Politics
CJN’s Non-Asset Declaration: The Frills, Thrills And Implications
The ongoing matter regarding the trial of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, over non-declaration of assets has become one of the most controversial developments to dominate the country’s political space ahead of the 2019 general elections scheduled to hold in February.
The crux of the matter is that a civil society group, Anti-Corruption and Research-Based Data Initiative (ARDI), on the 7th of January 2019, petitioned against the CJN to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over his non-compliance to the Nigerian constitution regarding declaration of assets.
The petition reads in parts: “We hereby petition you on suspected violations of the law and the Constitution of Nigeria by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Honourable, Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen.
“Specifically, we petition you based on the alarming facts detailed below, all of which indicate that the leader of our country’s judicial branch is embroiled in suspected official corruption, financial crimes and breaches of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act”.
The organisation alleged that Justice Onnoghen made five different cash deposits in dollars into an identified Standard Chartered Bank Account, which was not declared to the CCB as part of his assets, being a requirement for a public office holder, especially of his status.
Following this, on Thursday, January 10, 2019, the Federal Government filed charges against Justice Onnoghen, accusing him of false declaration of assets.
The Federal Government said, against the provisions of the law, the Chief Justice only partially declared his assets in 2016 after the controversial crackdown on judges.
The government further said that the number one judge of the nation still failed to declare a series of bank accounts, denominated in local and foreign currencies, linked to him at a Standard Chartered Bank branch in Abuja.
In his response to the CCB upon receiving the query, the CJN said he forgot to update his asset declaration, after the expiration of his 2005 declaration.
In his words: “My asset declaration form numbers SCN 00014 and SCN 00005 were declared on the same day, 14/12/2016 because I forgot to make a declaration of my assets after the expiration of my 2005 declaration in 2009. Following my appointment as acting CJN in November 2016, the need to declare my assets anew made me realise the mistake.
“I then did the declaration to cover the period in default. I did not include my Standard Charted Bank account in SCN 000014 because I believed they were not opened.
“I did not make a fresh declaration of asset after my substantive appointment as CJN because I was under the impression that my SCN 000015 was to cover that period of four years which includes my term as CJN.”
Meanwhile, the trial which was billed to commence last Monday, had two-key hick-ups: Onnoghen, who was represented by a team of 47 senior lawyers, led by Wole Olanipekun, was absent during the first sitting, and the defence, as presented by Olanipekun, was that the court has no power to hear the charges at all, because due constitutional procedure had not been followed.
The Nigerian Constitution required in Section 292 that a serving judge must first be investigated and indicted by the National Judicial Council (NJC) before dismissal or trial for misconduct in open courts. The NJC regulates the Nigerian judiciary.
Olanipekun also argued that the tribunal summons to Mr Onnoghen was delivered to his personal assistant and not him personally, arguing that this was an anomaly and added to the reasons for his absence.
While the prosecution, led by Umar Aliyu from the Federal Ministry of Justice, views this as a mere distraction, Danladi Umar, the tribunal chairman, adjourned further hearing until January 22. He ordered that Mr Onnoghen must appear to be docked for the charges against him, as well as listen to arguments on whether or not the tribunal could assert jurisdiction.
Expectedly, there have been so many interpretations attached to the first ever trial of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, cutting across interests ranging from political affiliations, through ethnic considerations to professional standpoints, and personal opinions.
Going back memory lane, pundits express the belief that Onnoghen’s present travail may have started from the point of his appointment. Upon the retirement of the former Chief Justice, Mahmud Mohammed, in 2016, at the statutory age of 70, Onnoghen’s appointment suffered unprecedented delay by President Mohammadu Buhari. But he was finally sworn in as Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) on the 10th of November 2016.
There was however a prolonged delay in confirming him as the substantive Chief Justice, the position he rightly deserved as the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court.
The delay led to series of speculations from various quarters. Finally, on March 7, 2017, Onnoghen was sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice of Nigeria by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, in his position as Acting President.
Amidst the cheers from mostly the ruling party, APC, and the holes picked by the opposition led by the PDP in the timing of the allegation and the manner of its execution, certain salient points remain very clear, and hence deserve to be treated cautiously and rightly, if the country must progress without avoidable political ranscour capable of destabilising the current fragile unity of purpose.
Following some body language of the Buhari-led government regarding the execution of the anti-corruption fight, as exemplified by the President’s refusal to assent the amended Electoral Act, close watchers of Nigeria’s political terrain have already indicated that the Federal Government is doing everything possible to gag any suspected decentering voice.
