The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Tribunal

  • Ajimobi, Ladoja return to tribunal today

    Former Oyo State Governor Rashidi Ladoja and Governor Abiola Ajimobi will return to the governorship election tribunal today to finalise their arguments on the petition filed by Ladoja.

    The tribunal, in August, fixed today for adoption of final addresses after the parties presented evidences and witnesses to prove their claims.

    The three-man panel is headed by Justice Muhammad Aliu Maiyaki, with justices Muhammad Karaye and J.E.Ikede as members.

    Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Yusuf Alli concluded the hearing. In closing his argument, he told the tribunal that there was no need for his client to call any witness because the original INEC documents were enough evidence to the fact that elections were held contrary to the petition brought by Ladoja and his party, Accord.

    Alli added that all the original documents admitted as exhibits before the panel were testimonies that that results garnered by parties and their candidates were recorded accurately and not falsified as claimed by the petitioners.

    He maintained that “since nobody has tendered any other result aside the one announced by INEC, it shows there was no falsification of the result of the election as included in the petition of Senator Ladoja”.

    Ladoja, the Accord governorship candidate in the April 11 election in Oyo State, is challenging Ajimobi’s victory.

    The petitioner also joined APC, INEC and its Resident Electoral Commissioner, Dr Rufus Akeju.

    Richard Ogunwole is representing the petitioners; Wole Olanipekun and Olumuyiwa Aduroja are Ajimobi’s counsel; Oluwarotimi Akeredolu represents the APC.

    Justice Mayaki said respondents had 10 days to write and file their final written addresses while the petitioners had seven days within which to file the same.

    He added that all the parties had five days to reply on point of law.

    “The parties also have additional 10 pages aside from the 40 pages meant for the final addresses for their objections to the admissible of documents tendered during the hearing session,” Justice Mayaki said

     

  • Jos poll: Why Appeal Court overuled tribunal

    Jos poll: Why Appeal Court overuled tribunal

    For failing to take into cognisance the suigeneris nature of election petitions, which require strict compliance with the timings contained in the laws guiding election petition proceedings, the Court of Appeal sitting in Jos, Plateau State has set aside a ruling  of the Plateau State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.

    The appellate court granted an interlocutory application by the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in the April 11 election, Simon Lalong.

    Governor Lalong and his Deputy Prof Sonni Gwanle Tyoden defeated Gyang Nyam Shom Pwajok (GNS) and his running mate, Yilji Gomwalk, who contested on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Aggrieved by the declaration, Pwajok,  Gomwalk and the PDP filed a petition before the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal of Plateau vide PETITION NO. EPT/PL/GOV/2/2015 on May 2. Governor Lalong, the APC and INEC  are first, second and third respondents.

    The respondents filed their respective replies to the petition, each raising a preliminary objection on the grounds that the petitioners’ pleadings challenging, inter alia, the “generic, vague, nebulous and general” paragraphs of the Petition in breach of paragraph 4(1)(d) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and Order 13 Rules 4(1), 5 and 6(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 .

    The provisions require parties to furnish sufficient particulars in their pleadings to avoid taking the other party by surprise.

    The appellant also filed a substantive application on June 12, praying the tribunal to strike out the petition and/or the offending paragraphs.

    However, at the pre-hearing session, by agreement of parties and in the light of the provisions of paragraph 12(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the implication of the provision of Section 285(6) of the Constitution (as amended), the ribunal in its pre-hearing session report directed that all preliminary objections be argued and/or adopted with the final written addresses of parties in the petition and one composite judgment delivered by the tribunal.

    After the close of pre-hearing session, the petitioners on July 23 sought the tribunal’s leave to call an additional witness and to file the witness’ statement on oath. Among their prayers was an order granting leave for the hearing of the application outside the pre-hearing session.

    The pre-hearing session ended on June 29, while the application was filed on July 23.

    Earlier in the course of proceedings, and while seeking for more time to obtain documents from the INEC at the lower tribunal, the petitioners, through their lead counsel, Robert Clarke (SAN), told the tribunal that the documents earlier given to them were fake.

    After being granted leave to obtain fresh documents from INEC, the petitioners alleged that INEC refused to give them the documents they needed.

    The first and second respondents opposed the motion and filed counter-affidavits. They contended that no authentic report or document could emanate from the fake documents used by the petitioners.

    On August 1, the tribunal heard the application and delivered its ruling on August 5. Dissatisfied, the first respondent filed a Notice of Appeal on August 22.

    In the interlocutory appeal, Pwajok, Yilji Gomwalk, PDP, APC and INEC became the first, second, third, fourth and fifth respondents. Governor Lalong filed his  brief of argument. The fourth and fifth respondents did not file any respondent’s brief at the Court of Appeal. However, the first to third respondents filed their brief of argument. They also filed a preliminary objection contending that the appellant  cannot appeal against an interlocutory ruling or decision delivered or made by the trial tribunal.

