THE Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday 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.
The Tribunal, in its ruling delivered by the Chairman and was supported by Justice Juli Anabor, held that the orders of the court are not binding on the Tribunal.
One of the members of the panel, Justice Williams Attendee, however, gave a dissenting judgment.
ALSO READ: States get N2.23trn special grants from FG since 2016 ―…
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.
and then