The question is, if the President’s excuse for not assenting to the Electoral Act was to avoid destabilising the electoral process, even when assent would mean less room for rigging, why would he allow the Onnoghen matter to be so pursued unconstitutionally in a hurry and with about a month to elections?
The answer seem, to be in what critics of the administration have adduced from the unfolding scenario: that Mr Buhari was behind the move to remove a Chief Judge of Southern origin in order to replace him with a judge from his northern region who would be more amenable to political influence.
In the words of Charles Omole, in a message to Premium Times, ”The timing of the indictment is suspicious. The speed with which it is being pursued strengthens the suspicion as it is uncharacteristic of the slow approach of this administration to act on even far more crucial matters in the past three years.”
The onus is thus on Mr President to prove otherwise: That his whole heightened drama over Onnoghen is not just for the February 2019 elections, even as non-declaration of asset is against the law. The only way to do this is to allow the law take its full course.
Soibi Max-Alalibo
Accordingg to the statement, the Board and National Executive Committee of PANDEF, noted with very grave concern the recent spate of political developments in Rivers State.
“Regrettably, these developments have now degenerated into the decision of the Rivers State House of Assembly to commence impeachment proceedings against the governor and deputy governor.
“This is a deeply disturbing situation that demands urgent attention in order to forestall further escalation and breakdown of law and order.
“This concern is heightened by the critical importance and strategic centrality of Rivers to the Niger Delta region and to the broader socio-political stability and economic wellbeing of Nigeria as a whole”, the statement said.
The Forum called on all parties involved in the resurgent political imbroglio to sheathe their swords and embrace peace.
“This should be guided by the principles of give-and-take, dialogue, tolerance, and political equanimity.
“All stakeholders must place paramount importance on peace, development and the welfare of the people of Rivers.
“We must now focus squarely on good governance and development of the state,” the Forum said.
PANDEF commended President Bola Tinubu, the leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC), respected elders of Rivers State, and other well-meaning Nigerians for their previous and ongoing efforts aimed at restoring peace and stability in the state.
Speaking in an interview on Saturday, January 10, Chief Sara-Igbe alleged that the minister had flouted regulations governing the commencement of electioneering campaigns by moving from one local government area to another to galvanise political support.
According to him, the action amounted to a clear breach of electoral guidelines being carried out with a troubling sense of impunity that could undermine the rule of law.
“Wike has violated the electoral laws of campaigning by going from local government to local government to talk to the people. He travelled from one local government to another. As a result of his visits to local government areas, he has broken election regulations and continues to do all these things without fear of repercussions”, Chief Sara-Igbe said.
The remarks came as Chief Wike was set to round off a state-wide “thank-you” tour that covered all 23 local government areas of Rivers State.
Although the minister had described the tour as an appreciation visit following support for President Bola Tinubu in the 2023 general elections, critics say the engagements have assumed an overtly political character.
Observers note that during several stops, including recent visits to Andoni and Bonny local government areas, the minister rallied supporters across party lines under what he termed a “Rainbow Coalition,” a move widely interpreted as part of a broader political strategy.
During these engagements, Chief Wike was also reported to have made remarks perceived as a veiled challenge to the authority of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, while repeatedly referencing the 2027 elections and urging supporters to prepare to “correct the mistake” of 2023.
Chief Sara-Igbe warned that allowing such activities to continue unchecked could erode public confidence in Nigeria’s electoral process and called on relevant authorities to enforce existing laws without fear or favour.
The Commission, in a statement on Wednesday, claimed that there were plans by the same group to escalate a smear campaign against its Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, to frustrate ongoing investigations and prosecutions involving prominent individuals.
The statement endorsed by the agency’s spokesman, Mr Dele Oyewale, claimed that the action was intended to distract the Commission through unfounded allegations of political bias in the discharge of its duties.
The EFCC warned that it would not stand by and watch “those recruited into this ignoble enterprise” or allow any attempt to derail it from “the patriotic task of improving public accountability in Nigeria.”
The Commission made it clear that those recruited into this venture were under close watch, adding that it would not tolerate any attempt to distract it from the patriotic task of improving public accountability in Nigeria.
“The EFCC reiterates its non-political stance in all its activities. Facts on the ground clearly show that any political actor belonging to the ruling party or opposition party, with corruption baggage, has no hiding place from the operational radar and dynamics of the Commission.
“As a matter of fact, several strong members of the ruling and opposition parties are either facing trial before the courts or being investigated by the Commission.
“It is needful that Nigerians appreciate the fact that the Commission is keeping faith with its Establishment Act in all its operations.
“Therefore, the Commission reiterates its commitment to justice, without fear or favour, in the fulfilment of its mandate,” the statement pointed out.