Agbakoba, Mahmoud, Akintola: CJN’s non-appearance at CCT in order

[Edoman]

Agbakoba, Mahmoud, Akintola: CJN’s non-appearance at CCT in order
Tuesday, January 15, 2019  NEW

                            
Two former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Presidents Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) and Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), as well as Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN) yesterday backed the non-appearance of Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

This was as a professor of law Yemi Akinseye-George described the charge of non-declaration of assets as “incompetent”.

They spoke in separate interviews with our correspondents.

Agbakoba said: “The CJN did not appear before the CCT mainly on grounds that there was no personal service of the charges, a point conceded by learned prosecution counsel.

“But more important, no one is obliged to obey an unconstitutional document or direction.

“So, as the President enjoys official immunity from prosecution by virtue of the Constitution, the CJN cannot be compelled to appear before the Tribunal in exactly the same way President Buhari cannot be compelled to appear in court as he is protected by constitutional immunity.

“The only way to proceed against the CJN is to either approach the NJC or Senate.

“In respect of the Senate, the procedure is that an impeachment process will be held.

“So, these are only two lawful methods to summon the CJN before a court,” he said.

Mahmoud said Chief Justice Onnoghen’s non-appearance at the CCT must have been based on advice from his lawyers. To him, he must have been properly advised.

The SAN added: “The charges don’t really look credible. The Bar association has condemned it and that is the correct position.”

On the CJN’s non-appearance at the CCT, Mahmoud said: “I’m sure he must have been properly advised by his legal team.”

Akintola said Chief Justice Onnoghen or any other defendant is perfectly within his legal right to not enter appearance in a criminal trial unless and until he is personally served with the charge.


He said: “The CJN’s non-appearance in court has no legal implications. In the first place, the CJN has not been served personally. In the eyes of the law, there’s nothing against him. He must be served personally.

“Again, if he has objection to the jurisdiction of the court, he needs not appear. When you look at the law, all the noise and media hype being made are of no moment.

“As far as I’m concerned, from the little I’ve read on the pages of newspapers and what transpired today (yesterday), there is nothing against the CJN until he is served.

“You can’t shave a man’s head in his absence. You have to serve him personally and he has a right to raise objections to the charge, which he has done.

“It is not peculiar to the CJN or any other accused person. The Constitution and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act say that you have to serve the accused person personally.

“In criminal trials, you must serve the accused person personally. You can’t serve information indicting somebody by proxy.”

Akinseye-George said the charges, which he described as incompetent, cannot stand in law because they were not prepared in accordance with the due process of law.

“The due process of law is that the CJN or any other judge who is still serving must first be investigated and then findings made by the NJC before he can be exposed to either the CCT or regular courts.

“We should not allow political expediency to make us truncate democracy. The rule of law requires maturity. It requires even-handedness. The judiciary has done a lot to advance the anti-corruption fight. So, this whole issue is an unnecessary distraction,” Akinseye-George said.

But, Ogun State Judicial Service Commission member Abayomi Omoyinmi said the CJN should have appeared before the CCT

“Fundamentally, the service of court summons on any defendant is a condition precedent for appearance and or response to such summons of any court processes.

“However, I believed that the CJN should have appeared before the CCT, notwithstanding that evidence of personal service of the summons on the CJN was an issue before the court.

“The CJN having been represented by eminent senior lawyers in court, one would have argued that the CJN need not have refused to appear before the court, even if personal service of the summons was not effected on him, but he has notice of the hearing against him before the CCT,” Omoyinmi argued.

[Edoman]

Challenging Tribunal’s Jurisdiction, Onnoghen Stays Away from Arraignment
Tuesday, January 15, 2019  NEW
                            
The much advertised arraignment of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, for alleged non-declaration of assets did not happen yesterday as the CJN stayed away in protest, challenging the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to try him.

Leading lights of the legal profession, including Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, Dr. Yusuf Alli, SAN and 45 other silks, stood in defence of Onnoghen and were ready for legal foot walks before the tribunal adjourned hostility till Tuesday so that the CJN could be properly served the processes.

By the time Olanipekun concluded the defence team’s preliminary objection to the trial, two courts, the National Industrial Court and Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja had stopped the arraignment all together. But in spite of the groundswell of opposition to the failed arraignment, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) insisted on the prosecution of the CJN, claiming that fight against corruption is the substantive issue to be tackled.

At the tribunal sitting at Abuja High Court, Jabi, Abuja, lawyers and other protesters, who blamed the federal government for Onnoghen’s predicament, stormed the premises to register their disapproval over the manner the CJN was to be arraigned.
The tribunal, following an application by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), had scheduled yesterday for the arraignment of the CJN.
The federal government is prosecuting the CJN on a six-count criminal charge, bordering on non-declaration of his assets.

However, when the matter was called up at 10a.m. yesterday, Onnoghen was not present in court for the arraignment.
Olanipekun, who led the defence team, informed the tribunal Chairman, Mr. Danladi Umar, that the defendant had filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain the suit.

Olanipekun also informed the court that the defendant was not in court because he had not been served with the summons of the tribunal.
Although the prosecution counsel, Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN), argued that service was effected on the CJN, claiming that the registrar of the court informed him that the CJN directed his personal secretary, one Sunday O. to accept service on his behalf.

But Olanipekun insisted that in a criminal charge, service must be made personally on the defendant, adding that the CJN opted not to appear before the tribunal in protest.
“The law is well settled, where the defendant is challenging the jurisdiction in a criminal matter, he does not have to appear. The non-appearance is on protest. We are not yet on the matter of arraignment,” he said, stressing, “The tribunal should uphold the dignity and sanctity of the law.”

