Tag: Saraki’s trial

•Witness insists Senate President made false asset declaration

The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Danladi Umar, said yesterday that the tribunal and its members were subjected to “serious influence” during the trial of a former Lagos State Governor and national leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Umar said, unlike what obtained during the Tinubu trial, the tribunal was not under any external influence or interference in its handling of the trial of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki.

“I want to say that in the case of Bola Tinubu, we were under serious influence, but we did what we had to do and discharged him. So we must be fair to ourselves not to delay this trial.

“The insinuation that we are being influenced in this case is not true. We are all answerable to Allah, when we breathe our last,” Umar said.

Tinubu was taken before the tribunal in 2011 for allegedly operating foreign accounts while serving as governor between 1999 and 2007. The charge was struck out, following which he was discharged.

Umar said he was guided by his conscience, the urge to do justice and the belief that everyone is answerable to Allah (GOD) when he dies.

The CCT Chairman spoke at the resumption of Saraki’s trial yesterday. He was reacting to insinuation in the media that the tribunal was being influenced to give a guilty verdict against Saraki.

The second member of the tribunal, William Agwadza Atedze, frowned at attempts to tarnish the reputation of the tribunal’s members through sponsored media publications.

“At the weekend, there was an article in the paper about me. It was titled: ‘CCT and the bird of the same feather.’ The author is taking on the wrong person, I do not keep quiet.

“The insinuation that we have been compromised is not true. Adebayo Adelodun and Yusuf Ali (two senior lawyers in Saraki’s legal team) were my classmates at ABU (Ahmadu Bello University). I am very outspoken and I have not changed.

“When they say one member of the bench is not contributing enough, do you want us to be fighting on the Bench or disagreeing in the open? The Bench is not a motor park. When we do not agree on any issue we resolve it in the office.

“This is not about the headship of Senate. This is not about an individual. It is about the country. This country is on its knees. Today, we cannot buy common tomatoes in the market. This is about the country. It is not about an individual. This case is a watershed, no matter which way it goes at the end of the day,” Atedze said.

Responding, leader of Saraki’s legal team Kanu Agabi (SAN) admitted that the defence had before yesterday expressed fear about the proceedings. He said they were now assured that justice would be done since the tribunal Chairman has placed the proceedings before God.

Agabi said: “There is nothing lawyers fear most than prejudice. We are glad that you have declared that you fear God and committed this proceedings to God.

“Prejudice ought not to have a place in the law court, but today it is. Because you have called the name of God, may God guide you. I pray for you everyday that God should protect you. You are a young man, handling a critical issue in our nation’s life,” Agabi said.

Lead prosecution lawyer Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) urged the tribunal members to ignore the impression being created about them in the media and not be bothered by it.

“It is not only this tribunal and its members that they are writing about. They have also written all sorts of things about us. It is what we are subjected to everyday,” Jacobs said.

He said Agabi’s claim that they fear prejudice was uncalled for. He said: “All the rulings of this tribunal have been upheld by the appellate courts. So, where is the claim of prejudice?

“We have nothing to hide. We cannot tell lies against anybody. I cannot ask my witness to tell lies. We mention more of God in this country but we do less of God. That is our problem,” Jacobs said.

Later, under cross-examination by Saraki’s lawyer, Paul Usoro (SAN) first prosecution witness, Michael Wetkas insisted yesterday that investigation revealed that the Senate President made false declarations in the asset declaration forms he submitted while in office as Kwara State governor.

Wetkas, who insisted that Saraki made anticipatory declaration in 2003 in respect of the property he acquired on 15, McDonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, said the property was only sold by the government in 2006.

He said the property declared by Saraýki as 15A and B, McDonald Road , Ikoyi, Lagos, on assuming office as Kwara State Governor in 2003 was the same as 15, McDonald Road Ikoyi, Lagos.