    The appellant, through his lead counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), formulated these issues: “Whether   the   lower   tribunal   was   not in   error   when   it  failed to appreciate the essence of the provision of paragraph 47(1) of the First Schedule to Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) by holding that the first to third petitioners /respondents did not need to seek and obtain the tribunal’s leave to get their July 23 application heard and determined outside pre-trial session; whether having regard to the sui generis nature of election petition, the provisions of section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and paragraphs 4(1 )(d); 4(5)(a), (b) and (c); 4(6) and 14(2) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the tribunal was not wrong to have granted the first to third petitioners/respondents’ application filed on July 23, which thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the appellants”.

    In its judgment delivered on September 22, the Court of Appeal Jos dismissed the objection of the first to third respondents. It allowed the appellant’s appeal and dismissed the application filed by the first to third respondents/petitioners.

    The Appellate Court further held that the tribunal was wrong when it failed to take into cognizance the sui generis (specially classified time bound proceedings) nature of election petitions which require strict compliance with the time-lines, which it held, must be adhered to.

    Counsel for Lalong, Mr. Jonathan Mawiyau, said: “I feel fulfilled because justice has been done according to law.  We had vehemently opposed the application because we believed that the grant of the prayers will automatically alter the content, structure and spirit of the petitioners’ complaints against the result and declaration of INEC respecting the April 11 2015 Governorship Election in Plateau State. It would certainly give a weak petition undeserved strength. We also believed that granting the prayers in the July 23 application will significantly amend the petition itself, albeit, outside the time-frame allowed by law for any amendments to be made.

    “There was ‘ingenuity’ in the tribunal’s decision that even before the application was filed, it had already, by virtue of its pre-hearing session report, granted leave to the petitioners to bring an application, making the application itself superfluous. That was a trap, which we had to escape, and to escape we had to appeal. Now that the Court of Appeal has fully agreed with our position and reasoning, we feel fulfilled.”

    On the effect of the judgment on the substantive matter before the Tribunal, Mawiyau said: “My  take is that we are now better positioned in our defence of the petition. Firstly, we have a Preliminary Objection before the lower Tribunal. Its ruling had in effect determined it even before it was argued. That was in spite of the fact that the same tribunal had, during the pre-hearing session, ruled that it would write a composite judgment touching the objection and the main petition. Now, there is an opportunity for the objection to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

    “Secondly, the tribunal can only refer to the so called expert’s evidence or the ‘forensic report’ and all those fake documents in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and strictly thereto.

    “If it is to be looked into at all, I am of the view that only the Supreme Court can do that since not even the Court of Appeal can look into it again,  particularly having regard to the sui generis nature of election petitions, which makes it most unlikely to have the time to refer the matter to any of the lower Courts.

    “I am more comfortable with that position since there, at the Supreme Court, the issues will be dealt with dispassionately.”

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Tribunal upholds APC Rep member’s election, dismisses PDP petition

    Tribunal upholds APC Rep member’s election, dismisses PDP petition

    The Lagos  State National and State Houses of Assembly Elections Petition Tribunal sitting in Ikeja has upheld INEC’s return of Barrister Jimi Benson of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as House of Representatives member.

    Benson’s victory at the March 28 National Assembly election into Ikorodu Federal Constituency seat in the House of Reps was challenged by Mr. Ola Animashaun of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Respondents in the matter are Jimi Benson, APC and INEC.The petitioner had alleged that INEC was wrong to have returned Benson as the lawful winner of the said poll.

    In its judgement, the tribunal held that the petitioner failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. It said the petitioner made allegations and the onus of proof rested on him but he failed to lead evidence to prove his case. Counsel to the respondent had earlier questioned the basis of the petition.

    The legal practitioner cited Sections 47 and 53 of the first schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 in his defence. According to him, the petitioner made allegations on individuals, who are not parties in the matter. He then urged the tribunal to strike out the petition.

     

  • Sound bites from Rivers governorship petition tribunal

    The Rivers State Governorship Election Tribunal has been full of drama since the 1st Respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), opened its defence on September 17.  The electoral body was said to have flown 20 out of twenty-three Electoral Officers involved in the election into Abuja to testify in its defence. They were reportedly lodged at Awala Hotel, Wuse Zone 11. Six of them came to the court to give their testimony.

    INEC’s lead counsel, Mr. Ikpeazu (SAN) confidently called in the Electoral Officer for Obio/Akpor Local Government Area as his first Defence Witness (DW1), who was led to adopt his witness deposition, in which he repeatedly claimed that the election was free and fair. However, the situation changed almost immediately under a firebrand cross-examination led by Chief Olujimi SAN. Under cross examination, the EO denied being aware that Card Reader was meant to be used for the April 11 Governorship Election. When pushed further, the EO maintained: “I am not aware that card reader was to be used for the Governorship Election in Rivers State.” The credibility of the witness was battered when in response to Olujimi’s question he claimed that the election in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area took place the same day, April 11, whereas it is on record, even from INEC’s documentations, that at least election in two wards were rescheduled for the following day, April 12.

