The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Walter Onnoghen

  • Utomi, SERAP, lawyers preach integrity as Onnoghen is convicted

    The need for integrity in the judiciary and other sectors of public life dominated discourse yesterday as the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) found ex-Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen guilty of concealing assets, report Adebisi Onanuga, Joseph Jibueze.

    Integrity among public

    officials important,

    say Utomi, lawyers

     

    A Professor of Political Economics, Pat Utomi, has called for integrity among public officers in the interest of nation-building and unity.

    He reacted to yesterday’s conviction of ex-Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, of breach of Code of Conduct for public officers.

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) chaired by Danladi Umar convicted Onnoghen, 68, and ordered his immediate removal as the CJN.

    The CCT stripped him of all offices he occupied, such as the Chairman of the National Judicial Council and  Chairman of the Federal Judicial Service Commission.

    The tribunal also ordered the forfeiture of money in five accounts which Onnoghen failed to declare as part of his assets.

    The tribunal equally ordered that he should not hold any public office for 10 years.

    In an interview with NAN, Utomi said: “The times suggest that the point that we have always made about the importance of integrity is critical for nation building and individual sense of unity.”

    Mr Wale Ogunade, a lawyer and the President of Voters Awareness Initiative (VAI), said that Onnoghen’s conviction showed that no one should be above the law.

    He urged that corruption investigations should not be politicised.

    He said: “For such a step to be taken against a high ranking official, particularly against the head of the judiciary, then there is smoke behind the fire, I knew something was wrong and, indeed, he was found guilty.

    “I was convinced that he was guilty when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) wrote a petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC) which recommended his resignation and so on.

    REad also: The CJN Walter Onnoghen phenomenon: A disaster of monumental proportions

    “I was one of those who suggested, when he started, that he should eat the humble pie and resign as an honourable man but unfortunately he allowed himself to be misled by his kinsmen who believed that it was politics.

    “Law and politics are like water and oil, there is no way you can mix the two, the law will always stand and politics will fall like what you have seen.

    “It also shows that there is no sacred cow; those who think they are above the law now know they are under the law, it does not matter that you are the chief law officer.”

     

    SERAP urges CCB to release details of assets of ex-presidents, ex-governors

     

    Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has requested the Chairman, Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) Dr Muhammed Isah, to provide information on specific details of asset declarations submitted to the bureau by successive presidents and state governors since the return of democracy in 1999.

    SERAP is seeking information on: “details of asset declarations by successive presidents and state governors between 1999 and 2019, including details of declarations made immediately after taking offices and thereafter, and for those who have left public offices, at the end of their term of office. Information is also sought on the number of asset declarations so far verified by the CCB and the number of those declarations found to be false and deemed to be in breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, by the Bureau.”

    It urged the CCB to disclose, by publishing on a dedicated website, details of asset declarations submitted by presidents and state governors since the return of democracy in 1999; details on the number of asset declarations so far verified by the CCB and the number of those declarations found to be false and deemed to be a breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers by the Bureau.

    Continue in page 2

  • Presidency: War against corruption is all-encompassing

    TO the Presidency, the conviction of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen, by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) is a major boost for the anti-corruption policy of the Buhari administration.

    Reacting to the verdict in a statement by Presidential spokesman Garba Shehu, the Presidency affirmed that that the outcome of the trial demonstrates clearly that the law is no respecter of persons, titles, social or political connections.

    The President said the verdict should send clear signals to all public office holders that the law is no respecter of persons.

    The statement reads: “The Presidency has affirmed that that the conviction of former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mr. Walter Onnoghen by the Code of Conduct Tribunal was a major victory for the anti-corruption policy of the Buhari administration.

    “The outcome of the trial demonstrates clearly that the law is no respecter of persons, titles, social or political connections.

    “The the essence of the rule of law is to hold everyone accountable equally before the law, regardless of their high or law status in the society.

    “The war against corruption is all encompassing and is not designed to persecute anyone for political or other reasons.

