The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Onnoghen’s trial

  • Breaking: Tribunal to decide whether or not Onnoghen defends charges

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has scheduled ruling for 1.30pm on Friday in the no-case submission made by suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Wanter Onnoghen.

    Onnoghen is being tried for non-declaration of asset, in a six-count charge instituted by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar announced, after taking arguments from parties this morning, in relation to the no-case-submission, announced that ruling would be delivered this afternoon.

    Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) who argued for Onnoghen, urged the tribunal to discharge and acquit his client on the grounds that the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case against him.

    Awomolo faulted the entire evidence led by the prosecution and exhibits tendered and urged the tribunal to hold that it is not worth it calling on Onoghen to defend himself.

    He said the entire proceedings have become a nullity because the process leading to the commencement of the trial did not comply with the procedure provided for in the CCB’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 2017.

    Prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar offered a counter-argument and urged the tribunal to reject Onnoghen’s no-case-submission and order him to enter defence.

    Umar said the prosecution’s case was simple and relates mainly to the defendants failure to declare his assets.

    He said; “We are not accusing him of having $300m in his accounts. What we are saying is that he failed to declare his assets on his appointment as Justice of Supreme Court and that he operated domiciliary accounts since 2009 and 2010 without declaring them.”

    Details shortly…

  • Prosecution closes case in Onnoghen’s trial after three witnesses

    The prosecution in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen yesterday closed its case after calling three witnesses.

    Onnoghen is being tried before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for alleged violation of the code of conduct for public officers by not declaring correctly his assets.

    The prosecution, led by Aliyu Umar (SAN), called two witnesses  – a retired director of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Awal Usman Yakasai and Team Lead, Priority Banking, Standard Chartered Bank, Ifeoma Okabue.

    Okabue, who testified as the third prosecution witness, gave details of the five domiciliary accounts held by Onnoghen in her bank, including the balances in the accounts between December 2018 and January 2019.

    Yakasai, who was the second prosecution witness, confirmed receiving Onnoghen’s asset declaration forms for 2014 and 2015, which reflected, among others, that he has five houses.

    Umar, at the conclusion of Okabue’s testimony, told the tribunal that, although the prosecution had indicated its intention to call six witnesses, it was comfortable with the testimony of the three witnesses called so far and would close its case.

    Led in evidence by Umar, Okabue said she started managing Onnghen’s accounts in 2015.

    The witness confirmed from a bundle of documents, including account opening documents and statements of account, marked ‘Exhibit 5’, which was handed to him by an official of the tribunal, on Umar’s request, that the defendant has five accounts.

    She said the first account, with No: 5001062686, was opened in April 2010, the second: 0001062667 was opened in June 2009; the third: 0001062650 was opened in June 2009; the fourth: 5001062679 was opened in March 2010 and the fifth: 5001062693 was opened in February 2011.

    Still reading from the documents, the witness raid the first account had an opening balance of €30,178.58 in January 2018 and a balance of €10,187.18 as at December 2018.

    The second account, 0001062667, the witness said, the balance by January 2018 was N34,280,904.61. It had N2,656,019.21 as at December 2018.

    The third account: 0001062650, Okabue said, had, by January 2018, a balance of $80,824.25. The balance was $56,878 by January 2019.

    Okabue said the fourth account 5001062679, had a balance of £39,456.08 in January 2018. This went down to £13,730.70 by December.

    The witness said the fifth account:50010626 had an opening balance of N6,411,312.77k by January 2018, which increased to N12,852,580.52 by December.

    In explaining the nature of the accounts, the witness said: “The Euro account is savings account. There are two naira accounts –  one is a current account and the other is a savings account. The pound sterling account is savings account, while the US dollars account is a current account.

    “I took over the management of the accounts in 2015. The accounts are currently active.”

    The witness confirmed meeting the defendant, in her capacity as the bank’s Relationship Manager in charge of High Networth Customers, sometime in 2015.

    When asked how to know if an account was dormant, Okabue said: “An account would be dormant due to inactivity for up to one year. Whether an account is dormant or not can be ascertained from the statement of account.

    “When an account goes dormant, it is my responsibility, as the Relationship Manager, to inform the customer of the dormant status of the account and encourage the customer to reactivate the account or the bank sends a notification to the customer.”

    When asked if such communication ever took place in relation to the status of the defendant’s accounts, the witness said she could not recall her bank or her informing the defendant that any of his accounts was dormant or should re-activate.

