over its participation in the general elections.

    The court later took record of five different afterwards; all the cases are to stay execution of the judgment of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt.

    Justice Gumel adjourned all appeals till January 31 for hearing of motion on notice.

    The Rivers All Progressives Congress’ candidate, Tonye Cole who was in court, condemned the episode, describing it as unfortunate.

    He said: “I was in Ccourt and it is very unfortunate that we can see this kind of disruption. The judge started off by saying essentially that he will hear the matters before him and adjourn, but the court should just take record of the process and I think that was an honourable thing to do, saying that they will record the process for today and hear the motion on an adjourned date.

    “I think what happened in court today was unfortunate and I don’t think it speaks well of the NBA.”

    Adaka said the lawyers were in court to peacefully boycott proceedings of the court as directed by its national secretariat and national executive committee before he was attacked.

    Rivers APC, through its Publicity Secretary, Chris Finebone, and Cole/Giadom Campaign Organisation, through its Spokesman, Ogbonna Nwuke, condemned the actions of the violence in court.

    The Rivers State Commissioner for Information and Communications, Emma Okah, who doubles as the Director of Information and Communications of Rivers PDP Campaign Council, also faulted the violence, exonerating his party.

    Rivers APC said: “The two lawyers, who are appointees of Wike, led PDP thugs to assault innocent witnesses in the Appeal Court of Justice Ali Gumel in Port Harcourt today (yesterday).

    “Trouble started after the lawyers of Rivers State chapter of PDP presented their matter before the Justice Gumel appeal panel. Later, the court called the matter between the Rivers State chapter of APC and Senator Magnus Abe (Rivers Southeast). As counsel to parties announced their presence and presentations commenced, the two lawyers led a group of PDP thugs into the courtroom and they started attacking lawyers and witnesses, claiming that the court should not sit, in compliance with NBA’s courts’ boycott.

    “APC members, who were eager to have the matter heard by the appeal panel, were not spared by the hoodlums. Apart from the judges, the PDP thugs assaulted everyone in the courtroom. All pleas by Justice Ali Gumel and his colleagues fell on deaf ears, as the thugs kept shouting that the sitting must not hold, even as they continued the physical attack.

    “Lawyers are supposed to be keepers and protectors of laws, but it is shameful that those who should protect the law and act as stakeholders in the quest for justice, chose to desecrate the sanctity of the very temple of justice they are supposed to protect. It is sad.”

    Cole/Giadom campaign organisation also stated that the protesting lawyers who stormed the Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt were accompanied by undesirable and violent elements, who it insisted were not part of the legal profession.

    The campaign organisation said: “We are aware that lawyers have been sharply divided over the boycott order issued by the NBA at this time, on account of the consequences that such an order would have on the rights of litigants and other court users.

    “We  are shocked by the infiltration of the courtroom by the protesting lawyers, serving Rivers State government officials and thugs. That the men, who should have respect for the law, stormed a court in session, is condemnable.”

     

    NBA boycott directive stalls Onnoghen’s case in Industrial Court

     

    The courts’ boycott stalled the hearing of a suit challenging the trial of Justice Onnoghen. The suit, which is challenging the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) , was slated for hearing at the National Industrial Court, Abuja.

    The court had on January 14 granted an interim order brought via a motion exparte application against the Tribunal by Peter Abang, lawyer.

    At the resumed hearing of the substantive suit, Justice Sanusi Kado informed the defendant counsel, Abdullahi Abubakar representing the Attorney-General of the Federation that there was a letter from the claimant’s counsel before the court.

    Kado also said the letter from the counsel, James Igwe (SAN), asked for a new date, adding that his absence was due to NBA’s directive to lawyers to boycott courts in protest of Onnoghen’s suspension.

    The judge adjourned the matter until February 7 and directed that hearing notices should be served on all parties.

     

    NBA Ikeja chair escapes ‘contempt of court’

     

    Ikeja NBA Chairman Prince Dele Oloke yesterday escaped contempt of the court while attempting to force lawyers to boycott the courts.

    The incident happened at an Ikeja Special Offences Court where Justice Sherifat Solebo was sitting over a matter.

    A meeting of the NBA National Executive Council (NEC) had on Monday ordered a boycott of the courts in protest against the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen by the federal government.

    At about 10.17am, Prince Oloke, leading an NBA taskforce to stop the proceedings in of Justice Solebo’s court in an attempt to enforce the court.

    His attempt to enforce the order led to a heated exchange of words between him and  Justice Solebo.

    Seeing Prince Oloke, Justice Solebo cautioned him against interrupting proceedings.

    “I would not entertain any interruption in my court. We know the rules of court, Mr Oloke be properly guided”, Justice Solebo said.