    “The rule of law would lose its meaning and validity if only the weak, the poor and powerless are punished for their violations of the law. Countries succeed because the rule of law is evenly upheld and enforced.

    “The war against corruption would go nowhere if the high and mighty are spared because of their influence and connections. You can’t fight corruption by allowing impunity because the rule of law cannot function where impunity is tolerated.

    The conviction of Justice Onnoghen should send a clear message that the dragnet against corruption will be spread widely to hold public officials accountable, whether they are politicians, judges, civil servants or holding positions of public trust.”

     

  • Lawyers disagree over judgment

    Lawyers yesterday disagreed over the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) judgment in the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen case.

    To Babatunde Fashanu (SAN), the decision was not sound, Paul Ananaba SAN said it suggested that “the judiciary is working”.

    The President of Voters Awareness Initiative (VAI), Wale Ogunade, hailed the judgment because, according to him, it showed that no one is above the law.

    In Law teacher Wahab Shittu’s view, the situation calls for  sober reflection.

    The CCT found Onnoghen guilty of violating  the code of conduct for public officers and concealment of assets.

    CCT Chairman Danladi Umar ordered that Onnoghen be removed as CJN and stripped of the National Judicial Council (NJC) chairmanship.

    It also banned the ex-CJN from holding public office for 10 years. The funds found in the five accounts he failed to declare are to be confiscated by the Federal Government.

    Fashanu argued that the CCT had no jurisdiction to try Onnoghen.

    According to him, the body with jurisdiction to try a CJN is the NJC. Onnoghen, the tribunal said, was being tried as a public officer and not a judicial officer.

    Fashanu also disagreed with the 10-year ban imposed on Justice Onnoghen from holding public office, saying that it would have been okay if the CCT had jurisdiction.

    He said if at all the CCT must try Onnoghen, it could only have done that after a disciplinary action had been taken against him by the NJC and the matter was thereafter referred to the tribunal for trial.

    Citing constitutional provisions, Fashanu maintained that it is only the NJC that has the last say on the discipline of a CJN and judges.

    To buttress his position, he cited the Court of Appeal decision in FRN Vs Nganjiwa and argued that until the decision of the high court is overturned, it is still the NJC that has the powers and jurisdiction to discipline the suspended CJN.

    Fashanu recalled that in the course of the trial, Justice Onnoghen objected to the chairman of the tribunal sitting on the matter over some issues raised against him.

    He wondered why the CCT chairman did not recuse himself from the matter.

    He maintained that the discipline of Onnoghen is a constitutional matter and that that power is given only to the NJC by the constitution to exercise.

    The Silk said what the CCT had done was in conflict with the constitution.

    “To that extent, the provisions in the CCT Act empowering it to try the issue of declaration of asset, to decide on it as it did with reference to NJC disciplinary action and provisions of the constitution is not proper,” he  said.

    But Ananaba added that without prejudice to Onnoghen’s right of appeal, the judgment could be an indication that the judiciary was being tested.

    Ananaba said: “The judgment means that the judiciary is working, even though this court (CCT) is an administrative court.”

    Responding to whether the judgment is a victory for the anti-graft war of President Muhammadu Buhari, Ananaba said: “It depends on who is looking at it. One thing very sure is that it shows very clearly that even a Chief Justice of the Federation can also go through the judicial process.

    “However, this (the Onnoghen case) is not corruption as such; he was not charged with fraud, he was charged with failure to declare assets, so, it shouldn’t be translated to anti-corruption as such.”

    Is the judgment a confirmation that the CJN can be removed by judicial process?

    Ananaba said: “Well, he can be removed based on the constitutional provisions. The Constitution says that he can be removed in this instance; the only thing is that it has not been a general practice, it is new, this is the first time this is happening, but it has happened. It will be tested at the appellate courts.”

    Wahab Shittu, an EFCC counsel, noted that the CCT’s conviction was not the end of the matter.

    Read also: Onnoghen appeals Code of Conduct Tribunal conviction

    He said: “I believe that the Code of Conduct Tribunal made its own pronouncement but that is not the end of the matter.