    INEC called it a day after this witness and applied for adjournment till the following day. With the disappointing response of that single witness, the entire “election” in Obio/Akpor LGA had been successfully discredited. The 19 other Electoral Officers were immediately flown back to Rivers State. On September 18, when the matter was called up, Ikpeazu was reported ill and asked for further adjournment to Monday, September 21.

    On Monday, when the tribunal resumed, the counsel to INEC called in some witnesses who testified as Youth Corps members, who claimed to have “conducted election” at the polling units. Unfortunately, all the witnesses, who claimed to have been trained for the job, denied being aware of clear guidelines for the election, one of which is to the effect that where the card reader fails, the election should be postponed to the following day, a directive that is clearly written down on the electoral manual for the election. A Deputy Director from INEC, in charge of ICT, had also given evidence for the petitioner in that regard. The climax of the drama was at the point when Chief Olujimi under cross-examination requested one of the witnesses to read out a portion on the Electoral Manual, but the lady claimed that her sight had failed her and the entire tribunal burst into laughter, as spectators were heard whispering Prof. Etu Efeotor. Ikpeazu urged the tribunal to order the police to maintain order. Prof. Efeotor was the Rivers State Collation Officer for the March 28 Presidential Election, who could not read out collation figures because according to him the figures were “written under special circumstances”. Even when the Tribunal ordered the witness to read, she simply refused to. It was the provision which directed that where the card reader failed or was unavailable till the time fixed for the close of accreditation, election should be postponed to the following day.

    INEC had planned to call 50 witnesses in six days and many were wondering how the evidence of 50 polling units Presiding Officers, assuming INEC is able to call such number, would assist their case when higher authorities who monitored the elections at a general and wider level had testified at the tribunal to say that the election did not hold as prescribed under the law. They contended that if the POs were able to prove compliance, it is only as it relates to their respective units, maximum of 50 polling units, which would be very insignificant in a State of over 4,442 polling unit. They expect that the Resident Electoral Commissioner that superintended the election should be brought to testify as to the conduct of the election. Regrettably, it is not likely that the legal team is willing to take the risk of fielding the REC or any senior INEC officer.

    Wike
    Wike

    Expressing their deep concern, many seem to be suggesting that it is a very bad case for Governor Nyesom Wike and the PDP.

    This seems to be the general view and atmosphere for both the petitioners and some of the respondents’ counsel, but whether the tribunal will agree with them is a different issue. One of the lawyers of PDP simply put it this way, “the APC has tried, their evidence is overwhelming. We will try our best and leave it to the court. It is not a do-or-die, but honestly, to me, they have proven their case but I am not the tribunal.”

    • Eleba is of the SNP Online News.

     

  • Tribunal dismisses Cross River LP’s, APC’s suits against PDP

    Tribunal dismisses Cross River LP’s, APC’s suits against PDP

    The National and State Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal in Cross River State yesterday dismissed the suits filed by Egbe Abeng Egbe of the Labour Party (LP) against the House of Representatives member representing Obubra/Etung in the National Assembly, Michael Etaba, of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    It also dismissed the suit filed by Effiong Ekarika of the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the member representing Calabar South I in the House of Assembly, Okon Ephraim, of the PDP.

    Egbe challenged Etaba’s qualification to contest in the March 28 election, alleging that the poll was massively rigged.

    He sought the nullification of the election.

    Ekarika also alleged that there were irregularities in the House of Assembly election.

    In separate judgments, which lasted about two hours, tribunal Chairman Justice Christopher Awubra dismissed both cases, on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their cases beyond all reasonable doubt.

  • Speaker hails Ortom’s victory at tribunal

    The Speaker, Benue State House of Assembly, Mr. Terkimbi Ikyange, has hailed the judgment of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which affirmed Governor Samuel Ortom’s victory.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the tribunal upheld the election of Ortom on Monday.

    Ikyange, yesterday in Makurdi, in a congratulatory letter by his Chief Press Secretary, Mr. Bem Abunde, described the judgment as “very sound.”

    He said: “The judgment has affirmed the mandate the Benue people gave Ortom and the All Progressives Congress (APC) during the general election.”

    According to him, the coast was clear for the governor to settle down and provide good governance anchored on change, as desired by the electorate.

    The APC Chairman, Comrade Abba Yaro, said he had been vindicated.

    Speaking on the phone with The Nation, he said he had noted that the petition by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) standard-bearer, Terhemen Tarzoor, was an exercise in futility and an unnecessary distraction.

