Bukola
Saraki, the President of the Senate and Nigeria’s number 3-man, has arrived the
courtroom of the Code of Conduct Tribunal in Abuja this morning accompanied by
not less than 50 Senators to face trial
over a 13-count charge of corruption leveled against him by the Code of Conduct
Bureau.
It will be recalled that the tribunal yesterday
made it mandatory for the Senate President to appear this morning and answer
the charges. Saraki has been docked and he pleaded not guilty to all the
13-count charges. The chairman of the Code of Conduct tribunal has withdrawn
the bench warrant against him. See more photos below.
Earlier in the day:
It was gathered that the
Senate President and his supporters first converged at the National Assembly
early on Tuesday morning where his colleagues decided to provide cover for the
senate president to prevent him from being arrested or humiliated by the police,
from where they took off in a convoy of buses for the tribunal.
9:32 a.m:
Senator Bukola Saraki arrived the tribunal premises accompanied by “about
50 senators and some members of the House of Representatives”… according to a
PREMIUM TIMES reporter at the trial, are Theodore Orji, Sam Egwu, Ike
Ekweremadu, Shaba Lafiaji, Aliyu Wamakko, Rafiu Ibrahim, Tayo Alasoadura, Hamma
Misau, Samuel Anyanwu, Sabi Aliyu Abdullahi, among others.
10.32 a.m:
The Chairman of the Tribunal
came into the courtroom and apologized for the delay in the commencement of
proceeding. He said the tribunal was sorting out some matters.
Saraki’s battle to
prevent his appearance before Tribunal:
Senate President
Bukola Saraki’s battle to prevent his appearance before the Code of Conduct
Tribunal (CCT) collapsed yesterday.
His lawyers, Joseph
Daudu (SAN) and Adebayo Adelodun (SAN), argued passionately against his
appearance at the CCT where he is charged with alleged false declaration of
assets, but the tribunal restated its order that the Inspector General of
Police and other security agencies should arrest Saraki and produce him before
the tribunal at 10am today.
The Court of Appeal,
Abuja before which Adelodun argued an ex-parte application for
an order setting aside the warrant of arrest issued on Friday against Saraki
refused the application. It ordered Saraki to put the respondents on notice and
fixed September 29 for the hearing of his substantive appeal.
At the Federal High
Court, Abuja where Adelodun equally argued another motion on behalf of Saraki,
for an order restraining the CCT and the Ministry of Justice from proceeding
with the Senate President’s trial, Justice Ahmed Mohammed refused to grant the
order. He adjourned till September 30 for the hearing of Saraki’s pending
substantive suit and the objection filed against it by the respondents.
At the resumption of
proceedings yesterday before the tribunal, prosecution lawyer Rotimi Jacobs
(SAN) on noticing that Saraki was absent, urged the tribunal to inquire from
his lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), why his client was absent despite the
undertaking he gave on Friday to produce Saraki in court today.
Jacobs said he
prevailed on his client not to execute the bench warrant on account of the
undertaking by Daudu. He said he was taken aback that Daudu failed to fulfill
his promise.
When asked by the
tribunal Chairman Justice Danladi Umar why his client was absent despite his
(Daudu’s) promise to produce him, Daudu said he was not sure the tribunal
actually expected him to produce his client.
He said his client
would not appear before the tribunal because he was challenging the tribunal’s
jurisdiction to hear the charge and that the tribunal was not properly
constituted in view of the absence of one of the three judges.
Daudu argued that
since the Code of Conduct Bureau/Tribunal Act (CCB/TA) provided that the
tribunal must comprise three judges, including a Chairman, it was illegal for
it to sit with just a member and a Chairman.
“Whatever is being
done here is illegal. I will not want my client to be part of this illegality.
You are sitting illegally. Let us put a stop to this,” Daudu said.
Daudu also urged the
tribunal to stay proceedings and await the outcome of an appeal his client
filed against the tribunal’s ruling of Friday in which it ordered Saraki’s
arrest for not attending proceedings.
He also argued that
the Administartion of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which makes it
compulsory for every accused person to first submit himself or herself before a
court and take plea before raising an objection to a charge, was not applicable
to the tribunal.
Jacobs faulted Daudu’s
argument, insisting that the tribunal was properly constituted. He argued that
the CCB/TA only provided for the constitution of the tribunal, but that Section
28 of the Interpretation Act, which has the force of law by virtue of the
provision of Section 318 of the Constitution, provides that two members of the
tribunal form a quorum.
Jacobs argued that the
tribunal could not stop its business just because Saraki filed an appeal. “The
Supreme Court has held that where you feel the proceedings are wrong, you do
not sit in your house to challenge the propriety or not. You should come before
the court,” Jacobs said.
Ruling, Justice Umar
said the tribunal disagreed with Daudu’s submissions.
“A cursory look at the
3rd Schedule of the Code of Conduct Tribunal Procedure Sub-Section C17 provides
that the Criminal procedure Code (CPC) and the Criminal procedure Act (CPA),
are the laws applicable to the tribunal.
“It therefore follows
that by the introduction of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA),
2015, the tribunal is duty-bound to apply the new ACJA as a law, because it
says that the CPC and CPA are no longer valid by the introduction of the ACJA.
“The defence counsel
has prayed this tribunal to dispense with the appearance of the accused person
and the application of the ACJA on the premise that it is not applicable to the
tribunal.
“We have decided to
take the position that in the interest of the administration of justice, that
the accused person is to be made or compelled to appear before this tribunal
consequently. That is the generally acceptable norm – that matters involving
criminal element, the accused person must attend court.
“In view of the
provision of Section 305(1) of the ACJA and Section 306 of the same Act,
the application to stay proceedings in this matter due mainly to the filing of
an appeal at the Registry of the Court of Appeal is hereby refused.
“Appropriately, the
Inspector General of Police (IGP) and other security agencies, as this tribunal
ordered earlier, are still, by the order, to arrest and produce the accused
person tomorrow, the 22nd of September 2015 at 10 am prompt, to answer to the
charges against him. That is the order of this tribunal,” the judge said.
The tribunal
consequently adjourned till 10am today.
After listening to
Adelodun move the ex-parte application, the Court of Appeal
declined Saraki’s prayer for an order staying the execution of the bench
warrant issued against him by the CCT. The appellate court, in a ruling read by
Justice Moore Adumein, held that it was not in its character to entertain ex-parteapplications,
and to interfere with proceedings in the lower court. It ordered that the
respondents be put on notice and for parties to return on September 29 for
hearing of the motion on notice.
The Court of Appeal
wondered why Saraki was reluctant to appear before the CCT, noting that “to
appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal is not a death sentence.” The
appellate court said by its rule, it does not grant interim injunction, but
that every motion before it must be on notice.
At the Federal High
Court, Justice Ahmed Mohammed entertained arguments from lawyers to Saraki, the
CCT, the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Federal Ministry of Justice on the
motion by Saraki seeking an interim injunction against the CCT, CCB and the
Ministry of Justice, restraining them from proceeding with his (Saraki’s) trial
before the CCT.
Justice Mohamed noted
that since the respondents had responded to all the processes filed, filed a
preliminary objection, and the parties joined issues, he would prefer not to
waste time, considering interlocutory applications.
The judge said in view
of the constitutional and radical issues raised by the respondents in their
objection, it was better to hear the substantive suit with the objection, he
adjourned till September 30.
No comments:
Post a Comment