The presidency has once again
criticised the US, UK and EU over their statements on the suspension of Walter
Onnoghen, chief justice of Nigeria (CJN).
President Muhammadu Buhari
suspended Onnoghen on Friday over the
false declaration of assets charges filed against him.
The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)
had filed six-count charge against him at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT)
following a petition written against the CJN.
Although he failed to appear
before the CCT which summoned him, the tribunal ordered that he be replaced
with Ibrahim Muhammad.
The implementation of the order
triggered fierce criticisms, with the UK, US and EU, calling on the Buhari
administration not to heat up the polity.
In separate statements, they said
the action could affect the credibility of the general election.
Garba Shehu, senior special
assistant to the president on media and publicity, had said Nigeria would not
accept foreign interference.
However, in another statement on
Sunday, Shehu said the statements of the foreign countries were based on
unfounded assumptions.
He said linking the suspension to
the elections is illogical, advising them to
refrain from “being too hastily attracted by the arguments of those who
have partisan agenda at odds with the government’s positions”.
Below is his statement:
The Presidency notes with
interest the coordinated statements of the US, UK and EU linking the suspension
of CJN Onnoghen to the conduct of the upcoming elections. We appreciate the
concerns voiced by the three statements and accept that the authors of the
statements believe they were acting in friendship toward Nigeria with regard to
making the statements.
However, we also note that
friends, when not properly informed or acting in haste, can indeed make serious
mistakes even with the best of intentions. Such is the case here.
The statements by the three seem
more driven by unfounded assumptions and to be honest, a certain condescension
to this African democracy. This is unfortunate. But this gives us an
opportunity to clarify some points in the hope that these three friends reach a
deeper understanding of the situation.
The statements by the US, UK and
EU speak of their respect for constitutional practice and fair elections.
However, the positions they stake tend to contravene rather than strengthen
these laudable objectives.
CJN Onnoghen’s situation is one
of his own making and, to a large degree, his own choosing.
The CJN was brought before the
CCT because of a serious breach of law regarding his assets declaration. This
is not a mere technicality like innocently placing a document in a wrong file
or mistakenly placing yesterday’s date on a document.
All credible evidence indicates
the CJN owned and operated several secret bank accounts. Unexplained large sums
of money, exceeding several million dollars have passed through these accounts.
Several thousand dollars are currently parked in the accounts. Multiple
deposits of equal sums of money were deposited in some of those accounts during
the same day. Such rapid and equal deposits are indicative of a person
attempting to evade banking reporting laws and regulations.
Thus far, CJN Onnoghen has given
no plausible explanation for the funds or for failing to report the subject
accounts in his assets declaration despite having ample time and opportunity to
explain the omission. Given the amount of money involved and the CJN’s
inability to explain the source of the funds, the most plausible explanation at
this point is also the most unfortunate explanation. No one did this to CJN
Onnoghen. He and he alone is to blame for this turn of events.
Over the years and with great
frequency, the authors of the three statements have advised and even chided
Nigeria about official corruption. Now we are presented with the sad and
unwanted situation where the CJN is discovered to have a vast, unexplained
amount of money in his pocket.
Because of this he has been
thoroughly discredited. It is untenable that a person in such compromised
circumstances would be allowed to preside over the entire judicial system of a
great nation. That would travesty the nation and what it stands for.
Had the situation been reversed
and the US, UK or any EU member government found that its chief judicial
official is the recipient of large sums of money of questionable origin and
Nigeria suggested that you retain the person in that position, you would
question Nigeria’s bona fides. You also would swiftly move to suspend the
official pending final determination of the causes against him.
Not one of your nations would
allow a person enmeshed in legal uncertainty to preside over your legal systems
until the cloud has been cleared from him. That would incentivize corruption
and assault the rule of law.
Thus, the CJN should have and
could have helped the process in this regard by recusing himself from the bench
until this matter is settled.
Instead, he indefinitely
postponed a NJC meeting for no plausible reason except to avoid any
consideration of this matter by the NJC.
Again, this calls into question
his motives while undermining the normal operations of the judiciary. The CJN
cannot be allowed to use his office to shield himself from the normal operation
of the law as applied to any other jurist or any other Nigerian for that
matter. Such a ruse is effectively an abuse of office. His position is one of
utmost public trust; it is not a shield to protect him from the fair
consequence of his own actions.
Despite these errors and
omissions by the CJN, let us make this very clear, he has not been removed from
office. Nor has he been permanently replaced. Those who claim that he has been
permanently removed, do so out of imprecision of thought or mischief.
CJN Onnoghen has been suspended
pending the final determination of the substantive issues in his matter. The
suspension is only temporary. This is only as it should be. He cannot sit as
both defendant and umpire in his own matter. No legal system allows for such
self-interested adjudication; the US, UK and EU should not now ask us to
embrace such an anomaly.
While the three friends seem to
give much credence to those who question the constitutionality of the
suspension, they seem to give less to those who believe what we did is
constitutional and protective of the integrity of the judiciary. Only the three
can answer why they have assumed this bias.
Last, the three make a curious
direct linkage between the CJN suspension and the elections. However, in
Nigerian law there is no such linkage. The CJN does not run the election. Nor
is he the first arbiter of any electoral complaints. He and the Supreme Court
will only get involved as the final arbiter at the end of the appellate
process.
For the authors to link the CJN
to the elections in this way is illogical unless they assume that election
complaints will be filed and will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Here
perhaps they know something about the intentions of certain political actors to
which we are not privy.
Yet, even with that, the US , UK
and EU should want any such matters to be heard by a Supreme Court led by a CJN
without an obvious and outstanding ethical and legal blemish on his ledger. To
have such a person preside over any case, would call into question the
impartiality of any decision rendered and undermine the rule of law.
This cannot be what these three
friends of Nigeria intended. Thus, they should do a bit more research on this
matter and refrain from being too hastily attracted by the arguments of those
who have partisan agenda at odds with the government’s positions on most
matters and who thus hope to use this issue as a new arrow in their quiver of
partisan contestation.
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com