    Under cross-examination by the lead defence lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), Okabue said the bank invested some of the funds in the defendant’s accounts on his behalf and paid the yield from such investments back into the accounts.

    She added that the defendant got  a facility (loan) of 500,000 US dollars from the bank in January 2019, the security for the loans were his investments in Federal Government’s bonds and other investments, such as shares and others

    Okabue said the domiciliary accounts in Pound sterling, Euro and US Dollars were operated here in Nigeria, not overseas, by the bank.

    She said the bank advised the defendant to invest in other profit yielding investments,  and that interests on theses investments were regularly credited to these accounts.

    The witness said there was no evidence in the account statements that showed the defendant made a transfer for the purchase of pleasure/luxury vehicles.

    Yakasai, who testified earlier, told the tribunal how he received the completed forms from Onnoghen and how the forms were inspected in his presence.

    The witness, who said he is now a farmer, told the tribunal that, as at December 2016, he was a director in CCB, in charge of Federal Political Office Department.

    “My schedule of duties includes taking charge of the general administration of the department, responsible for operational activities of the department, that include issuing and receiving completed copies of assets declaration forms (CCB1) from federal political office holders as well as staff of the Federal Judiciary.

    “That was the main schedule of my duties as at that time.I was posted to that department in November 2013 up to February 2017. I retired in April 2018.”

    The witness said he met the defendant once when he (the defendant) came to submit his declaration form in my office.

    Yakasai added: “He (Onnoghen) came to submit his forms on December 14, 2016. On that day, in my office in Asokoro, I was attending a meeting at the conference hall when a staff of mine called me and informed that the defendant was in my office to submit his forms.

    “I left the meeting and came to attend to the defendant, who was accompanied by one other person. I collected the forms from him.

    “We went through the form, from one page to another, with them, up to the last page, which was page 6.

    “After that, I put down my name in page 8 as the receiving officer. And appended my signature to confirm that I was the person who received it.”

    “Thereafter, I handed the form to the schedule officer.And directed him to register the form in our register and process the acknowledgment slip to be handed back to him. I then went back to my meeting.

    “I received two forms from the defendant. After signing, the slips were detached from the forms and were handed over to the person, who the defendant came to my office with. The forms were retained in the Chairman’s office, as is the procedure,” the witness said.

    Yakasai said apart from receiving the forms and directing his junior officer to conclude the process, he did not do any other thing in relation to the form.

    The witness confirmed the forms, marked as Exhibits 2 and 3, when they were shown to him.

    Under cross-examination, he said he did not know the group that wrote the petition that informed Onnghen’s investigation and subsequent prosecution.

    The witness, who confirmed that information in the petition by the group was similar to those in the form submitted by Onnoghen, said he did not know how the group got its information.

    He also told the tribunal that it was the CCB Chairman who could only authorise access to completed assets declaration forms kept with the bureau.

    At the conclusion of the the prosecution witness’ testimony, Umar announced the closure of the prosecution’s case, following which Awomolo said the defence planned to make a no-case submission in line with the provision of Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

    Umar adjourned the matter till March 29 for adoption of parties’ addresses in respect of the defence’s no-case submission.

    Before the proceedings, the tribunal Chairman noted that the last proceedings on March 18 was misrepresented in some media reports.

    He urged the media to ensure appropriate reportage of proceedings and to avoid distortion and misrepresentation.

    Umar threatened to come down hard on any media house and journalist who misrepresents proceedings at the tribunal. He threatened to ensure that such a journalist was incarcerated for as long as he remains in service.

    He said: “Henceforth, any journalist, who publish distorted and concocted information contrary to what happens here, I will not…

    “They will languish there in prison until I retire, about 28 years from now. I have made my point clear to the journalists. They should take hint.”

    Umar also told lawyers in the case to, henceforth refer to each member of the tribunal as “my Lord”, as is the case in the regular courts.

     

  • Prosecution closes case in Onnoghen’s trial after three witnesses

    The prosecution in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen closed its case on Thursday after calling three witnesses.

    Onnoghen is being tried before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on allegation of non-declaration of assets in violation of the code of conduct for public officers.

    The prosecution, led by Aliyu Umar (SAN), called two witnesses on Thursday, a retired director of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Awal Usman Yakasai and Team Lead, Priority Banking, Standard Chartered Bank, Ifeoma Okabue.