    Yaro said he wondered why the PDP did not contest the result of the election, but questioned the nomination of Ortom, expecting victory through the back door.

    He said the days of judicial impunity were over.

    The APC chairman said the governor’s victories at the polls and tribunal were a divine intervention to end the suffering of civil servants and pensioners and ensure good governance.

    He advised the opposition to support Ortom, as his victory was a confirmation of his mandate given at the polls.

     

     

  • Tribunal upholds Ortom’s election

    Tribunal upholds Ortom’s election

    •Dismisses Tarzoor’s petition

    The Benue State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Makurdi yesterday upheld the election of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Governor Samuel Ortom.

    It dismissed the petition by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) standard-bearer, Terhemen Tarzoor, for lacking in merit.

    Justice Elizabeth Karatu, who read the three-hour judgment, said the petitioner failed to prove that Governor Ortom was not qualified to stand election.

    She said the respondent had proved that he was an APC member by tendering his membership card and his letter of waiver at the tribunal.

    Ortom urged Tarzoor to join him in building a new Benue, which everyone would be proud of.

    Addressing reporters after the judgment, he said his election was God’s will, adding that he nursed the ambition to rule the state for more than 20 years.

    There was jubilation in Makurdi and other parts of the state. APC supporters took to the streets, dancing.

    An APC chieftain, Chief John Akperashi, who led supporters in a motorcade through Judges Quarters, Gboko Road, Northbank, Wadadta and Highlevel in Makurdi, told The Nation that the governor had come to stay, “as he will now work without distraction.”

    The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mike Gusah, described the judgment as sound.

    He advised the opposition to support Ortom and move Benue forward.

     

  • How powerful is Code of Conduct Tribunal?

    How powerful is Code of Conduct Tribunal?

    Indeed, these are interesting times. Recent events in our country including public declaration of assets by the President and Vice-President and the controversy surrounding the proposed arraignment of the Senate President before the Code of Conduct Tribunal may have forced a closer examination and appraisal of the relevant stipulations on the Code of Conduct for public officers, if for no other reason than the quest for public information and enlightenment.

    However, as a law officer, I will warn myself not to comment on the merits or otherwise of any of the pending cases in court. This approach is in line with ethics and demands of professionalism.

    The preliminary point to be made is that the Code of Conduct Tribunal is statutory being a creation of the constitution. The seriousness of the provisions on Code of Conduct for public officers is underscored by the fact that it is incorporated into the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) under the 5th Schedule Part I. there is also a special legislation enacted for this by virtue of Chapter C15 Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, No. 1 of 1989 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 with commencement date of 1st January 1991 which is an act to provide for the establishment of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal to deal with complaints of corruption by public servants for the breaches of its provisions.

    The Vice president, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), GCON, in a paper titled: “Strengthening the Code of Conduct Bureau”, argued as follows:“The Code of Conduct for Public Officers is a component of the Nigerian anti-corruption and transparency framework. It is perhaps the first formal legislation creating offences and sanctions for official corruption and other acts in breach of the prescribed ethics for public officers.

    Of considerable significance is the fact that the entire code of conduct regime under Nigerian Law is provided for in the Constitution.

    The Constitution provides for the Code of Conduct itself, the categories of public officers who are subject to its provisions, the Code of Conduct Bureau, which  is to enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct, and the Code of Conduct Tribunal-which is to try cases of infraction of the Code of Conduct. This is both its strength and its weakness.  The entrenchment in the Constitution means that it cannot be altered at all as might an Act of the National Assembly .

    This also means that amendments to the provisions establishing the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal is not possible by an Act of the National Assembly without an amendment to the Constitution itself. It is in fact unconstitutional to repeat constitutional provisions verbatim in another Law of the Legislature. [A.G Abia State V. A.G Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763)  264 SC.]

    However Section 15 (4)  of Part 1 of the  5th Schedule of  the Constitution to the effect that National Assembly may confer on the Code of Conduct Tribunal such additional power s as may appear necessary to enable it more effectively discharge the functions conferred on it by the Schedule.

    It is also noteworthy that some of the provisions in several other anti-corruption legislation overlap the Code of Conduct  provisions of the Constitution.“

     

    Analysis

    Against this background, this analysis will focus on the salient provisions of the Code, namely: “conflict of interest with duty; restrictions on specified officers; prohibition of foreign accounts; retired public officer; certain retired public officers; gifts or benefits in kind; restriction on loans, gifts or benefits to certain public officers; bribery of public officers; abuse of powers; membership of societies; declaration of assets; allegation of breach of code; agents and nominees; exemptions; code of conduct tribunal; staff; tenure of office of chairman and members; powers; interpretation.”

