Constitutional Lawyer and Human
Rights Activist, Chief Mike Ozekhome has reacted to news making the rounds that
he backed the removal of ex-CBN governor, Sanusi Lamido by former President
Goodluck Jonathan.
He also said that the travails of
the embattled Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, cannot be equated with
the case of former Court of Appeal Judge, Ayo Salami.
In a statement entitled, ‘The
Case of Onnoghen and Emir Sanusi: Never Two of a Kind’, Ozekhome said, “My
attention has just been drawn to my statement made in 2014, currently, flying
about in the social media.
“It is to the effect that I am
now contradicting myself from my earlier stand that the then President, GEJ,
could suspend the then Governor of CBN, now Emir Sanusi, by invoking section 11
of the Interpretation Act, on the ground that he who can hire can also fire and
also suspend.
“I perfectly stand by that
statement. I also hereby affirm my present informed argument and my present
stance, as both the Onnoghen and Salami’s cases are not in any way related at all.
“My 2014 argument related to the
interpretation of the Constitution and the CBN Act, under which the President
can hire and fire as he wishes, subject to Senate’s approval. He could
therefore also suspend, going by the Interpretation Act.
‘There is no equivalent section
under the CCB/CCT Act, permitting the President to capriciously and whimsically
hire and fire the CJN as he wishes, as he could do under the CBN Act.
“Whereas appointment of the CBN
Governor under the CBN Act involves only the President and Senate, (President
nominates and Senate confirms by 2/3 majority), sections 153, 158, 3rd Schedule
(parts 1 & 2), sections 291 and 292 of the Constitution were NOT in issue
then. They are now.
“The sections of the CBN Act
only, relates to the President’s power to hire, or fire (and suspend under the
Interpretation Act), the CBN Governor.
“Oil and water do not mix. So, I
stand by that my 2014 argument as regards the then CBN Governor.
“However, under the Constitution,
the CJN, like President of the Court of Appeal, High Courts and Federal High
Court, Chief Judges, Grand Khadis and President of the Customary Court, enjoy a
special space in our constitutional organogram.
“For them to be hired or fired,
the entire three arms of government are involved under sections 4, 5 and 6 of
the Constitution, in sync with the famous doctrine of separation of powers,
ably propounded in 1748 by the great French Philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu.
“Unlike under the CBN Act (under
which Sanusi’s case came up), the NJC in the Onnoghen saga must first
recommend; the Senate must first approve; before the President can then hire or
fire.
“Were the present issues based
alone on a mere Act such as the CBN Act, then PMB would have had the power to
also suspend. Unlike under the CBN Act, the three arms of government must be
involved in the case of the CJN.
“They have not, in this instance,
which is the kernel of my present stance. But, even the CCT ex parte order PMB
purportedly relied upon, didn’t permit the President to suspend Onnoghen. The
order directs Onnoghen to “step aside”.
“Has he stepped aside? No. Has
Senate ever met at any time to decide to remove or suspend Onnoghen by 2/3
majority votes? No. Can the President appoint an Acting CJN to a position that
is not vacant since the incumbent has not stepped aside? No.
“So, a CCT that had, by itself,
adjourned proceedings to 28th January, 2019, for argument on the issue of
jurisdiction, suddenly remembered that there existed a motion ex parte
somewhere in its files, dusted it up and issued an ex parte order based on it,
at a time the issue of jurisdiction was already pending before it, and after it
was adjourned for hearing by the very CCT itself.
“The only jurisdiction a court or
tribunal whose jurisdiction has been duly challenged possesses is jurisdiction
to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction. Nothing more.
“It cannot make more or further
orders on the substance of the case as erroneously done by the CCB. The ex
parte order therefore cannot stand in law. All these issues never occurred in
the Sanusi case at all.
“There were no court proceedings
to be interpreted; no court order; no jurisdictional issues raised; and no
three arms of government involved. So, the two scenarios are worlds apart.
“Some have also referred to the
Justice Ayo Salami Saga. It is again totally different from the Onnoghen
matter.
“Salami’s case involved the then
President of the Court of Appeals’ elevation to the Supreme Court, which he out
rightly rejected, on the ground that it was meant to be a punishment for him
for refusing to accede to the then CJN, Katsina-Alu’s request to pervert the
cause of Justice with regards to a matter then pending before the Court of
Appeal, Sokoto.
“It was a tussle between the then
governor, Magatakarda and a former Governor Attahiru Bafarawa.
“The NJC had constituted a panel
(unlike in the Onnoghen case), to investigate the allegations against Salami,
who later approached the court. Before the court processes were dealt with, the
NJC, at the end of its sitting, exonerated Justice Salami of some allegations
against him, quashed his elevation to the Supreme, but found that he lied
against the then CJN, Katsina –Alu.
“NJC then ordered Justice Salami
to apologize to Katsina Alu within a stipulated time. Salami, based on strong
principles, refused to do so.
“The NJC, at its 7th Emergency
meeting held on 8th August, 2011, immediately proceeded to suspend Salami,
pursuant to the provisions of section 21, third schedule, Part 1 of the 1999
Constitution.
“The NJC further recommended to
the then President GEJ, Salami’s removal from office which was acted upon.
“It is therefore clear that the
Salami scenario is totally different from the present Onnoghen drama, carefully
scripted and simulated by the present government to influence the imminent
presidential elections which PMB knows must go to the tribunal.
“Don’t forget also that PMB once
wept openly in the presence of cameras that he was robbed of his victory up to
the Supreme Court. So, he has never hidden his disdain and hatred for the apex
court and Onnoghen, whom, according to the reasons he gave for illegally
suspending, him has been in charge of freeing alleged corrupt elements.
“Left to PMB, anyone charged
before a court must be convicted by the judiciary at all cost, whether there is
evidence, proof, or not, to satiate his mind-set belief that he is fighting
corruption (check out the list of the first eleven corrupt people in Nigeria
currently campaigning for his re-election on the same podium).
“In the Onnoghen case, the NJC
has been curiously side-tracked, unlike in the Salami case.
“We cannot and must never allow
immediate political exigencies and short-term gains to obfuscate our humanity
and decency as a people and as a nation.
“My 2014 stance remains true and
valid, based on the peculiar circumstances of that case and the sections of the
law dealt with.
“They did not contend with, nor
envisage, the near immunity granted to the CJN and other Jurists under the
relevant constitutional provisions as above highlighted.
“The two scenarios are like day
and night, light and darkness. They never meet.”
Enter your comment...our God will disappoint them
ReplyDeleteGood.
ReplyDeleteGood talk
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis. Prof Sagay, SAN has countered and we are waiting to see how this ends.
ReplyDelete