    Okabue, who testified as the third prosecution witness, gave details of the five domiciliary accounts held by Onnoghen in her bank, including the balances in the accounts between December 2018 and January 2019.

    Yakasai, who was the second prosecution witness, confirmed receiving Onnoghen’s asset declaration forms for 2014 and 2015, which reflected, among others, that he has five houses.

    Umar, at the conclusion of Okabue’s testimony, told the tribunal that, although the prosecution had indicated its intention to call six witnesses, it was comfortable with the testimony of the three witnesses called so far and would close its case.

    Led in evidence by Umar, Okabue said she took charge of the management of Onnghen’s accounts in 2015.

    The witness confirmed from a bundle of documents, which include account opening documents and statements of account, marked ‘Exhibit 5′ which was handed to him by an official of the tribunal, on Umar’s request, that the defendant has five accounts.

    She said the first account, with No: 5001062686 was opened in April 2010, the second: 0001062667 was opened in June 2009; the third: 0001062650 was opened in June 2009; the fourth: 5001062679 was opened in March 2010 while the fifth: 5001062693 was opened in February 2011.

    Still reading from the documents, the witness gave the balance in each of the accounts to include, that the first had an opening balance of €30,178.58 in January 2018 and a balance of €10,187.18 as at December 2018.

    For the second account: 0001062667 the witness said the balance by January 2018 was N34, 280,904.61 while it has N2, 656,019.21 as at December 2018.

    The third account: 0001062650, the witness said, has, by January 2018, a balance of $80,824.25, while it reduced to $56,878 by January 2019.

    She said the fourth account: 5001062679 have a balance of £39,456.08 in January 2018, which reduced to £13,730.70 by December of the same year.

    The witness said the fifth account:50010626 had an opening balance of N6,411,312.77k by January 2018, which increased to N12,852,580.52 by December of the same year.

    In explaining the nature of the accounts, the witness said: “The Euro account is savings account; there are two naira accounts, one is a current account and the other is a savings account. The pound sterling account is savings account, while the US dollars account is a current account.

    “I took over the management of the accounts in 2015. The accounts are currently active.”

    The witness confirmed meeting the defendant, in her capacity as the bank’s Relationship Manager in charge of High Network Customers, sometime in 2015.

    When asked how to know if an account was dormant, the witness said: “An account would be dormant due to inactivity for up to one year. Whether an account is dormant or not can be ascertained from the statement of account.

    “When an account goes dormant, it is my responsibility, as the Relationship Manager, to inform the customer of the dormant status of the account and encourage the customer to reactive the account or the bank sends a notification to the customer.

    When asked if such communication ever took place in relation to the status of the defendant’s accounts, the witness said she can’t recall her bank or her informing the defendant that any of his account is dormant or should re-activate.

    Under cross examination by lead defence lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), Okabue said the bank invested some of the funds in the defendant’s accounts on his behalf and paid the yield from such investments back into the accounts.

    She added that the defendant got a facility (loan) of 500,000 US dollars from the bank in January 2019, the security for the loans were his investments in Federal Government’s bonds and other investments, like shares and others

    Okabue said the domiciliary accounts in Pound sterling, Euro and US Dollars were operated here in Nigeria, not overseas, by the bank.

    She said bank advised the defendant to invest in other profit yielding investments, and that interests on these investments were regularly credited to these accounts

    The witness said there was no evidence in the account statements that showed the defendant made transfer for the purchase of pleasure/luxury vehicles.

    Yakasai, who testified earlier, told the tribunal how he received the completed forms from Onnoghen and how the forms were inspected in his presence.

    The witness, who said he is now a farmer, told the tribunal that, as at December 2016 he was a director in CCB, in charge of Federal Political Office Department.

    “My schedule of duties includes taking charge of the general administration of the department, responsible for operational activities of the department that include issuing and receiving completed copies of assets declaration forms (CCB1) from federal political office holders as well as staff of the Federal Judiciary.

    “That was the main schedule of my duties as at that time I was posted to that department in November 2013 up to February 2017. I retired in April 2018.”

    The witness said he met the defendant once when he (the defendant) came to submit his declaration form in my office.

    Yakasai added: “He (Onnoghen) came to submit his forms on December 14, 2016. On that day, in my office in Asokoro, I was attending a meeting at the conference hall when a staff of mine called me and informed that the defendant was in my office to submit his forms.

    “I left the meeting and came to attend to the defendant, who was accompanied by one other person. I collected the forms from him.