    “I see Onnoghen exercising his constitutional right of appeal; the matter might be protracted and get up to the Supreme Court.

    “It is a sad commentary on our judiciary as no one should celebrate what has happened in this situation where the number one judge in the country has found himself in this kind of predicament.

    “It does not call for celebration; it calls for sober reflection and deep concern.

    “I want to reserve further comments until the machinery of justice is fully exhausted because I feel the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court will make further pronouncement.”

    Ogunade urged that corruption investigations should not be politicised.

    He said: “For such a step to be taken against a high ranking official, particularly against the head of the judiciary, then there is smoke behind the fire, I knew something was wrong and, indeed, he was found guilty.

    “I was convinced that he was guilty when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) wrote a petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC) which recommended his resignation and so on.

    “I was one of those who suggested, when he started, that he should eat the humble pie and resign as an honourable man but, unfortunately, he allowed himself to be misled by his kinsmen who believed that it was politics.

    “Law and politics are like water and oil, there is no way you can mix the two; law will always stand and politics will fall like what you have seen.

    “It also shows that there is no sacred cow; those who think they are above the law now know they are under the law; it does not matter that you are the chief law officer.”

  • Brief history of Onnoghen’s trial

    Sixty-seven-year-old Justice Walter Onnoghen would have retired as the nation’s Chief Justice December 22, 2020 on attaining the mandatory retirement age of 70 years.

    But that possibility was aborted with his conviction and removal from office yesterday by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT)  for violating the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.

    The journey to his conviction commenced with the petition by the Anti-Corruption and Research-Based Data Initiative (ACRBDI) , and its Executive Director, Mr. Dennis Aghanya.

    In the petition, submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau on January 9,  the petitioners accused Onnoghen of violating the Code of Conduct for Public Officers in relation to assets declaration.

    On its receipt of the petition, the CCB, within three days, conducted investigation, concluded same and filed a six-count charge before the CCT.

    In the charge, Onnoghen was accused of failing  to declare his assets between June 2005 and December 14, 2016.

    He was also, in the charge, accused  of making  false declaration of his assets on December 14, 2016 by allegedly omitting to declare his domiciliary dollar, euro and pound sterling accounts as well as his two naira accounts, all maintained with Standard Chattered Bank (Nig.) Ltd.

    At the first mention of the case before the CCT on January 14, 2019, Onnoghen was absent

    Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who led a team of lawyers for the CJN, said he was not properly served with the tribunal’s summons.

    Read also: Onnoghen convicted

    He also said his client has filed an application, challenging the court’s jurisdiction. He asked that the application be taken without the CJN’s presence.

    Aliyu Umar (SAN), who appeared for the complainant, argued that the information by the tribunal’s registrar that the CJN directed his Personal Assistant to accept the summons on his behalf was sufficient.

    He, however, later suggested that the tribunal direct that a fresh service of the summons be effected personally on the CJN, a suggestion accepted by all.

    CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar ordered fresh service on the CJN and adjourned to January 22 for the hearing of al pending applications.

    On January 22, the defendant again stayed away. He refused to attend the CCT proceedings until after the tribunal issued a bench warrant for his arrest on January 28.

    Before then, the President had, acting on an ex-parte order made on January 23 by the CCT, suspended Onnoghen as the CJN and inaugurated the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammed, as the Acting CJN.

    The development attracted varied reactions from the legal community and outside.

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) at an emergency meeting of its National Executive Committee, condemned what it described as “the assault, intimidation and desecration of the judiciary by the executive arm of the Federal Government of Nigeria…”

    Another group, the National Association of Democratic Lawyers (NADL), through its Board of Governors’ Chairman, Jiti Ogunye, faulted the decision to file charge against Onnoghen.

    The group referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lagos, which on December 12, 2017, struck out the charges against a judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Hyeldzira Nganjiwa.

    The Court of Appeal held that Nganjiwa could not be investigated or prosecuted by any law enforcement agency until he was disciplined by the National Judicial Council as provided under Sections 153 and 158 of the Constitution, and Part 1 , Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution.