The witness added that the Presidential Implementation Committee on the Sale of Federal Government’s Properties confirmed that15, McDonald Road, Ikoyi, was sold to Saraki’s company, TinyTee Limited.

He noted that Saraki had, in the form he submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) on assumption of office in 2003, claimed that he acquired 15A and B, Mcdonald Ikoyi, ýLagos, through Carslise Properties Limited.

“I have always said it in my evidence about 15, McDonald Road, Ikoyi. We maintain our position that that property was one and the same property that the implementation committee wrote to us about. The implementation committee did not tell us that there existed15 A and B separately.

“The Managing Director of Carlisle Property, Sule Izuagbe, also talked about 15 McDonald as the property belonging to the defendant (Saraki) and the defendant in the asset declaration which he made in 2011 and 2015, declared the property as 15, McDonald Road, Ikoyi; he no longer said 15A and B.

“That is why we maintained the same position that it is the same property.  The nomenclature is just as the convenience of the defendant,” the witness said.

He confirmed that the Certificate of Occupancy for 15, McDonald Road, Ikoyi, was issued in the name of TinyTee Limited and not in Saraki’s name.

Wetkas also confirmed that the Certificate of Occupancy with November 26, 2006 as its commencement date was issued by the ýthen Minister of Housing and Urban Development ýand not the implementation committee.

He said, in the course of investigation, he did not come across any document signed by Saraki in relation to the Ikoyi property.

On how he concluded that the property belonged to Saraki, Wekas said his conclusion was informed by his finding that the property on 15 McDonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, was paid for by Saraki through the bank accounts of two other companies which Saraki had declared his interest in.

He also said the Managing Director of two of Saraki’s companies – Carlisle Properties and Investment Limited and ýSky View Properties – Mr. Sule Izuagbe, confirmed that the payment for the property was made on the instruction given by the Senate President.

“We believe that the property was bought for the defendant. The property was paid for through the account of Carlisle Properties and Investment Limited and Skyview Properties. Skyview and Carlisle belong to the defendant and he declared them as his companies.

“The sum of N125million was taken from Skyview’s account with Access Bank out of which N123.73million amounting to 75 per cent of the price of the property was paid for the property.ý”

He said ý N125million was a loan obtained by Saraki through the account of Skyview’s account with Access Bank.

Wetkas added that the offer letter for the loan was signed for on behalf of Skyview by Saraki’s wife, Toyin.

“The Managing Director of Carlisle and Skybiew, Izuagbe, said the payment for the property was directed by the defendant.

“Izuagbe listed the property (15, McDonald Road, Ikoyi) as part of the properties he was managing on behalf of the defendant.

“The defendant also declared the property in his asset declaration forms of 2011 and 2015.That was the basis for our conclusion that the property belonged to the defendant,” the witness said.

In an effort to distinguish Saraki from the companies, Usoro argued that it was wrong for Wetkas to conclude that the property acquired by companies in which Saraki had interests could be considered his personal property.

He stated that Carlisle and Skyview were both limited liability companies and possess separate personalities from that of the shareholder.

Jacobs interjected and argued that: “The defendant was asked to declare in the asset form the assets he acquired, including the ones he got through nominees. He himself declared the property as his. The issue of legal personality does not arise in view of the asset declaration regime in Nigeria. They don’t go to any issue.ý”

Also, Usoro faulted the prosecution’s claim in count 11 of the charge, in which Saraki was accused of failing to declare his liability of N375million loan he obtained from Guaranty Trust Bank Plc in January 2010.

Usoro said the Senate President was not bound to declare the N375 million as his liability because as of the time he made his end of tenure asset declaration as governor on June 3, 2011 was about N36million.

Answering question from Usoro, Wekas said while it was true that that the debit balance on the account was N36million as of May 31, 2011, Saraki failed to declare the property he allegedly acquired in London with the loan.

“There are two issues. The issue of the loan and the issue of property he used the loan to buy in London.