    “We went through the form, from one page to another, with them, up to the last page, which was page 6.

    “After that, I put down my name in page 8 as the receiving officer. And appended my signature to confirm that I was the person who received it

    “Thereafter, I handed the form to the schedule officer and directed him to register the form in our register and process the acknowledgment slip to be handed back to him. I then went back to my meeting.

    “I received two forms from the defendant. After signing, the slips were detached from the forms and were handed over to the person, who the defendant came to my office with. The forms were retained in the Chairman’s office, as is the procedure,” the witness said.

    Yakasai said apart from receiving the forms and directing his junior officer to conclude the process, he did not do any other thing in relation to the form.

    The witness confirmed the forms, marked as Exhibits 2 and 3 when they were shown to him.

    Under cross-examination, the said he did not know the group that wrote the petition that informed Onnoghen’ investigation and subsequent prosecution.

    The witness, who confirmed that information in the petition by the group was similar to those in the form submitted by Onnoghen, said he did not know how the group got its information.

    He also told the tribunal that it was the CCB Chairman who could only authorise access to completed asset declaration forms kept with the bureau.

    At the conclusion of the prosecution witness’ testimony, Umar announced the closure of the prosecution’s case, following which Awomolo said, the defence plans to make a no-case submission in line with the provision of Section 303 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA.

    Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar then adjourned to March 29 for adoption of parties’ addresses in respect of the defence’s no-case submission.

    Earlier before the commencement of proceedings on Thursday, tribunal Chairman noted that the last proceedings on March 18 this year was misrepresented in some media reports.

    He urged the media to ensure appropriate reportage of proceedings and to avoid distortion and misrepresentation.

    Umar threatened to come down hard on any media house and journalist who misrepresent proceedings in the tribunal.

    He threatened to ensure that such a journalist was incarcerated for as long as he remains in service.

    He said: “Henceforth, any journalist, who publish distorted and concocted information contrary to what happens here, I will not hesitate to ensure that such journalist is incarcerated.

    “They will languish there in prison until I retire, about 28 years from now. I have made my point clear to the journalists. They should take hint.”

    Umar, also told lawyers in the case to, henceforth refer to each member of the tribunal as “my Lord,” as is the case in the regular courts.

  • We didn’t query prosecution lawyer in Onnoghen’s trial, says NBA

    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 it’s preliminary stage.

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

     

  • Onnoghen’s trial: Tension as NBA queries prosecuting SAN, may impose sanctions

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has fired a query at Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN), the prosecutor of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen in the ongoing trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for taking up the brief.

    The association accuses Umar of professional misconduct for accepting the brief.

    It says the senior lawyer’s action contravenes Rule 15 (3) (a) (b) and (c) jointly or severally of the Rules of professional conduct for legal practitioners.

    The query is now generating bad blood in the Bar along North-South divide following an alleged secret move to de-robe and delist Umar as a lawyer because the NBA demanded a copy of his Call to Bar Certificate.

    Some lawyers from the North are threatening to fight back on Umar’s behalf.

    The SAN himself    has fired back at the NBA leadership

    The NBA, in the February 12, 2019 query signed by its General Secretary, Gunu Taidi, directed Umar to respond to the allegation of professional misconduct against him.

    It said: “We received a petition against you and hereby forward a copy for your response within twenty one (21) days.

    “Your response should be in three (3) copies accompanied by a witness statement of your good self sworn before a Magistrate Court, High Court, National Industrial Court or Federal High Court in addition to the sworn witness statement of any witness (es) you may wish to call during the hearing of the petition and attach passport photos of the respective witness (es).

    “Please state your full name, Supreme Court enrolment number, contact address, phone number and email address in your response and attach a copy of your Call to Bar Certificate.

    “The response should be addressed to: The General Secretary Nigerian Bar Association, National Secretariat, Plot 1101 Cadastral Zone A00 Central Business District Abuja.

    “Please take note that your response may be forwarded to the petitioner for his/her reply or reaction to your defence.

    “Further note that a Panel may dispense with the hearing of the parties to a petition if in its opinion, a prima facie case has not been made out against the Respondent in reliance on the documents before it:

    (A)   Where a Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made out against a Respondent in reliance on the documents before it, it must expressly state so with or without giving a detailed reason of the basis of its decision.

    (B)    Where a Panel finds that a prima fade case has not been made out against a Respondent in reliance on the documents before it or based on evidence led before it, it shall dismiss the petition with or without giving a detailed reason of the basis of its decision.