    The searchlight shall also cover salient provisions of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and the powers and operational modalities of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

     

    Restrictions on Public Officers

    Every public officer is obliged to forestall conflict of interest with his duties including not to “(a) receive or be paid the emoluments of any public office at the same time as he receives or is paid the emoluments of any other public officer…” the only exception is where the public officer “… is not employed on full time basis, engage or participate in the management or running of any private business, profession or trade but nothing in this sub-paragraph shall prevent a public officer from engaging in farming.”

    There are also restrictions on public officers to maintain or operate a bank account in any country outside Nigeria including restrictions against acceptance of gifts or benefits in kind. Restrictions on loan, gift or benefit also apply to certain public officers who could not draw facilities except from government or its agencies, a building society mortgage institution or other financial institution recognised by law. Further restrictions include prohibitions against bribery of public officers, abuse of powers and membership of societies incompatible with the functions on dignity of his office. More importantly, every public officers shall declare assets at end of every four years and at the end of his term of office and submit to the Code of Conduct Bureau a written declaration of such properties, assets and those of his unmarried children under the age of 18 years, subject to verification by the appropriate authorities. Of course, there are consequences for the breach of any provisions of the Code of Conduct, with complaints on such breaches referable to the Code of Conduct Bureau, the actions of the agents and nominees of such public officers are also attributable to the public officer concerned.

     

    The Code of Conduct Bureau

    The Code of Conduct Bureau is established pursuant to the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act with aims and objectives which include ensuring “…a high standard of morality in the conduct of government business and to ensure that the actions and behaviour of public officers conform to the highest standards of public morality and accountability.” The functions of the Bureau shall be to “receive assets declarations by public officers in accordance with the provisions of this Act; examine the assets declarations and ensure that they comply with the requirements of this Act and of any law for the time being in force; take and retain custody of such assets declarations; and receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of this Act and where the Bureau considers it necessary to do so, refer such complaints to the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by section 20 of this Act in accordance with the provisions of sections 20 to 25 of this Act; provided that where the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, no reference to the Tribunal shall be necessary.”

     

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal is established under the 5th Schedule Part I to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and pursuant to the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act referred to above.

    There are far-reaching provisions detailing “establishment, staff, tenure, powers to impose punishment, rules of procedure and institution of proceedings, power to issue search warrants including interpretation” of the words used under Part 3 of the Code of Bureau and Tribunal Act. In all of these provisions, it is important to examine the jurisdiction, scope of powers of the Tribunal to impose punishment, reference of cases to the tribunal and court to which proceedings on appeal lies for the decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

     

    Jurisdiction

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complaints brought before it by the Code of Conduct Tribunal arising from breaches of the provisions of the Code of Conduct for public officers stipulated under the 5th Schedule Part I of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and breaches arising from the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act No. 1 of 1989 with commencement date of 1st Januray 1991.

    Prosecutions for all offences are instituted in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by the Attorney-General of the Federation or such officers in the Federal Ministry of Justice with authority to institute such proceedings by the Attorney-General of the Federation. It is however not clear whether anyone can challenge such delegated powers by the Attorney-General of the Federation.

     

    Scope of powers

    Section 23(2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act provides: “The punishment which the Tribunal may impose shall include any of the following:  Vacation of office or any elective or nominated office, as the case may be;

    Disqualification from holding any public office (whether elective or not) for a period not exceeding ten years; and Seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.”

    The tribunal also has power to issue search warrants by virtue of section 25 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

     

    Reference of cases to the Tribunal

    Section 3 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act assigns the responsibility of receiving complaints for breach of the code to the Code of Conduct Bureau and reference of such complaints to the Tribunal is also vested in the Code of Conduct Bureau, where any party makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, it will not be necessary for the Code of Conduct Bureau to make any reference of such complaints to the Tribunal.

    “Prosecution of offences shall be instituted in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by the Attorney-General of the Federation or such officers in the Federal Ministry of Justice as the Attorney-General of the Federation may authorize to do so.”

    Private legal practitioners may also obtain a fiat of the Attorney-General to undertake such prosecutions. There is however a caveat to the effect that: “…the question whether any authority has been given in pursuance of this subsection shall not be inquired into by any person.”

     

    Appeals from the Code of

    Conduct Tribunal

    With regard to appeals from the Code of Conduct Tribunal, the provision of section 246(1a) of the 1999 Constitution is important as it provides: “.An appeal to the Court of Appeal shall lie as of right from decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal established in the fifth schedule to this Constitution”.

    It follows from the above that only the Court of Appeal has appellate and supervisory jurisdictions over the proceedings of the Code of Conduct Tribunal and not any other court.