“Our position is that we are aware that the outstanding balance was not N375million but N36,042,202.04 as at that date.

“But if that loan was taken for something else apart from property, we would not have made an issue out of it.

“But it was taken to buy a property. Our position is that, that property should have been declared in this asset declaration form of 2011. “And if it was declared in the asset declaration form, the source of how the property was acquired would have been declared that the money was sourced through loan,” Wetkas said.

Hearing resumes today.

•Fault Senate President’s reliance on decision in Tibunu’s case

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) has cautioned Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Chairman, Danladi Umar against repeating some of its past errors in its handling of the case involving Senate President Bukola Saraki.

The CCB, which is prosecuting the Senate president on a 13-count charge of false assets declaration, faulted Saraki’s reliance on the CCT’s 2011 decision in the case involving former governor of Lagos State, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Saraki’s lawyer Kanu Agabi (SAN) urged the tribunal to adopt its decision in the Tinubu case  and strike out the case against his client.

Agabi noted that since the charge against Tinubu was struck out on the ground that he was not first invited to either admit or deny the anomalies in his assets declaration forms, his the charge against Saraki should also be struck out because he was equally not allowed to either deny or accept responsibility for the perceived anomalies in his forms.

In its counter argument, now before the CCT, filed by its lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), the CCB reminded the CCT Chairman, that the tribunal has in subsequent cases after the Tinubu case, admitted being misled into committing an error in striking out the charge.

It contended that it would amount to a wrong paractice where the tribunal persists in rendering wrong decisions on the pretext of abiding by the principle of precedent.

The Bureau also faulted Saraki’s reliance on the provision of Section 3(d) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal (CCB/T) Act. In arguing that he was never invited to make written admission or denial of the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct.

It noted that the CCB/T Act was enacted in 1989 as Decree No. 1 of 1989 and that the Act and Section 3(d) thereof were patterned after the 1979 Constitution, which in Paragraph 15(1)(d) of Part 1 of the 5the Schedule to the 1979 Constitution.

The CCB noted that the effect of Paragraph 15(1)(d) of Part 1 of the 5the Schedule to the 1979 Constitution is that once a public officer, who contravened any provision of the Code of Conduct is invited  and he/she makes a written statement, admitting the contravention, the CCB would be incapacitated and would not be able to try such public officer or refer the case to the CCT.

“This provision of the 1979 Constitution was however adopted in Section 3(d) of the CCB/T Act when the CCB and CCT were established in 1989. This absurd situation led to the failure of the CCB and CCT under the 1979 Constitution.

“This deficiency has however been corrected in the 1999 Constitution, with the deletion of the provision, in the 1979 Constitution and the Code of Conduct Decree N. 1 of 1989, to the effect that once a written admission is made by the erring public officer, no reference should be made to the tribunal.

“Paragraph 3(e) of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides that: ‘The Bureau (CCB) shall have power to…receive complaints about  non-compliance or breach of the provisions of the Code of Conduct or any law in relation thereto, investigate the complaint and, where appropriate, refer  such matters  to the CCT.’

“Under the 1999 Constitution, the CCB needs not request the erring public officer to either admit or deny the allegation of breach of the Code of Conduct,” CCB said,

It argued that in view of the provision of Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the provision of Section 3(d) of the CCB/T Act, which was Decree No. 1 of 1989 cannot override the clear provisions of Paragraph 3(e) of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

“Decree No. 1 of 1989 codified in the Laws of the Federation as CCB/T Act, CAP C15, LFN 2004, as an existing law under Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution, is only applicable to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution itself,” it said.

The CCB opined that Saraki could not rely on the CCT’s decision in the case of FRN v. Bola Ahmed Tinubu, decided on November 30, 2011 to request that the charge against him be struck out. It cited other cases later decided by the CCT, including the case of FRN v. Emil Lemke Inyang (in charge No: CCT/ABJ/02/2012 where the CCT admitted being misled in giving the decision it gave in the Tinubu case.