    The judge further stated: “The National Judicial Council (NJC) has not directed that judges should not sit, neither has the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) shut the door.

    “I am still in charge of this court, Mr Oloke.  What you are doing is contemptuous,” Justice Solebo said.

    At this stage, Prince Oloke turned to lawyers in the courtroom and reminded them that the directive of the NBA was still in force and urged them to comply and to leave the courtroom.

    In spite of his stance on the boycott, lawyers in the matter stayed back to continue the proceedings.

    The NBA taskforce was also unable to stop the proceedings at Justice Abiola Soladoye’s courtroom of Ikeja Domestic Violence and Sexual Offences Court.

    The judge had concluded proceedings and was about to rise for the day when the task force arrived her court.

    The proceedings of Justice Mojisola Dada of a Special Offences Court could also not be stopped by Oloke and the task force because the judge was delivering a judgment at the time they got there.

    Most of the judges at the Ikeja High Court adjudicated over cases in their dockets while litigants and counsel appeared before them. It was also ‘business as usual’ at Justice Candide-Johnson court house, Ikorodu as lawyers and litigants went about their businesses peacefully.

     

    ‘Suspension of CJN disregard to constitution’

     

    Wake up Nigeria Group, a group championing the cause of good governance, has described the CJN’s suspension as abuse and utter disregard to the constitution.

    The group, in a statement by its Chairperson, Maryam Yusuf,  said: “The recent suspension of the CJN, Hon Justice Walter Onnogen by President Buhari, three weeks to the general elections, is the zenith of abuse and utter disregard to the constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria that brought him to power in 2015.

    “It is a fact beyond contradiction that those whom the gods want to destroy, they first make mad, this timeless axiom summarises the miserable state of the self-acclaimed gatekeeper of our dear nation.

    “The Constitution, which is the ground norm for all actions and inactions of public office holders including the President, has not only been jettisoned; but cruelly slaughtered, murdered and the carcasses left to the demented disciples of the next level fallacy to consume while the nation hangs on the edge of precipice.”

     

    ‘ Buhari’s action amounts to judicial coup’ 

     

    National Christians Elders Forum (NCEF) also criticised the President, describing Justice Onnoghen’s suspension as a ‘judicial coup’.

    In a statement by the Chairman of NCEF, Solomon Asemota, (SAN), the group said: “The National Christian Elders Forum (NCEF) has noted another brazen attempt of the President Buhari Administration to establish its undemocratic character and sectional purpose in Government. That President Buhari would conduct what amounts to “judicial coup” is not surprising to the NCEF; what is surprising is the apparent unwillingness of Christians, as well as that of the generality of Nigerians, to understand the core problem of this country.

    “Since its inception, the NCEF has consistently sought to enlighten Nigerians that the problem of this country is simply the conflict between Democracy and Sharia. Until Nigerians understand that a section of the country is determined to truncate Democracy and enthrone Sharia as the National Ideology, they would not be able to address the recurring conflicts in the country.

    “The recurring distress in Nigeria is due to the fact that the country elected a President on the platform of Democracy who proceeded to run the country with Sharia Ideology. It is only with this awareness that the discriminatory and sectional policies of the present Administration can be understood.

    “It is Sharia that is at the root of the Jihad that has been launched in the country. Nigerians should realise that there is a deliberate attempt by the Islamists to truncate the Constitution and replace it with Sharia as the source of legislation.”

     

    ‘We don’t trust Buhari’

     

    The Middle Belt Forum (MBF) yesterday said with the removal of Chief of suspension of Justice Onnoghen, President Buhari cannot be trusted to uphold the constitution.

    It said the President had by his conduct breached the constitution, insisting that his action was capable of setting the country on the path of anarchy and avoidable civil war.

    The President of the MBF, Dr. Pogu Bitrus, in a statement in Abuja, urged the President to reinstate Justice Onnoghen or face rejection at the polls.

    He said: “We cannot trust President Muhammadu Buhari to be fair and just in carrying out his functions as the Commander in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria.

    “We call on him, having blatantly breached the Constitution which he swore to uphold and his Oath of Office, to immediately resign.

    “In the event of his refusal to do so, we call on all the peoples of the Middle Belt and all our allies to reject him at the polls.”

  • Security men chase away staff from Onnoghen’s office

    Security men, including police personnel on Monday, chased out staff working in the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).

    The sprawling office, with adjourning offices, occupied by CJN’s support staff, located at towards the back of the Supreme Court complex, was cleared on Monday morning by security men.

    The suspended CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen was not in the office when the incident happened.

    A source told The Nation that policemen arrived the CJN wing in the building around 7am and ordered every to leave.

    The source claimed the move was intended to prevent the suspended CJN from further accessing his office.