The chairman of the tribunal had initially argued that there was no law that allows a defendant to say he is not appearing because he is protesting.
He, however, in conceding the defectiveness of the service, urged the court to redirect service on the defendant with a directive that the service be made personally on the CJN.
Subsequently, thetribunal adjourned the matter till Tuesday, January 22 for the arraignment of Onnoghen and the hearing of all applications relating to the matter. The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal , Justice Danladi Umar

The CJN in the application, which would be taken at the next adjourned date, is asking the tribunal for an order striking out or dismissing the suit against him in its entirety as constituted in charge number: CCT/ ABJ/01/19.
The defence counsel said their request was predicted on the grounds that the applicant is a judicial officer, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and, presently the Chief Justice of Nigeria, saying the constitution makes ample provisions for the appointment and removal of judicial officers, particularly a justice of the Supreme Court, and more particularly, the CJN.

The defence in the application further noted that no allegation of any misconduct whatsoever has been made against the applicant by the respondent, and none (allegations) has been referred to the National Judicial Council (NJC) by the respondent.
In addition, the defendant said no address supported by 2/3 majority of the Senate has been presented to the President of Nigeria for the discipline or removal of the applicant from office.

Amidst heavy presence of security personnel at the tribunal, the venue of the scheduled arraignment was condoned off as early as 8a.m. by security operatives, who carried out screening of persons going into the premises of the tribunal.
No fewer than 50 Senior Advocates of Nigeria, alongside dozens of other lawyers, attended the proceedings in line with the call by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Paul Usoro, SAN, to show solidarity with the CJN.

One of the charges read: “That you, Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen, CJN, GCON between June 8, 2005 to December 14, 2016 being a public officer, serving as a Judicial Officer of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria failed to declare and submit a written declaration of all your assets and liabilities within the prescribed period of (3) months after being sworn-in as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 8 day of June, 2005 and you thereby contravened the provisions of section 15(1) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 15 LFN 2004 and punishable under section 23(2) a, b and c of the same Act.”

Onnoghen was also accused of falsely declaring his assets by omitting to declare funds in his domiciliary accounts as well as an e- saving accounts both in local and foreign currencies, all in Standard Chartered Banks, Wuse, Abuja.

Massive Solidarity for Onnoghen

Over 400 protesters from the South-south region, including members of the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) and a group of young lawyers, under the auspices of Advocate for Peoples’ Right and Justice (APRJ) registered their grievances with the legal procedure, alleging that it was an orchestrated attack on the judiciary and the South-south region.
Leading the APRJ protesters, Mr. Pelumi Olajengbesi said their angst is that the case against the CJN was being spurred by some forces somewhere.

He said, “There is a finger from somewhere, not just trying to deal with the CJN but the entire judiciary. Our protest is to send a signal to the Nigerian government that Nigerian lawyers disapprove of any attempt to intimidate the judiciary and that it will be resisted.
“It is clear that this case is geared to achieve a premeditated objective, which is to embarrass the CJN out of office without following the laid down procedure stipulated by the law. And we urge every Nigerian to reject this ploy in its entirety.”

The aggrieved lawyers carried placards with inscriptions such as: “Nigerians want independent judiciary,” “Restore confidence in the law,” “No assault, intimidation and desecration of our democracy,” “No to tyranny and election manipulation,” “Save our judiciary.”
Though they were disallowed from accessing the premises of the tribunal, the outraged citizens carried placards with inscriptions such as ‘Ijaw youths say no to the intimidation of the judiciary,’ ‘Let the rule of law prevail,’ ‘Government: Is it South-south vs. North?’ ‘South-south says no to intimidation,’ stayed outside the venue to vent their obvious angers.

Lawyer and presidential hopeful on the platform of All Grassroots Alliance (AGA), Mr. Chuks Nwachukwu, who spoke with THISDAY was particularly elated that members of the NBA stood in solidarity with the CJN.
“From what I can see, from the proceedings, I am glad that the bar came to support the CJN. They stood solidly behind him. Everybody knows that this is about the profession, rule of law and the administration of justice in Nigeria.

“If the CJN is taken down on an improper application, it is not good for our judicial system. It is the first time we are seeing such thing,’’ he stated.
Describing his understanding of the proceedings in the court, an Abuja -based lawyer, Mr. Chris Makpu, said, “The tribunal and the prosecution are on the same page, playing the script of the government with a bid to achieve their ill-motivated purpose and, which if allowed, will not only take us a step backward in our democracy but will also be a slap on the judiciary.”

Meanwhile, Justice Maha of the Federal High Court, Abuja yesterday temporarily halted the arraignment of Onnoghen, before CCT.
In a short ruling on two separate ex-parte applications brought before the court, he ordered parties to maintain status quo, pending the hearing and determination of the exparte motion.
The judge, before adjourning the matter till January 17, also ordered that the defendants to be served with all the processes – filed, and appear in court at the next hearing.

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/27/2019 and filed by incorporated trustees of the Centre for Justice and Peace Initiative, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami; the Chairman of CCT, Umar; the National Judicial Council, the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Ibrahim Idris, and the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki were joined as defendants.



The other suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/28/2019 and filed by the incorporated trustees of the International Association of Students Economists and Management, has as defendants, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Malami; the CCT, the CCB, the Chairman of CCT, Umar; and the Inspector-General of Police, Idris.
While the ex parte application in the suit FHC/ABJ/CS/27/2019 was moved by Mr. R.A Lawal-Rabana, SAN, before Justice Maha on Monday, the ex parte application filed in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/28/2019 was moved by Mr. Jeph Njikonye.
The CJN will also be challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to entertain the suit, when the matter resumes on January 22.