    “For further enquiries, please place a call through to the NBA Disciplinary Hotline 07080932564 or email us on legal@nigerianbar.org.ng

    The NBA premised the query on a January 15, 2019 petition by another lawyer Mr. Onyeamaechi Bob James.

    James, in the petition through the law firm of Bob James and Co said: “We are constrained to petition your office against Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) for conduct which violates Rule 15 (3) (a) (b) and (c) jointly or severally of the Rules of professional conduct for legal practitioners. TH ACTS

    “Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) is prosecuting counsel in the case of FRN (Federal Republic of Nigeria) vs. Justice Walter Onnoghen in the Code of Conduct Tribunal Abuja.  Justice Walter Onnoghen. GCON is Chief Justice of Nigeria. He is being prosecuted in the tribunal on a six-count charge.

    “In Nganjiwa vs. FRN, the Court of Appeal held that a prosecution cannot be commenced against a serving judicial officer who is subject to the disciplinary powers of the NJC unless the NJC has first considered the facts or circumstances that form the subject matter of the proposed prosecution. That is the position of the law in Nigeria today until set aside by the Supreme Court.

    “Relying on that law, the Code of Conduct Tribunal in 2018 in an earlier case involving Hon Justice Ngwuta struck out the charges then pending against him.

    “By order 15 (3) (c), a lawyer shall not “Knowingly advance a claim or defence that is unwarranted under existing law”, but he may advance such argument or defence ‘if it can be supported by argument in good faith for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. “

    “Mr. Aliyu in prosecuting the CJN in the Code of Conduct Tribunal is knowingly prosecuting a case that was dead on arrival, and it cannot be said that he probably intended a modification or reversal of existing law because the Code of Conduct Tribunal being inferior to the Court of Appeal cannot modify or reverse the court of appeal’s decision in Nganjiwa.

    “Clearly, the conduct of the learned silk brings the legal profession into disrepute. It is a precedent that if allowed will encourage lawyers nationwide to embark on litigation that will serve to subvert legal institutions and make mockery of the litigation process.

    “If Mr. Aliyu Umar gets away with this act, a lawyer in Abia can collect money from a man based in Kano who is claiming land located in Kano from another man based in Kano to file a suit for declaration of title in Umuahia High Court. Junior lawyers will start collecting money from clients to file cases that, in the language of rule 14 (2) (e) are ‘hopeless”, which is nothing but obtaining money by false pretences, and the mass media will become awash with stories of lawyers being a profession of 419 people.

    “I urge you sir to use your good offices to cause a detailed investigation to be made into the role of Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) in this matter.”

    It’s an inspired petition, says Umar

    However, Umar in his response dated March 5, 2019 said the petition was ‘inspired’.

    His words: “Please refer to your letter concerning the above petition, which you attached to your letter to me. Having studied your said letter dated 12th February, 2019 and the petition dated 15th January, 2019, I wish to make the following observations. (But I don’t intend to respond to your letter or the Petition for now until the Prosecution I am doing has been determined by the Tribunal).

    “(A) Mr. Honourable Secretary on 4th January, 2019 there was team of lawyers on behalf of the NBA. Claiming to be holding its brief and the association have been at the Tribunal on any day of its sitting, diligently observing the proceedings. So your inspired petition has no basis as the charge is still alive and was not “dead on arrival”.

    “(b) In your letter you stated that “a Panel may dispense with the hearing of the parties to a petition if in its opinion, a prima facie case has not been made out against the Respondent in reliance on the documents before it”. This clearly established that, you have documents in your possession which you did not make available to me.

    “(c) Solicitors and Advocates of the Supreme Court of Nigeria have been accepting briefs to either defend or prosecute Defendants in criminal cases, and this is to the knowledge of the NBA. But, there was never a time when an attempt was made to intimidate the counsel by an inspired petition.

    “You may or deliberately refused to remember the Prosecution of the Senate President and two former Chiefs of Air Staff, and Honourable Farouk Lawan which are pending or unsuccessfully conducted.

    “If I may venture to add, a prosecutor’s conduct can only be found unethical after conclusion of a case but depending only on how he conducts himself or the prosecution of the case.

    “Your haste to find a person who will petition against me shows the bias of my association at this point in time. And if I may say, the association is supposed to protect/ discipline members irrespective of geographic locations or any other bias.

