The Federal Government, on
Monday, produced its first witness, Mr. James Opala, a Senior Investigation
Officer of the Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB, to testify against the suspended
Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen, who was accused of
failing to declare his assets.
Opala, who is the star
prosecution witness, was a member of a team of investigators that uncovered
alleged infractions in asset declaration forms the CJN submitted before the
CCB.
FG, through the witness, tendered the first set of exhibits it said would establish allegations it levelled against Onnoghen at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT.
FG, through the witness, tendered the first set of exhibits it said would establish allegations it levelled against Onnoghen at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT.
Aside allegation that he failed
to declare his assets as prescribed by the law, in the six-count charge marked
CCT/ABJ/01/19, FG, alleged that Onnoghen operated five foreign bank accounts,
contrary to section 15(2) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.
Led in evidence by the
prosecution counsel, Mr. Aliyu Umar, SAN, the PW-1, tendered before the CCT, a
copy of the petition that led to Onnoghen’s trial.
The petition dated January 7, 2019, which was sent to the CCB by a civil society group under the aegis of Anti-Corruption and Research-Based Data Initiative, was admitted in evidence by the Mr. Danladi Umar-led three-man panel tribunal, and marked as Exhibit 1.
The petition dated January 7, 2019, which was sent to the CCB by a civil society group under the aegis of Anti-Corruption and Research-Based Data Initiative, was admitted in evidence by the Mr. Danladi Umar-led three-man panel tribunal, and marked as Exhibit 1.
FG equally tendered in evidence,
two asset declaration forms the suspended CJN submitted in 2014 and 2015.
Meanwhile, before the asset
declaration forms were admitted, Onnoghen, through his lawyer, Chief Adegboyega
Awomolo, SAN, alleged that it was tampered with.
Onnoghen insisted that the Form
001 he filled in 2014 and 2015, were no longer the way he submitted it to the
CCB.
He queried why the hitherto bound
documents appeared “in loose form” before the tribunal, alleging that it was
tampered with, with some of the pages missing.
Nevertheless, Awomolo said he
would raise his client’s objection to the admissibility of the documents, in
his final written address.
“We have some reservation on the
documents, we will not object in the interest of justice but we have
reservations that would be addressed at the end of the day”, he added.
Earlier, Apala, who was led in
evidence by the prosecuting counsel, told the tribunal that: “On January 9,
2019, I was in my office at the Code of Conduct Bureau that morning when I
received a call from my superior, Samuel Madojemu, who happens to be a member
of the (investigation) team.
“He directed that I investigate a
petition. Having done the required processes – routine investigation – case
file was opened and investigation plan was drawn.
“The petition was authored by
Chief Dennis Aghanya of the Anti-Corruption and Research-Based Data Initiative,
alleging breach of Code of Conduct for Public Officers, including
non-declaration of assets and false declaration of assets, against the Hon.
Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, GCON, the Chief Justice of Nigeria.
“Thereafter, the team wrote to
the Federal Political Officers Unit (of the bureau), Asokoro, requesting the
defendant’s asset declarations received from 2000 to 2009.
“The department responded. The
two asset declaration forms were examined and filed in the case file”, he
added.
It will be recalled that the
tribunal had in a bench ruling on March 11, granted FG the nod to call
witnesses and tender evidence against Justice Onnoghen who was suspended from
office by President Muhammadu Buhari on January 25.
Relying on section 396(2) of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, 2015, and Paragraph 5(5) of its
Practice Direction, the CCT panel, said it would not consider the merit of
objections Onnoghen raised to challenge the competence of the charge against
him, till conclusion of the trial.
Insisting that it was empowered
under section 396(3) of the ACJA to conduct day-to-day hearing on the matter,
the panel, held that ruling on two applications the suspended CJN lodged
against his trial, would be delivered alongside judgment on the substantive
charge.
Decision of the tribunal to commence
day-to-day hearing on the matter was however thwarted by the suspended CJN who
failed to appear for trial on March 12 over a claim that he suffered toothache
and high blood pressure.
His lawyer tendered a medical
report that indicated that he was mandated by his Doctor to observe a 72-hour
bed rest by his doctor.
The suspended CJN, same day,
lodged an appeal to challenge the decision of the tribunal to proceed with the
trial despite a motion he filed to challenge its jurisdiction to entertain the
charge against him.
In his three grounds of appeal,
Justice Onnoghen maintained that the CCT panel erred in law in its
interpretation of section 396(2) of the ACJA, with respect to his application
challenging the constitutional jurisdiction and competence of the proceeding
before it, “when they deferred ruling on the application to the conclusion of
trial when the issue of jurisdiction is a threshold issue which ought and must
be determined immediately”.
According to him, “The Chairman
and members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal erred in law In the interpretation
of Section 396 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 1015 when they
ruled that the ruling on the applicant’s application challenging the
constitutional jurisdiction of the tribunal and the application asking the
tribunal’s chairman to rescue himself on grounds that he had demonstrated acts
which showed bias and partiality in the proceedings against the appellant,
shall be determined along with the final judgment on the merit of the entire
case and thereby denied the appellant his right to fair hearing under section
36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended”.
Specifically, Onnoghen had in his
objection, queried the validity of the six-count charge against him, contending
that FG failed to respect established judicial precedents by not allowing the
NJC to firstly investigate the allegation against him, before it rushed the
matter to the CCT.
He argued that failure to channel
the petition against him, as well as the outcome of the investigation that was
purportedly conducted on assets declaration forms he submitted to the Code of
Conduct Bureau, CCB, to the NJC, rendered the charge invalid.
He urged the CCT to abide by a
subsisting Court of Appeal decision in Nganjiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria
(2017) LPELR-43391, to the effect that any misconduct attached to the office
and functions of a judicial officer, must first be reported to and handled by
the NJC, pursuant to the provisions of the laws
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