    “They came around 7 am and ordered everyone to leave. They did not tell us why. We were not able to return to our office again until we closed yesterday,” the source said.

    Meanwhile the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) adjourned indefinitely on Monday, proceedings in the case against Onnoghen.

    Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar announced the adjournment on Monday.

    He said the tribunal wished to await the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja in a motion for stay of proceedings filed by the CJN and on which arguments were taken on January 24 this year.

    Umar said the adjournment was in obedience of the interim order of stay of proceedings mad on January 24 by the Court of Appeal.

    The tribunal commenced sitting today at 11am, as against the usual practice where the tribunal sits by 10am.

    Read Also: Onnoghen’s suspension not signal to dictatorship – FG

    Also on Monday, the Supreme Court resumed normal duties without signs betraying the recent unceremonious change in its leadership

    The court opened for business at its usual time on Monday, while the court’s digital cause list was switched on at a little after 8 am, displayed the about 11 cases scheduled for hearing for the day.

    At exactly 9.13am, proceedings commenced in Court One of the Supreme Court, when a five-man panel, led by the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad began sitiing.

    The panel, which included Justices Mary Peter-Odili, Amiru Sanusi,Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and Paul Galinje conducted proceedings on cases.

  • Onnoghen’s suspension not signal to dictatorship – FG

    The Federal Government says the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen, does not signify the onset of dictatorship or tyranny, as some people have insinuated.

    The Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, who gave the explanation at a media briefing in Abuja on Monday, said that the suspension had nothing to do with the forthcoming elections.

    He said contrary to what the opposition and their likes had been saying, the CJN’s suspension was a consequence of his breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.

    He stressed that President Muhammadu Buhari “is an avowed democrat, which he has proven time and time again and the Administration stands firm on the rule of law’’.

    “It amounts to irresponsible extrapolation to say that the suspension of Justice Onnoghen is the onset of dictatorship.

    “This whole issue is about the country’s highest judicial officer, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, being accused of a breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and the legal and moral conundrum surrounding that.

    “It is about the suspicious transactions running into millions of dollars to the suspended CJN’s personal accounts, all undeclared or improperly declared as required by law.

    “It is about the Hon. Justice Onnoghen himself admitting to the charges that he indeed failed to follow the spirit and letter of the law in declaring his assets, calling it a ‘mistake’.

    “And it is about him refusing to take responsibility, instead opted to put the entire judiciary on trial,’’ he said.

    He said that the Government had given the embattled CJN the opportunity of fair hearing, but he abused his position and the judicial process by filing frivolous applications and even dodging service of process.

    The minister also said that the suspension of Onnoghen was not in anyway, a threat to the nation’s democracy or the country’s very existence.

    Read Also; Onnoghen: ‘Ensure diligent prosecution, not persecution’

    Quoting Lord Denning, the then Lord Justice of the British Court of Appeal, Mohammed said “a judge should in his own character be beyond reproach, or at any rate should have so disciplined himself that he is not himself a breaker of the law.

    He added: ”Nations fall when judges are unjust, because there is nothing which the multitude think worth defending.”

    The minister berated a section of the media for shirking their agenda-setting role and failing to objectively lead the discourse on the issue of the allegation facing the CJN and his subsequent suspension.

    “It is regrettable to note that the media, which should have led the discourse, has not done so. In fact, a section of the media has taken sides. Several newspapers have written editorials on this issue.

    “Some newspapers have employed rather crude and obnoxious language to push forth their opinions, while others have been more tempered.

    “But curiously, none has written from a perspective that shows that they understand the big picture,’’ he said.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that President Muhammadu Buhari had on Jan. 25 complied with the order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, directing the suspension of the CJN.

    The CJN was suspended pending the determination of the cases against him at the Code of Conduct Tribunal and several fora relating to his alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.

    The President, who announced Onnoghen’s suspension at the Council Chamber of the Presidential Villa, Abuja, on Friday consequently swore in Justice Tanko Mohammed as the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    Since then, there have been widespread reactions to the development from within and outside the country.

  • Breaking: Onnoghen: CCT adjourns trial indefinitely

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has adjourned indefinitely, proceedings in the case against the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar announced the adjournment on Monday. He said the tribunal wishes to await the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja in a motion for stay of proceedings filed by the CJN and on which arguments were taken on January 24 this year.

    Read Also: Lawyers protest Onnoghen ’s suspension

    Umar said the adjournment was in obedience of the interim order of stay of proceedings made on January 24 by the Court of Appeal.

    The tribunal commenced sitting today at 11 am, as against the usual practice where the tribunal sits by 10am.

    Details later…

     

  • Photos: Lawyers protest Onnoghen’s suspension

    Following the suspension of Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, Lawyers and some Civil Society Organisations have stormed the Nigerian Bar Association on Monday to protest.