    NADL stated, “In spite of the fundamental objections of NADL to the judgment of that Court of Appeal, now on appeal at the Supreme Court, every authority and person in Nigeria is bound by that Judgment.

    “For this sole reason, therefore, the CCT charges against Hon. W.S.N. Onnoghen ought not to have been filed. The NADL, therefore, continues to call for the withdrawal of the charges.”

    NADL said it found “as bizarre the order ex-parte that was said to have been obtained on January 23, 2019 by the executive branch of government”  mandating the President to suspend Onnoghen and appoint the next most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as the Acting CJN.

    The NADL called on the suspended CJN “to seriously consider a resignation from office in the interest of the Nigerian judiciary.”

    It said, by exploring the option, Onnoghen could “earn himself a dignified and orderly exit from his current travails.”

    As if taking a cue from the NADL, some senior lawyers were said to have later met with the Vice President with a view to working a soft landing for the troubled CJN, an option Onnoghen was said to have rejected.

    Some governors in the Southsouth and Southeast threatened a showdown if the Federal Government maintains its position to remove Onnghen from office.

    The main opposition political party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) read political colouration to the whole development, claiming Onnoghen’s trial was  all part of the plans by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to control the Judiciary ahead of the post-2019 election litigation season.

    The international community, including  the United States of America and the United Kingdom added their voice to the controversy

    The European Union, like the U.S. and UK, expressed reservations about the legality of Buhari’s unilateral suspension of Onnoghen without the input of the National Assembly.

    They equally faulted the timing against the backdrop of speculation  by the opposition parties that Buhari was out to take control of the judiciary ahead of the general elections in order to have it rubber-stamp his allegedly planned rigging of the results of the forthcoming elections.

    Following his suspension, the intervention of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Court of Appeal’s rejection of his application for stay of proceedings, Onnoghen submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the CCT on February 15.

    He pleaded not guilty to the charge, following which the trial commenced with the prosecution calling it witnesses.

    While the trial was ongoing,  debate over the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) sent a petition dated February 4, 2019, to the NJC, accusing Onnoghen of “financial impropriety, infidelity to the Constitution and other economic and financial crimes-related laws”.

    A former NBA President, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), and the Actions Peoples Party, sent against Muhammad accusing him of allegedly submitting himself to be sworn in illegally as the acting CJN without being recommended by the NJC.

    Following the petitions it received in respect of allegations of misconduct against the two judicial officers, the NJC had at its February 13, 2019 meeting considered the complaints worthy of being investigated.

    The NJC then set up the five-man panel led by a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice S.A Akande, to investigate the petitions, and issued queries to the judicial officers.

    NJC, on April 3, reviewed the report of the investigation panel, following which it sent its recommendations to President Muhammadu Buhari.

    The NJC however said it did not investigate the petition containing allegation relating to assets declaration, for which Onnoghen was being tried before the CCT.

    At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, after calling three witnesses, Onnoghen made a no-case submission, which the tribunal dismissed in a ruling on March 30.

    The tribunal ordered the defence to enter defence and adjourned to April 1. On the said date, Onnoghen opened his defence by calling his driver since 1999, Lawal Busari, as his first witness.

    Before closing that day, the defence indicated it’s intention to call Mrs. Theresa Nwafor, a director with the CCB as its next witness, following which the tribunal issued a subpoena on Mrs. Nwafor.

    On April 3 when proceedings resumed, the defence made a sudden u-turn and closed its case without calling more witnesses, including Mrs. Nwafor who had honoured the subpoena served on her at the instance of the defence.

    On April 15, parties adopted their final written addresses, during which Onnoghen denied all the allegations against him, faulted the competence of the charge and sought to be set free.

    The prosecution argued otherwise,insisting that it had established the defendant’s guilt and urged the tribunal to convict Onnoghen.

    After parties adopted their addresses on April 15, the tribunal adjourned to April 18 for judgment, which it gave yesterday.

     

     

  • Onnoghen appeals CCT conviction, sack

    Justice Walter Onnoghen, sacked on Thursday as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) upon his convention by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), has appealed the tribunal’s decision.