     

    The Constitution  Vs  the Act

    The Constitutional provisions for Code of Conduct of public officers is very elaborate (see: Part 1, 5th Schedule CFRN 1999) Various sections of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act are in conflict with the Constitutional provisions on the subject matter e.g: ‘The non-liability and indemnity clause enuring for the benefit of the Chairman and Members of the Bureau in any action or litigation against them for liabilities incurred in the course of the discharge of their offices is not recognised by the Constitution (see Section 19 of the Act) unlike the Act, the Constitution obliges the Bureau to make  declaration of assets of public officers available for inspection  of any Citizen of Nigeria on terms to be determined by an Act of the National  Assembly (Compare Para 3 (c) Part 1, 3rd Schedule CFRN and Section 3 (c) of the Act.

    While under the Act, the Bureau’s powers is limited to receiving complaints about non-compliance with the Code of Conduct and referring same to the Tribunal, the Bureau has powers to investigate such complaints, ensure and enforce compliance with the Code under the CFRN 1999. (Compare Para  3 (d) & (e) of the CFRN and Sec 3 (d) of the Act).

    The proviso to Section 3 (d) of the Act in respect of waiver of reference on admission is not recognised under the Constitution.

    While the National Assembly is mandated to make laws for the discipline of staff of the Bureau in the Constitution, the Act mandates the Presidents to make rules in that respect (Compare Section 4 of the Act and para 3 (f) Part 1 Schedule 5 of the Constitution) Under the Constitution, the public officers prohibited from owning foreign bank accounts are restricted to political office holders and do not include members of the judiciary while the Act makes a sweeping generalisation in that respect. (Compare par 3 Schedule 5 of the Constitution with Section 7 of the Act).

    The age of the declarant’s children whose properties must also be declared vary.  Under the Constitution, the age limit is 18 years while the Act peg the age at 21 years. (compare par 11 Schedule 5 of the Constitution with Section 15 of the Act).

    There is no provision in the constitution in respect of declaration of asset by a serving officer similar to Section 15 (c) of the Act.

    Under the Act, the Tribunal’s power to impose the penalty of vacation of office is in respect of all public offices whereas the penalty can only be meted in respect of legislative offices (Compare par 18 (2) (a) & (b) of the Constitution with Section 23 of the Act.

    The power of the Tribunal to issue search warrants under Section 25 of the Act is not stipulated for under the Constitution.

    These and other provisions of the Act are void for being inconsistent with and duplicating the provisions of the Constitution.

     

    Lacunae in Constitutional Code of Conduct Provisions

    No provision for enforcement of compliance mechanism  in respect of powers granted the Bureau in paragraph 3 (d) Part 1 Schedule 3 of the Constitution.

    Providing  for a “without prejudice” prosecution contrary to the “double jeopardy” prohibition provision Section 36 (9)  of the Constitution.  (see par 18 (6) Schedule 5 of the Constitution).

    Non-inclusion of coercive powers of the Code of Conduct Tribunal as contained in the Section 25 of the Act.

    Disregarding the immunity clause in its power-of-prosecution provisions (see Attorney General of the Federation V. Atiku Abubakar (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt 1035) 117.

    Limiting the penalty of vacation of seats only to Legislative Houses members.

    Excluding judicial officers from the prohibition from maintaining foreign accounts. The Code of Conduct provision has since then maintained a permanence of some sort, in the 5th schedule of all constitutions following thereafter; 1989, 1993, 1995 and the current 1999 constitution.

     

    Board membership

    The CCB comprises the following: A Chairman, and nine other members, each of whom at the time of appointment, shall not be less than fifty years of age and subject to the provisions of section 157 of the constitution, shall vacate his office on attaining the age of seventy years.

     

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, there is no doubt that our current legislations on Code of Conduct may need to be strengthened. The focus of any Prospective Legislation on Code of Conduct in the words of Prof. Yemi Osinbajo SAN should address the following areas:

    “Conditions for inspection of  assets declaration forms of  public officers by any Nigerian Citizen Legal Regime for the appointment, promotion, dismissal and general disciplinary control of staff of the Bureau Additional functions of the Bureau in addition to those conferred by the Constitution.

    Expansion of the list of public officers  prohibited from maintaining foreign accounts Exemption of any cadre of public officers from the provisions of paragraphs 4 & 11 of the Code of Conduct.

    Conferring wider powers on the Tribunal to enable it carry out its functions more efficiently Expanding the scope of punishments to be meted by the Tribunal for infraction of the Code of Conduct Enacting rules for the Practice and Procedure of the Tribunal.”

    Finally, the jurisprudence in this area is most likely to be enhanced by the judicial pronouncements and outcomes of the ongoing cases in the land now that activities in this area is currently on the rise.

     

  • All eyes on Akwa Ibom Elections Tribunal

    For more than 140 days since the legal brickbats started in the ongoing trial for the determination of the authenticity or otherwise of the April 11, 2015 governorship elections in Akwa Ibom state, Nigerians, and more specifically Akwa Ibomites have waited , with baited breath, for the likely outcome. And, by the time hearing ended abruptly Thursday, September, 17, 2015, many of these agitated Nigerians who have been following proceedings from the Room 8, of the Abuja High court, venue of the relocated Tribunal sitting, would have formed their opinion on what would be the likely outcome of the debilitating exercise, in terms of the tide of judgement.

