Follow Us on Google
Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, was absent at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) yesterday even as the tribunal refused an application, in a split decision of two to one, for an indefinite adjournment of his trial.
Onnoghen had, through his legal team anchored by Chief Wole Olanikpekun, SAN, asked the tribunal to adjourn proceedings indefinitely in the six-count criminal charge filed against him by the Federal Government.
While the tribunal chairman, Justice Danladi Umar, and Justice Julie Annabor refused to grant the application for an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings as requested by the defence counsel, Justice William Agwadza, on the other hand, dissented and granted the application for stay of proceedings.
Olanikpekun, who moved the application, argued that, in view of the orders by the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court restraining the tribunal from taking further steps in the case, it was proper and appropriate for the tribunal to comply with such orders, which he said were subsisting.
In addition, he informed the tribunal of the pendency of an appeal by the CJN before the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal in urging the court to adjourn proceedings and await the outcome of the appeal.
He argued that it would breach the legal principle of starie decisis (matters pending before court) and amount to an act of rascality for the tribunal to proceed, having been aware of the appeal before the appellate court.
Olanikpekun, who was in the company of more than 40 SANs cited some case laws in urging the tribunal to adjourn the trial sine die (indefinitely).
Olanikpekun said: “I owe a duty to inform the tribunal about the subsisting orders of the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court restraining the tribunal to maintain status quo ante.
“I also owe a duty to inform the tribunal the defendant is now before the Court of Appeal, which sat on the matter on Monday. The Attorney-General of the Federation was represented by a counsel who asked for an adjournment and the matter was adjourned to Thursday this week.
“The counsel to the AGF told the Court of Appeal that there was no need for another order of injunction. The tribunal is, therefore, enjoined and mandated to honour and obey all the orders that have been made and served on the tribunal until they are set aside, as doing otherwise would amount to judicial rascality.”
However, in opposing the application, the prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar, SAN, urged the tribunal to refuse the application and order the CJN to step down from his position.
He argued that, as a court of coordinate jurisdiction, the decisions of the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court were not binding on the tribunal.
Describing the CCT as unique and a creation of the 1999 Constitution, he contended that the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court have no supervisory powers over it.
“This tribunal is under the supervision of the Court of Appeal and is not bound by the decisions of the Federal High Court and National Industrial Court. The Code of Conduct Tribunal is unique and independent and cannot enforce or comply with the decision of the Federal High Court,” Umar submitted.
Umar held that, “The orders issued by the Federal High Court and National Industrial Court are not binding on the tribunal, which is established by the 1999 Constitution under the third schedule to adjudicate on matters relating to matters of assets declaration by public officers.
“Therefore, any order from Federal High Court and National Industrial Court cannot stop the tribunal. This would be a crystal violation of the Constitution and, therefore, null and void.
“The 1999 Constitution is a grund norm. Where the tribunal gives a decision, the appeal by whichever party lie as a right to the Court of Appeal. The Code of Conduct Bureau was established to receive complaints about non-declaration, investigate and refers matters to the tribunal.
“It further contravened the provisions of the Constitution that the orders of the Federal High Court were obtained by some busy bodies.”