    In a notice of appeal, filed at the Registry of the CCT, shortly after the judgment on Thursday, Onnoghen raised 16 grounds on which he faulted the decision and urged the Court of Appeal to set it aside and discharge and acquit him.

    The appellant want the Court of Appeal to hold that the CCT lacked the jurisdiction to hear the charge and that the tribunal ought to have recuse itself from the trial.

    He also prayed the tribunal to set aside all the orders made by the tribunal in the judgment, including that for assets forfeiture.

    The appellant argued, among others, that the tribunal erred in law when it refused to abide by existing judicial precedents in refusing his applications, challenging its jurisdiction and asking it to recuse itself.

    “The lower tribunal erred in law when it refused to recuse itself from the proceedings in view of the open declaration by the Chairman of the tribunal that he is only accountable to the President, who appointed him and nobody else, because he is not a judicial officer and thus, occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.

    “The lower tribunal erred in law when it held that the appellant confessed to the charges framed by admission and used that as a basis to hold that the appellant did not declare his assets from the year 2005 when he became a justice of the Supreme Court and thus occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.

    “The lower tribunal erred in law when it held that the appellant is guilty of counts 2 – 6 of the charge in view of the fact that the appellant made an admission that he did not declare the Standard Chartered Bank account numbers in the 2014.

    Read also: In the matter of Walter Onnoghen

    “The lower tribunal erred in law when it held that the appellant made false statement by the omission to declare the account numbers in Standard Chartered Bank in 2014 declaration, the same way he did in the 2016 declaration and held counts 2 – 6 to be proved. ”

    Meanwhile, Okon Nkanu Efut, Who led Onnoghen’s legal team on Thursday, while reacting to the judgment, said: “The journey has ended today because everything that has a beginning must have an end. So this day, we have heard that the Chief Justice of Nigeria has been convicted and sentenced.

    “The conviction is out of order, it is unconstitutional. It is a breach of fair hearing because before this day, on the January 23, the same judgement had been passed before now, removing the CJN without a fair hearing.

    “So it was a fait accompli, it was premeditated gas judgment had been passed before today.

    “So today’s judgement is just a formality and we hold the view that the tribunal has not only breached the constitution of Nigeria, it has breached the fundamental principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.

    “It has not only not been able to pass judgement, it has convicted for an offence that was never charged and this is an erosion of the fundamental principles of our constitution.

    “Until some questions are answered, for instance, why is it that the due course of justice was not allowed to flow? Why was judgement passed on January 23 before today, removing the CJN?

    “Why is it that today, even after the CJN had tendered his notice of voluntary retirement and the NJC has taken a position, why is it that the tribunal has gone ahead to pass a judgement in total disregard of the independence of the NJC, in total disregard of the powers of the Senate in this matter?

    “We hold a view that the tribunal in reversing itself in the case of Ngwuta, has breached the principle that hold us together.

    “This is a sad day in our nation’s democracy and we know that all is not over with this matter. The wheel of justice grinds slowly but surely. This is not a matter that will end here.

    “We shall avail ourselves of all the processes, the hierarchy of the judiciary and we know that the judiciary will redeem itself even though seriously battered and bruised.

    “The judiciary will do justice. Justice has not been done today, but it will surely be done tomorrow. If not by the tribunal, but by our God. Justice will be done by our God,” Efut said.

  • CCT orders forfeiture of money in Onnoghen’s account

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal on Thursday ordered forfeiture of money not declared in the account of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Delivering Judgment, Justice Danladi Umar, CCT chairman, found Onnoghen guilty on the six counts preferred against him by the federal government.

    Umar also banned Onnoghen from holding any public office for ten years.

    The CCT also ordered the removal of Onnoghen as CJN and as chairman National Judicial Council.

    NAN reports that Onnoghen, who was Nigeria’s 17th Chief Justice, was arraigned by the Code of Conduct Bureau, following a petition brought against him by a group, the Anti-Corruption and Research Based Data Initiative, headed by a member of the ruling All Progressives Congress in Enugu State, Denis Aghanya.