    This is so because, from the volume of Exhibits presented at the Tribunal, the quality of witnesses, the weight and damning evidences on the credibility or otherwise of the election, it is almost certain to discerning minds, like this writer, that it would only take a miracle for the Akwa Ibom governorship election of April 11, 2015 to be upheld by the Tribunal. The Petitioners, who specifically asked for re-run would certainly be granted the relief.

    How do I mean? For some of us who participated in the elections and had firsthand experience of what happened on the election day, it is not strange or surprising that everything went wrong with the Akwa Ibom governorship elections. In fact, prior to the election itself, the opposition All Progressive Congress (APC) had shouted itself hoarse, through press releases and media conferences, trying to draw the attention of Nigerians to the schemes and underhand play of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the likely culpability of the umpire, INEC, in the conduct of the governorship and state assembly elections in the state. Virtually all the guidelines required for a major election of that magnitude were not adhered to. They were no display of voters register for people to verify their eligibility to vote, threat of violence and intimidations of the other candidates, lock-out of opposing parties from campaign venues as well as the state-owned media, among many other undemocratic attitudes by the ruling party in the state.

    The state APC  equally drawn attention to the security breaches that were brewing in the state. For instance, attention were drawn to the purchase of about four hundred hilux vehicles and the sowing of military fatigue uniform for the PDP goons, in the state, but nobody paid any attention. And, when those ‘arsenals’ were unleashed on the hapless citizens of the state, most people were not surprised. Perhaps, that probably accounted for why the APC adopted a more painstaking approach in recording proceeding at the elections, compiled verifiable facts and were more circumspective in their presentations at the trial.

    It is equally clear that the Akwa Ibom  PDP were not ready to go for the trial ab initio, judging from what has transpired so far. First, they couldn’t readily accept the fact that ‘change’ was here. Their usual shenanigans in bulldozing their way in previous elections, through the allocation of figures and getting away with it had become obsolete by the Attahiru Jega’s introduction of the innovative card readers machines and a court system that had woken up from the slumber. First, it was the deployment of intimidation at the Tribunal sitting that failed. Even their attempt to stop its relocation to Abuja for the safety of the judges and litigants equally hit the rocks. From their bag of tricks came the use of technicalities to knock off the trial which also met a brick wall. And, when it dawn on them that the trial was real, everybody could smell panic from their camp.

    Umana
    Umana

    And, so it was when, the petitioners, APC and its flag bearer, Umana Okon Umana called its witnesses to the dock, and the damning testimonies came forth, pouring like torrents, that Nigerians began to appreciate the inhuman nature of our brand of politics. I mean how can anyone explain that a hapless Youth Corp member, was beaten to stupor, stripped naked and almost killed. Her crime? She stopped thugs from carrying away ballot box in the polling booth she superintended in Uyo metropolis as Adhoc staff of INEC.

    Somebody had to remove his jacket to cover her nakedness. This scene was replicated across the state. Or, what could be more damning and humiliating to know that a former governor of the state, Obong Victor Attah was not humoured by allowing him to even vote. His polling booth in Asutan Ekpe had no election materials supplied to it. He had to call media people to bear him witness. And, he was personally at the Tribunal to tell his story. Same goes for Chief Don Etiebet, a former presidential candidate in this country and a BOT member of the PDP. Even the governorship candidate of the APC, Umana Umana couldn’t vote in his own ward in Nsit Ubium. The big question is, if these known faces couldn’t vote, who else did?

    Emmanuel
    Emmanuel

    The answer is that, the election you saw in Akwa Ibom, on television, was just for the camera. The 1,158,624 votes declared in the state for the governorship were just cooked figures. People sat somewhere and wrote it in connivance with the INEC in the state. And this clearly showed when the few witnesses called by counsels to Governor Udom Emmanuel, The PDP and Akwa Ibom INEC all gave contradictory account of what happened during the election. In fact, Defence Witnesses  (DWs)26 and 27 by names Austin Nwana and Dominic Okenna, Electoral Officers for Nsit Ubium and Onna Local Government Areas of the state respectively, told disparaging tales on how the pools went. While the latter denied any knowledge of the directive signed by the INEC director of Legal Services, Mrs Augusta C. Ogakwu, making the use of card readers mandatory for the gubernatorial pools, and that in event of any malfunctioning, the pools should be extended to the following day, the former, on the prodding of Mr Solomon Umoh (SAN), one of the Counsels to the petitioners, admitted that he was aware of the directive and that the circular was even pasted in INEC notice board in Uyo. This was just a classic example of the cacophony of disparate voices that trailed the testimonies of the DWs in their attempt to manufacture a semblance of evidence to hoodwink the people that election took place in Akwa Ibom on the April 11, 2015 governorship polls.