“This tribunal, in its subsequent judgments, has realised that its decision in FRN v. Bola Ahmed Tinubu was given per incuriam (without due regard to the law or the facts) and had departed from it and followed the provision of the Constitution.

“This tribunal found (in the FRN v. Emil Lemke Inyang case) that its earlier decision was given by it without reference by counsel to the provision of Paragraph 3(e) of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. That Schedule emphatically removed and omitted the proviso requiring written admission or denial.

“That proviso that is repeated in Section 3(d) of the CCB/T Act cannot be sustained any longer under the 1999 Constitution. The decision in Tinubu’s case was given per incuriam and the tribunal should not follow such a decision.

“It is indeed, well settled that this tribunal will not perpetuate error through dogged application of the doctrine of stares decisis (requiring court to abide by principles established in earlier decided similar cases) by following a decision that was given per incuriam.

“The tribunal or any court must depart from its previous decision once it discovers that the decision was given per incuriam,” it said.

CCB also faulted Saraki’s argument to the effect that since the alleged anomalies in his assets declaration forms were not formerly brought to his attention by the CCT within a certain time, he was deemed to have been cleared, in view of the provisions in Paragraphs 3(b)and (c) of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

“The defendant failed to take cognizance of the provision of Paragraph 3(e) to the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution that enables the CCB ‘to receive complaint about non-compliance with or breach of the provision of the Code of Conduct or any law in relation thereto.’

“The provision did not limit the power of the CCB to the examination of the declaration only, but also empowers the CCB to receive complaint of non-compliance from outsiders, including body corporate such as the EFCC and Independent Corrupt practices and other related offences Commission (EFCC).

“Since there is no time limit within which an individual  can submit a complaint of an infraction or non-compliance with the provision of the Code of Conduct, the defendant’s argument that once there was no official complaint against him within a reasonable time of his submitting the declaration, he could no longer be investigated and prosecuted, cannot stand.

“There can be no clearance by implication, unless it is expressly stated by the statutes and time does not run against the state,” the CCB said.

However, despite the Supreme Court’ judgment to the effect that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) was applicable to the CCT, and the provision of Section 396(2) of the ACJA, CCT Chairman, Umar has scheduled ruling for tomorrow.

Section 396(2) of the ACJA provides that: “After the plea has been taken, the defendant may raise any objection to the validity of the charge or the information at anytime before judgment, provided that such objection shall only be considered along with the substantive issues and a ruling thereon made at the time of delivery of judgment.”

Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT)  has suspended Senate President Bukola Saraki’s trial, following the Supreme Court’s order.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the tribunal’s Public Relations Officer, Ibraheem Alhassan, made this known in Abuja yesterday.

The CCT’s action is to show respect to the Supreme Court, which ordered that proceedings be stayed, he said.

“The case was slated for hearing yesterday, but as a mark of respect for the apex court, the tribunal decided to tarry pending the determination of Saraki’s appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal to try him,” he said.

Justice John Fabiyi, leading a five-man panel of justices , ordered the Justice Danladi Umar-led tribunal to suspend the trial.

Fabiyi held that the order was to enable the apex court determine Saraki’s appeal.

In a unanimous ruling, the apex court held “It is imperative to state that all the parties, including the Code of Conduct Tribunal, should tarry a while to enable this court determine the appeal before it.

“In effect, further proceedings at the CCT should be stayed pending the hearing of the appeal. Hearing date will be communicated to all the parties.”

The Supreme Court, however, gave both parties seven days to file and serve their briefs to ensure accelerated hearing.

Prosecuting counsel Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) gave an undertaking that the tribunal would not do anything, until the Supreme Court inishes the appeal.

Jacobs urged the court to give the matter accelerated hearing in line with Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

Saraki is facing a13-count charge of false asset declaration  to which he pleaded not guilty.