    Onnoghen was charged on six counts, for allegedly failing to declare some of his accounts in the asset declaration form submitted to the CCB in December, 2016.

    According to the charge, Onnoghen also failed to declare his assets after the expiration of his declaration form filled in 2005.

    Read Also: Onnoghen’s resignation not enough – SANs

    NAN reports that Onnoghen’s trials started when a petition was filed by the civil rights group at the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) alleging that he owns ” sundry accounts primarily funded through cash deposits made by himself up to as recently as Aug. 10, 2016, which appear to have been run in a manner inconsistent with financial transparency and the code of conduct for public officials.”

    The trial commenced on Jan, 14, 2019 at Code of Conduct Tribunal but Onnoghen was absent

    The case was then adjourned to the following week because Onnoghen faulted the summons procedure.

    The next hearing was slated for Jan. 22, 2019 but he failed to show up in court again.

    Following his absence again, President Muhammadu Buhari suspended him on Jan. 26 and appointed Tanko Ibrahim as acting Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    NAN

  • Breaking: CCT sacks Onnoghen, bars him for 10 years

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has found the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen guilty of violation of the code of conduct for public officers.

    CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar, in a judgment on Thursday, held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Onnoghen is guilty.

    Read Also: Onnoghen’s resignation not enough – SANs

    CCT says it has jurisdiction to try Onnoghen made false asset declaration by deliberately omitting to declare the five domiciliary accounts he maintained with Standard Chartered Bank, and in which huge deposits were found.

    The tribunal after convicting him, ordered among others, his removal from office, barred him from holding public office for the next 10 years and confiscated the funds in the five accounts, which the tribunal said should be forfeited to the Federal Government.

     

    Details shortly…

  • Breaking: CCT says it has jurisdiction to try Onnoghen

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has held that he has the power to try the former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen on charges of breach of code of conduct for public prosecution.

    The tribunal said it was trying Onnoghen as a public officer, not as a judicial officer.

    Hence it said there was no need to first refer the charge against him to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    In two ruling on Thursday, tribunal’s Chairman, Danladi Umar dismissed two motions by Onnoghen.

    The first challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction to try Onnoghen when the allegations against him had not been presented before the NJC.

    The second asked the tribunal Chairman to recuse himself from further sitting on the case on the grounds that he had been charged with demanding bribe.

    Read Also: Onnoghen’s resignation not enough – SANs

    Umar, in the ruling, said the he has been absolved of the allegation that he demanded bribe from a defendant.

    He added it was impossible for the Chairman to step down from a case, because where there is no Chairman, there is no tribunal.

    The tribunal Chairman also held that the CCT is not under any supervision of any body, including the NJC and therefore, not subject to the directive of the NJC.

    Umar reversed the tribunal’s earlier judgment in the case of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta on the grounds that its finding in the Ngwuta case was based wrong legal principles and narrow interpretation of statute.

    The judgment in the Ngwuta case had upheld the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Justice H. Nganjiwa, to the effect that any allegation of misconduct against a serving judicial officer must first be referred to the NJC.

    ‎Umar is currently reading the tribunal’s judgment in the substantive trial.

     

    Details shortly…

  • Onnoghen’s resignation not enough – SANs

    A 20-man group of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) under the aegis of the Justice Reform Project (JRP) on Tuesday said Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen’s resignation was not enough in view of “the grave nature of the allegations” against him.

    Urging the Federal Government to sanction other judges whose legitimate earnings do not justify their wealth, the group said justice should run its course in the Onnoghen matter.

    According to JRP, extending the anti-graft exercise to other judges will restore confidence in the Judiciary and dampen the impresson that the former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) was being victimised.

    The group, set up to push for reforms in the judiciary/legal profession, is led by one of the oldest SANs, Mr Ebun Sofunde. Jibrin Okutepa, Dr Babatunde Ajibade, Prof Ernest Ojukwu, Osaro Eghobamien, Mrs Funke Adekoya, Kayode Sofola, among others, are members.