    That may also be the plausible reasons why the bulk of those who were listed to testify for the defence either feigned sickness or denied ever accepting to be witnesses. An example could be seen in the refusal of Emmanuel Enoidem, a serving official of the state government (then and now) who was listed as the state collation officer for the PDP who had to beat a hasty retreat when he, probably, was told that as a serving official in the state, he had no constitutional approval to collate electoral result for that administration. It went further to show why out of the more than 400 witnesses listed by Udom Emmanuel, and an application for another 9,000 witnesses ( granted by the tribunal), only 19 witnesses were willing to show up. For the PDP, only four witnesses came forth out of the long list they advertised while another four appeared for INEC out of 94 witnesses while the Petitioners presented 56 witnesses and wanted more days to bring more?. Can anybody then be in doubt why the defence lawyers closed their cases before the expiration of their allotted days, and were in the habit of giving frivolous excuses for not bringing forth their witnesses?

    To say that the defence collapsed like a pack of card before the Tribunal is stating the obvious. Their effort to play up the unreliability of the card readers machines fell flat while their resort to the use of incident forms could not fly either. In fact, the incident forms which they so much trumpeted and even caused the Tribunal to issue a subpoena to bring them from Uyo was not even presented as Exhibit for the simple fact that it was not going to help their case, having realised belatedly that those cards were not signed by the Adhoc staff, mostly Youth Service personnel who could not be traced to do the hatchet job. This really infuriated the Tribunal Chairman, Sadiq Umar who ordered the seven bags to be removed from the Tribunal’s store.

    By now, it is clear to the defence counsels comprising Mr Paul Usoro (SAN) for Udom Emmanuel, Tayo Adetibo (SAN) for PDP and Alex Ejesieme of INEC that the battle is as good as lost. It was also clear from the proceedings that the concocted figure of 1,158,624 could not be reconciled with the figures which the PDP and INEC allocated 996,071 to Udom Emmanuel and 89,313 to Umana Okon Umana of APC. The clincher, the card readers in the central pool of INEC in Abuja, recorded only 437, 128 as the accredited voters for the state. The INEC head of ICT collaborated this when he testified for the petitioners. This was further worsened by the distortions in the filling of form EC8A, EC8B and EC8C which are meant for results of votes collated from Units, Wards and local government areas of the state .

    And as the first and crucial round of the Akwa Ibom Governorship Election ended, and the final addresses by both the petitioner and defence counsels awaited, it is left to be seen what issues would be canvassed to bring the whole melodrama to a close. As the Tribunal Chairman, Justice Sadiq Umar noted in his remarks before adjoining the case to October 8, 2015 for the adoption of written addresses, parties to the dispute were strongly advised to adhere strictly to the schedule in order to meet the constitutional provisions for determining the case.

    Ultimately, every right thinking democrat is very satisfied with the turn of our electoral fortunes. I can bet that with the introduction of card readers and the unbiased handling of electoral cases so far, our democracy is beginning to take root. Nigerians , who believed that elections can only be won by the garrison approach, I am sure are beginning to have a rethink. It is obvious that impunity, the biggest bane of our democratic experience is gradually taking the back seat.

     

    Ankak, a journalist and public affairs analyst, writes from Lagos          

     

     

     

     

  • I will be at the Tribunal tomorrow – Saraki

    I will be at the Tribunal tomorrow – Saraki

    The Senate President, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki has promised to appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal on Tuesday.

    In a statement by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Yusuph Olaniyonu, Saraki said while he is ready to submit himself to due process of the law on any issue concerning him, he also believes that he has an inalienable right to resort to the same judiciary for protection when he feels his fundamental rights are about to be infringed upon.

    [ad id=”403656″]” The Senate President is a law abiding citizen and his absence from tribunal was based on legal advice he received from his counsel that it is not necessary for him to appear before the tribunal at this stage since the jurisdiction of the tribunal and the process of initiating the matter are being challenged before the Federal High Court Abuja.

    ” Following the adjournment for the determination of the motion on notice and the substantive suit before the Federal High Court to 30th of September and the appeal pending before the Court of Appeal adjourned to the 29th of September 2015, the Senate President has decided, as a law abiding citizen, to appear before the Tribunal in the interim.

    ” Dr. Saraki has taken the decision to attend the Tribunal sitting to demonstrate his respect for the rule of law in spite of his personal reservation on the process of his trial and the purpose it may be intended to serve.

    ” Dr. Saraki wishes to assure Nigerians of his absolute belief in the judicial process and is therefore confident that the course of justice would be served at the end of this matter,” Olaniyonu stated.