The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) said on Tuesday that it agreed with the argument by the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal ( CCT ), Danladi Umar that he and his tribunal were not answerable to the Judiciary, but the Presidency.
NBA, in a statement issued on Tuesday by its President, Paul Usoro (SAN), said Umar was correct in that argument, but contended that the fact that the CCT was under the control of the Executive informs the urgent need to discontinue charge of breach of code of conduct pending against the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen before the CCT.
It said: “the Chairman of the CCT, Hon. Danladi Umar, in his response to a petition that was written against him and which was forwarded to him by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) states emphatically that he and his tribunal are answerable and report only to the Presidency, by law and practice. He is absolutely correct.
“An insistence, in the circumstance, on the CJN, the head of an independent arm of the FGN, standing trial before a tribunal that is under the Presidency and is answerable only to the Presidency, mocks the concept of and completely erodes the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional separation that should exist between the three arms of the FGN.
“It is precisely for this reason that our Constitution created the NJC and we are pleased that the FGN has warmed up to the utilization of that due process, as illustrated by the submission of the EFCC petition to the council.”
NBA’s new intervention in the case is coming a day before the resumption of proceedings in the case before the CCT.
The Chairman of the CCT, Danladi Umar had, at the last proceedings on February 4 this year, insisted that Onnoghen must appear before the tribunal in person before any further businesses could be conducted in the charge pending against him (Onnoghen).
Umar gave the directive shortly before agreeing to the request by parties for adjournment to February 13.
He said: “Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), a defendant, who is served with a charge and represented by lawyers, must take his plea before raising any objection.
“The defendant has continued to stay away from this tribunal. I am going to grant this adjournment at the instance of the prosecution and defence, but must state that the defendant must attend court at the next adjourned date so that all the issues would be resolved in his presence.”
Also on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal in Abuja failed to hear the three appeals filed suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen.
The appellate court had in late January adjourned on February 12, 2019 for the hearing of the appeals
But, when lawyers to parties got to court on Tuesday, the court could not form quorum (of three Justices) for the purpose of hearing the appeals.
Parties were told to await information, on a later date, on when the hearing is to be rescheduled.
The appeals are against the decisions of the Code of Conduct to assume jurisdiction over the charge pending against Onnoghen and the ex-parte injunction granted by the CCT, and on which President Muhammadu Buhari acted to suspend Onnoghen.
The statement by the NBA reads: “Ahead of the adjourned proceedings in the above-named matter before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (“CCT”), scheduled for tomorrow, February 13, 2019, the Nigerian Bar Association again urges the Executive arm of the Federal Government of Nigeria (“FGN”) to discontinue this Charge against the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honorable Mr. Justice Walter S N Onnoghen, GCON (“CJN”) for the following reasons, amongst others:
“First, as widely reported, one of the two petitions against the CJN that is currently before the National Judicial Council (“NJC” or “Council”) is an exact replica of the petition that motivated the CCT Charge.
“The second petition was reportedly presented by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), an FGN agency. We commend the FGN for adhering to due process by submitting the EFCC petition to the NJC for consideration.
“In like manner and in adherence to the law and due process, we urge the FGN to discontinue the CCT Charge and allow the NJC consider the initial petition which, as widely reported, has already been responded to by the CJN.
“Second, the Chairman of the CCT, Hon. Danladi Umar, in his response to a petition that was written against him and which was forwarded to him by the Federal Judicial Service Commission, states emphatically that he and his tribunal are answerable and report only to the Presidency, by law and practice. He is absolutely correct.
“An insistence, in the circumstance, on the CJN, the head of an independent arm of the FGN, standing trial before a tribunal that is under the Presidency and is answerable only to the Presidency, mocks the concept of and completely erodes the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional separation that should exist between the three arms of the FGN.
“It is precisely for this reason that our Constitution created the NJC and we are pleased that the FGN has warmed up to the utilization of that due process, as illustrated by the submission of the EFCC petition to the Council.
“Third, and complementary to the two points afore-stated is the fact that the spectacle of having our CJN, while still holding that title, in the dock before the CCT or any other court, truly diminishes all of us, not least the Executive arm of the FGN.
“The NJC process allows an initial determination to be made on the petitions against the CJN and if His Lordship is found liable or wanting howsoever, appropriate sanctions would be imposed by the NJC including recommendation for his dismissal or retirement.
“In that event, he would no longer hold the office or title of CJN and could be prosecuted for any criminal infraction before the CCT or any other Court.
“An insistence on the CCT prosecution paints a picture of persecution of the CJN by the Executive and such a spectacle in no way ennobles the FGN Executive arm and/or its officials. Such a scenario should be avoided by all means.
“Given these non-exhaustive considerations and facts, we press on the Executive arm of the FGN to please discontinue the Charge against the CJN when the matter comes up before the CCT tomorrow, Wednesday, 13 February 2019.
“We respectfully urge full compliance with due process by FGN in this matter by allowing the NJC process to take its course in respect of the two petitions against the CJN – a step that has already, commendably, been embraced by FGN in respect of the EFCC petition.”
(The Nation)