    In a statement, JRP said it noted Onnoghen’s resignation “with concern”, but added that the matter should not end there.

    “His resignation/voluntary retirement is not an answer to these allegations and the JRP expects that justice, which is no respecter of persons or position, will be allowed to take its course,” it said.

    JRP urged the Federal Government to look beyond Onnoghen for three reason main reasons.

    It said: “Beyond Honourable Justice W. S. N. Onnoghen, however, the JRP believes the revelations that have been made in the course of this affair necessitate that urgent steps be taken to identify and sanction all other Nigerian judicial officers who are found to possess inexplicable wealth that cannot be reconciled with their legitimate income or their asset declarations, two of the allegations made against Justice Onnoghen.

    “These steps are necessary for a variety of reasons. First, to restore public confidence in the judiciary and disabuse the notion that all judicial officers in Nigeria are corrupt and that justice is for sale.

    “Second, to disabuse the notion that Justice Onnoghen’s travails are a mere witch-hunt motivated by ethnic and political interests rather than the result of a genuine concern for sanitising and reforming the Nigerian judiciary.

    “Third, to eliminate the suspicion that the Executive arm of government is using the information it has access to by virtue of its control over the apparatus of the state to take selective action only against those judicial officers that fail to do its bidding.”

    Besides, the group said Onnoghen’s response to allegations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before the National Judicial Council (NJC) raised significant questions about how heads of courts manage the judiciary’s funds.

    “Without prejudice to the legitimate clamour for increased budgetary allocation to the judiciary, its financial independence and improvement in the working conditions of service of judicial officers, all of which JRP wholeheartedly supports, there must be better management of that which is currently allocated.

    “The JRP calls on everyone with a stake in our judicial system (the public, the Bar, and the bench), to report their concerns, if any, to the relevant regulatory agencies so that they are investigated.

    “The legal profession is a self-regulating one, so it behooves all its members to take an active interest in maintaining the standards of rectititude and integrity expected of judicial officers and legal practitioners.

    “In making this call, the JRP merely exhorts every member of the legal profession to act as they are expected to act.

    “If the profession does not regulate itself effectively, incidents such as those involving Justice Onnoghen will remain a fixture in our judicial system.”

  • Onnoghen: I didn’t confess to hiding my bank accounts

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has scheduled judgment for Thursday in the trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen.

    Onnoghen is being tried on a six-count charge in which he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct for public officers by allegedly making false declaration of assets and also failing to declare some.

    He denied confessing to hiding his bank accounts. The prosecution insisted that his guilt had been proven.

    CCT’s Chairman Danladi Umar announced the judgment date yesterday after lawyers to the prosecution and defence adopted their final written addresses.

    Umar said the court will also, on April 18, deliver two rulings earlier reserved on two applications filed by the defendant, one of which is challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction; the other is querying his competence as the tribunal chairman to preside over the case.

    Proceedings began yesterday on a dramatic note when the second most senior member of the prosecution team, Prof Zainab Duke, disagreed with the team’s leader, Aliyu Umar (SAN).

    Shortly after the announcement of appearances by both the prosecution and defence teams, Umar stood up to address the tribunal.

    But, before Umar could say anything, Prof. Duke also indicated her intention to speak, raising her hand – a move the lead prosecution lawyer objected to.

    Duke, who was bent on addressing the tribunal, rose to her feet and reached for the microphone, but Umar, who moved the microphone from her reach.

    Umar, who told Prof Duke that it was improper for her to speak while she was being led by a senior colleague, later applied to the tribunal to delete her name from the prosecution team’s list of lawyers.

    In a brief ruling, the tribunal’s chairman acceded to Umar’s request and deleted Prof. Duke’s name from his record.

    The CCT chairman noted that it was not permitted for two lawyers to speak for a party during proceedings. He said Prof. Duke, could only communicate through Umar, except with approval of her lead counsel, after obtaining the permission of the tribunal.

    Following the pronouncement by the CCT chairman, Prof. Duke sat back a little while, gathered her belongings, including a bag and some books, and left.