    “My certificate of Call to Bar is far away and I cannot now fish it out. I need time to do that, I will not be distracted.

    “My intention in this matter is to present the facts as investigated to enable the tribunal come to a just conclusion.

    “It is in the interest of the association, the Judiciary and the legal profession as a whole that the public do not perceive conspiracy by the legal profession simply because one of our own is a defendant.

    “For the reasons above, I do not wish to put in any response. I hope my association will wait until I have completed the prosecution, then you can charge me with anything you want. I will then have a lot of things to say.”

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who spoke in confidence, said: “The NBA must watch it to avoid splitting this association along North-South divide. Some lawyers from the North are unhappy and they are also threatening showdown if anything happens to Umar.

    “The NBA cannot afford to return to the crisis of the 1990 during Priscilla Kuye’s tenure. We should allow the law to run its full course to save the bench and the bar.

    “I think the bar should not join this fray at all other than being a peacemaker.”

    The CJN is facing a six-count trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).for allegedly not declaring some of his assets,

    Although Onnoghen initially refused to appear before the tribunal, a bench warrant was later issued by the Chairman of CCT Mr. Danladi Umar.

    Following Onnoghen’s appearance, the CCT chairman revoked the bench warrant and adjourned the trial to March 11.

    But ahead of the resumption of the case, NBA has decided to probe some allegations against the prosecutor, Mr. Umar Aliyu (SAN) who was hired by the Federal Government.

  • Breaking: Supreme Court to decide Onnoghen’s fate May 17

    The Supreme Court has fixed judgment for May 17 this year in a suit by Cross River State Government seeking to set aside the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    A seven-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour fixed the date on Thursday after taking arguments from lawyer to parties.

    Lucius Nwosu (SAN) argued on behalf of the plaintiff (Cross River State), while Dayo Apata, Solicitor General of the Federation (argued for the defendants – the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation).

    Read Also: Supreme Court affirms N2.5m verdict against Emirates

    It is the plaintiff’s contention that Onnoghen’s suspension or removal from office by President Muhammadu Buhari, based on an ex-parte order by a lay magistrate (the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal) violates the Constition, particularly Section 292(1).

    In a counter-argument, the defendants are of the view that the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to approach the Supreme Court on the issue, because Onnoghen’s suspension was personal to him and cannot be interpreted to amount to a dispute between the Federal Government and the Cross River State Government.

     

    Details shortly….

  • 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.

  • Boycott directive stalls Onnoghen’s case in Industrial Court

    The directive by Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA ), calling on its members to boycott the courts for two days stalled the hearing of a suit challenging the trial of Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Onnoghen was the former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).

    The suit which is challenging the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) was slated for hearing on Wednesday in the National Industrial Court, Abuja.

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

    At the resumed hearing of the substantive suit, the judge, 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 thereafter adjourned the matter until Feb. 7 and directed that hearing notices should be served on all parties.

    Read Also: I participated in NJC meeting, says NBA President

    NBA reached a resolution to boycott courts nationwide from Tuesday Jan. 29 and Wednesday Jan. 30, after its National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting on Monday in Abuja.

    The NBA President, Mr Paul Usoro, who made the announcement, said lawyers reached the agreement to express their displeasure over the suspension of the CJN.

    Onnoghen was suspended by President Muhammadu Buhari on Jan. 25, over failure to declare his assets as required of every public servant by law.

    The president said he acted on a motion exparte order granted by the CCT, replacing Onnoghen with Justice Tanko Mohammed as acting CJN.

    Joined as co-defendants in the suit are Code of Court Bureau (CCB), CCT chairman, Danladi Umar, Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and The National Judicial Service Commission (NJC), and the National Judicial Council

    Others are The Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Inspector-General of Police, Minister of Justice Minister, Abubakar Malami, and the Senate President, Bukola Saraki.

  • 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…

     

  • Legal giants clash over CJN Onnoghen’s trial

    Legal giants tendered various views yesterday on the plan to arraign today Chief Juctice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) for alleged false assets declaration.

    To Aare Afe Babalola (SAN), Justice Onnonghen should have been reported to the National Judicial Council (NJC) instead of being taken before the CCT.

    But, the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) chairman Itse Sagay disagreed.

    In Prof. Sagay’s view, the question of Jurisdiction should not arise. “I think at the level of the officer we’re talking about now, we shouldn’t be talking of the substance. Did he or did he not do it? That’s all,” he said.

