Over 1,000 protesters, yesterday, stormed the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), asking the Federal Government to withdraw the non-assets declaration charges it preferred against the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.
The placard and national flag-wielding protesters surrounded the perimeters of the tribunal which is located at the Jabi District of the Federal Capital Territory, drumming and chanting in solidarity with the embattled CJN.
Among the protesters were groups of Muslim women, lawyers and several civil society organisations.
Armed mobile policemen were, however, stationed at strategic locations within and outside the CCT premises.
Meanwhile, for the second time, the CJN declined to appear before the Mr. Danladi Umar’s led three-member tribunal.
A consortium of over 80 lawyers led by a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipekun, however, announced their appearance for the CJN.
Olanipekun drew attention of the tribunal to two different High Court orders, as well as an order of the National Industrial Court, stopping trial of the CJN pending determination of the cases.
He further notified the tribunal that the Abuja Division of Court of Appeal has already been briefed of the facts of the case.
Consequently, Olanipekun applied for the trial to be adjourned indefinitely pending the decision of the Court of Appeal.
“The Supreme Court had repeatedly held that it will amount to judicial rascality and irresponsibility if a court or tribunal is aware and still proceeds”, Olanipekun submitted.
After Olanipekun’s submission, the CCT temporarily suspended its proceeding to rule on an application the CJN had filed to challenge his trial.
The three-member tribunal had said it will reconvene by 1:30pm to decide whether or not it would okay indefinite adjournment of the criminal charges the Federal Government entered against the CJN.
Onnoghen, who for the second time, failed to appear before the CCT to take his plea on the six-count charge bordering on his alleged failure to declare his assets as well as allegations that he maintained domiciliary foreign bank accounts, had through his team of lawyers, applied for his trial to be adjourned sine-die.
But on resumption of proceedings later, the Code of Conduct Tribunal said orders made by the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court of Nigeria stopping the trial of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, were not binding on it.
The CCT held that the courts are of coordinate jurisdiction with the CCT and so lack powers to issue orders to the tribunal.
The CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar, said this while rejecting a motion by Onnoghen asking the tribunal to adjourn indefinitely based on orders made by two high courts and the NICN that parties must maintain status quo.
Meanwhile, the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) sitting in Abuja, yesterday held that the orders by the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court restraining or stopping it from proceeding with the trial of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen are not binding on it.
The three-member panel of the Tribunal headed by Danladi Yakubu Umar, in a split decision of two to one, discountenanced the orders of the two courts on the grounds that they were courts of equal jurisdiction and the CCT is a special Court empowered to handle exclusively the issues relating to assets declaration of public office holders.
Onnoghen’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (CJN), in the non disclosure of assets charge preferred against him by the federal government had, in an application asked the Tribunal to adjourn trial indefinitely pending the determination of suits seeking to stop the trial, wherein the courts ordered that trial should be temporarily put in hold.
Umar had in his ruling held that those who obtained the orders of the High Court were busybodies because they are not parties in the matter at the Tribunal and maintained that the orders of the High Courts and that of the National Industrial Court are null and void on account of being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.
According to the CCT chairman, Section 246(1)(a) of the Constitution makes it crystal clear that the Tribunal has unquantified jurisdiction to hear any assets declaration case as may be referred to it by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).
He also disagreed with the request by the lead defence counsel for an adjournment of the trial sine die (indefinitely) on the grounds of a pending appeal at the Court of Appeal, adding that section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, 2015, did not make provisions for stay of proceedings in a criminal matter and that in the instant case, it shall not be entertained.
Atedze, in his dissenting ruling, held that it would result to judicial anarchy for the Tribunal to proceed with the trial in view of the four subsisting court orders and the pending appeal at the Court of Appeal.
According to him, orders are binding on the Tribunal until they are set aside in view of Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution which allow court orders to be enforced in all parts of the county and that the CCT cannot operate in isolation.
“Having summarised argument from both parties, it is my submission that CCT, as a creation of law is bound by the existing court orders to avoid judicial anarchy,” he held in his dissenting decision.
The member who further said that the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the charge against the CJN must first be resolved added that status quo must be maintained by adjourning proceedings sine die until all contending issues are resolved.
Although the Chairman ordered that the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to be moved immediately, Chief Olanipekun however, informed the Tribunal that the response of the complainant, Federal government was served on him late Monday and as such, needed time to study the response and then file the reply on point of law.
Counsel to the Federal government, Aliyu Umar, agreed that the government’s response was served late on the defendant, prompting the Chairman to adjourn further proceedings till Monday, January 28, 2019.