    Outside the court, Prof Duke told reporters, who sought to know what the problem was, that her intention was to make some contributions to the prosecution’s opening remarks by citing an example of a similar trial conducted in England some years ago.

    Shortly after Prof. Duke’s exit, the tribunal’s chairman called on the lead defence lawyer, Okon Nkanu Efut (SAN) to adopt the defendant’s final written address.

    Efut, urged the tribunal to dismiss the charge, acquit and discharge the defendant.

    He argued that not only was the charge incompetent, the prosecution failed to establish the defendant’s guilt.

    Efut faulted the competence of the charge and the procedure adopted by the prosecution, which, he argued, were unlawful.

    He faulted the prosecution’s claim that the defendant confessed to the offence when, in his written statement, he said he forgot to declare some of his assets, particularly some bank accounts.

    Efut said: “It is true in ordinary parlance that once a person says he did something, that is admittance. But, confession in law is different from confession in general parlance.

    “When the defendant said he forgot, he did not mean he confessed. We are submitting that there has been no confession at all. There is no admission of guilt. Confession, in law, means admission of guilt.”

    Efut argued that the charge was incompetent because it was brought under Section 15 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal (CCB/T) Act, which, he said, has been found to be in conflict with Paragraph 11 of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution.

    He added: “The charge ought to have been brought under Parapgraph 11 to the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. The section under which the charge is prepared is unconstitutional and null and void.

    “The elements of the offence, which the prosecution attempted to prove are as it relate to the Act (CCB/T Act). They failed to prove the elements or ingredients as contained in the 5th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution.

    “If they do not know the ingredients of the offence, they could not have proved it. They acted in ignorance.

    “We urge that the charge be dismissed, because the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients or elements of the offence.”

    Efut also faulted the prosecution’s claim that the defendant made false declaration of assets, insisting that Onnoghen fully complied with the law by declaring his assets as required.

    He referred to page 13, paragraph 27 of the prosecution’s final written address, where he said the prosecution argued that “the failure or refusal of the defendant to give information on the accounts is partially false”.

    Efut argued that for the prosecution to have said the defendant’s action was partially false “means that it is partially true and, therefore, cannot be false”.

    He went on: “If it is partially false, it raises some doubt as to the falsity. If there is any iota of doubt, the law says it must be resolved in favour of the defendant.

    “On the whole, we urge that this six-charge be dismissed, because the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements or ingredients of the offences.”

    Countering Efut while adopting his address, Umar, urged the tribunal to hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.

    Umar equally urged the tribunal to hold that the defendant is guilty on all the six counts.

    On the defence’s attack of the charge’s competence, Umar contended: “In coming to the decision whether or not a defendant is guilty, it is the hard fact that the court should look at.

    “It is a misconception by the defence to think the first set of charge is null and void simply because it is not elegantly drafted the way the defendant would have wanted it drafted.

    “They have not shown that the defendant was misled by the way the charge was drafted. It is not the statute that creates an offence.”

    Umar argued that there was no conflict between the provision of the CCB/T Act and the Constitution as claimed by the defence.

    He submitted that the prosecution had effectively discharged its responsibility under the law by establishing the guilt of the defendant.

    Umar argued that by evidence led, the prosecution showed that the defendant did not declare his assets as required either by the Act or the Constitution.

    He faulted the defence’s contention that the defendant did not confess and argued that “it is neither the provision of the Evidence Act or case law for the suspect to tell the police that I am guilty of the offence”.

    “It is the action or omission that the court will consider to determine the guilt or otherwise of the defendant.

    “In Exhibit 6 (the defendant’s statement), if the defendant said I did not declare, because I forgot, it is for the court to decide whether or not forgetting is a defence envisaged by the Act.

    “In 2016, he went before a High Court judge and declared his assets, without referring to the bank accounts.

    “By the evidence of PW3, the accounts had been in existence from 2009 and 2010 and ought to have been declared when the defendant declared his assets in 2016.

    “We urge the tribunal to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and enter a verdict of conviction.”