    The Court of Appeal had held in the Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa case that it would amount to the usurpation of NJC’s powers if any judicial officer commits a professional misconduct within the scope of his duty and is investigated, arrested and subsequently prosecuted without a formal complaint/ report to the NJC.

    Several senior lawyers have argued that Court of Appeal judgment should have been complied with before a charge was filed against the CJN.

    But Sagay, in an interview with our correspondent, slammed the Court of Appeal for the judgment, describing it as unconstitutional and a bid by the justices to get immunity through the back door.

    His words: “I want to make a few points. The first is that the Nganjiwa case, as far as I’m concerned, is unconstitutional. That judgment was unconstitutional. It’s an illegal judgment.

    “It is an illicit attempt by some Justices of the Court of Appeal to give themselves immunity contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.

    “The Constitution has named those entitled to immunity – the President, Vice President, governors and deputy governors.

    “What these Justices tried to do is to take over the job of the National Assembly, amend the Constitution and then hide themselves inside as those who are immune from prosecution. To me, it’s illegal and unconstitutional.

    “Number two, I’ve read the Nganjiwa judgment. It’s a judgment limited to a judge who was acting as a judicial officer, who was hearing a case and in the process was found guilty of misconduct in the hearing of that case.

    “This matter that has just occurred has nothing to do with a case in court. It has something common to all public officers before you take an office. So, there’s a major distinction. The Nganjiwa case does not cover this situation.

    “Thirdly, we’re talking of the CJN, head of a branch of government; in fact, I’ll say head of the most important branch of the government, because they’re the arbiters of anything that goes wrong in the other two arms.

    “It is said that Julius Ceasar’s wife must be above board. If I’m the Chief Justice, even a judge, and you bring such a charge against me, I will not contest jurisdiction. If I contest jurisdiction and win, you’re still going to say: ‘But you did it’.

    “Rather, I’ll waive the issue of jurisdiction, because my status is so high that I must have a clean image before the world, so that the institution I represent may not be tainted.

    “Those hiding behind jurisdiction are trying to cover up iniquities of some sort. I’m speaking generally now. Those who are bringing that issue up are creating a problem for this country, because the sore will still be there. It’s as if they’re saying no doctor should treat it.

    “Those cases that went on for 12 years was because of the issue of jurisdiction – all the looters’ cases. It’s jurisdiction that was argued from High Court to Supreme Court and back. The issue of bleeding this country to death through corruption was never touched.

    “I think at the level of the officer we’re talking about now, we shouldn’t be talking of jurisdiction. We should be talking of the substance. Did he or did he not do it? That’s all.”

    A lawyer, Joshua Alobo (SAN) last night said the CCT has the jurisdiction to determine if Justice Onnoghen is guilty or not.

    Sending the case to the NJC, Alobo said, is belabouring the matter.

    He spoke on Channels Television monitored by this newspaper in Lagos. According to him, there is nothing wrong with the procedure taken so far in arraigning Justice Onnoghen at the CCT.

    The NJC, he said, has only power to determine administrative cases against judicial officers and not a criminal allegation.

    “The Section 292 is clear that the contravention of the Code of Conduct Bureau can only be established by the CCT and if that is clear, then the CCT has jurisdiction to determine if there is a contravention of the Fifth Schedule which every public officer including the judiciary officer is under obligation to comply with. Whether the CJN is guilty or not, it is the tribunal that has the requisite jurisdiction to determine that. The NJC has only power to determine administrative misconduct of the judicial officer as determined to by the Supreme Court. What is before the CCT is a criminal allegation, not administrative misconduct that could be handled by the NJC,” he said.

    Activist-lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, in a statement, advised the Federal Government to withdraw the charge against the CJN because it was contrary to the conditions set by the Court of Appeal in the case of Nganjiwa v FRN.

    He said: “As all authorities are bound by the Court of Appeal verdict, the case should be withdrawn by the Attorney-General of the Federation without any delay because it is likely to be a prosecutorial misadventure.”

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mr Dele Adesina described the Federal Government’s action as saddening.

    He said the action is like putting the entire judicial institution on trial.

    He said: “The institution has no alternative. It is the last hope of the common man. Though it is not immune to probe, but there are procedures. The CJN is not immune to trial but there is a constitutional way on how to go about it. There is no conflict in Section 292 which shows that the CCT cannot try a judicial officer until you have removed the toga of a judge or justice from such person through NJC. The NJC has administrative power to sanction any erring judicial officer.”