TheNewsGuru

Tag: Onnoghen

  • Onnoghen: CCT fixes date for adoption of final addresses

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal led by Justice Danladi Umar on Wednesday fixed April 15 for adoption of final addresses by parties in the trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, on charges of false and non-declaration of assets.

    The three-man bench fixed the date for the pre-judgment proceedings after Onnoghen closed his case with only one defence witness who had testified on Monday.

    Before adjourning the case on Wednesday, the tribunal chairman, Umar, gave the defence up till Monday, April 8, to file and serve its final address on the prosecution.

    The prosecution was given up till Thursday, April 11, to respond.

    Any further reply on points of law by the defence to the response of the prosecution must be filed by April 15, the tribunal chairman said.

    Onnoghen’s lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN), had asked for 14 days to file the defendant’s final written address, but the ruling of the tribunal showed that the CCT wanted the case dispensed with earlier.

    In shortening the period requested by the defence, the tribunal chairman said he had to give “regard to the purport of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.”

    The Wednesday’s sudden closure of defence’s case came as a surprise as the defendant had, only on Monday, indicated through his lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), that he would be calling “two or three witnesses.”

    Only one of the witnesses, Mr. Lawal Busari, Onnoghen’s driver since 1999, had testified at the previous proceedings on Monday.

    In addition, the defence had, on Monday, applied for and caused the Danladi Umar-led CCT to issue a subpoena to be served on an officer of the Code of Conduct Bureau, Mrs. Theresa Nwafor, summoning her to appear on Wednesday to testify as the second defence witness.

    It was not clear if Nwafor was present at the tribunal when Onnoghen’s lead defence counsel for Wednesday’s proceedings, Chris Uche (SAN), informed the tribunal of the defence’s decision to close the defendant’s case.

    This happened immediately after lawyers on both sides of the divide announced appearances on Wednesday.

    Uche made no mention of Nwafor or any other proposed defence witness.

    Resting the case of the defence without the defendant himself testifying, Uche said, “My lords, today is for continuation of trial.”

  • Alleged false asset declaration trial: Onnoghen opens defence, presents witness

    The embattled Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Walter Onnoghen, Monday opened his defence at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT.

    His first Witness, Dw1, Lawal Olarewaju in evidence tendered a receipt of payment from the Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB, Asokoro office in Abuja for Onnoghen’s 2010 Asset Declaration Form which was reportedly purchased on November 3, 2010.

    Olarewaju said he was Onnoghen’s driver from 1999 to date.

    But the prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar objected to the admissibility of the receipt by the tribunal, alleging that its authenticity was in doubt.

    In his words, “My Lord, I’m objecting to the tendering of the said receipt. The Witness was not the maker. No proper custody of the receipt was established and Revenue Number, RV, was not found dated by the CCB cashier.

    “Therefore, the authenticity of the receipt is in doubt”

    In reaction, however, defence counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo dismissed the objection raised by his learned colleagues as unthinkable.

    He asserted that the receipt was relevant, admissible and not vitiated by any law. He added, “admissibility is regulated only by law, not by any other form.

    “The Witness has made enough evidence to the making of the receipt”.

    In his ruling, CCT chairman, Danladi Umar after considering the ensuing fireworks, admitted the receipt marked as exhibit 2 and adjourned to April 3, for continuation of trial.

    It would be recalled that Onnoghen was suspended as CJN over allegations of non-declaration of his asset on his assumption of office as Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, besides, operation of foreign accounts which he was also accused of non-declaration as required by the law.

  • FG closes case against suspended Onnoghen

    The Federal Government on Thursday closed its case of false and non-declaration of charges preferred against the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    Although, the prosecution led by Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN) had proposed to call six witnesses to prove its case against the defendant, it closed its case after calling three of them.

    Umar announced his decision to close the prosecution’s case after the third witness, Ifeoma Okeagbue, an official of Standard Chartered Bank, concluded her testimony on Thursday.

    The prosecuting counsel said he had chosen to offer to the defence team the rest of his proposed witnesses, three of them, who were not called by the prosecution.

    But the lead defence counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), rejected the offer.

    He then sought the permission of the three-man bench led by its Chairman, Danladi Umar, to consult with the defendant who was seated in the dock.

    After a brief interaction with the suspended CJN, Awomolo announced that Onnoghen had opted to file a no-case submission, implying that the defence will contend that the prosecution has failed to make a case against the defendant and there will not be any need for the suspended CJN to enter his defence.

  • Onnoghen: Any journalist who misrepresent trial will remain in prison till I retire – CCT chairman

    The Chairman of the Code of Conduct of Tribunal, Danladi Umar, has threatened to imprison journalists who misrepresent the ongoing proceedings on the trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    Onnoghen is being prosecuted before the CCT by the Federal Government on charges of false and non-declaration of assets.

    Reacting to what he described as some newspapers’ distortion and misrepresentation of the last Monday’s proceedings of the trial, Umar said any journalist who commits such infraction again might have to remain in prison until his retirement in 28 years’ time.

    He said, “Henceforth, any journalist carrying concocted or discredited statement which is not adduced before this tribunal, I will not hesitate to bring the full weight of the law heavily on the person.

    “The journalist will languish there (prison) and may remain there until I retire – that is about 28 years from now.

    “The person will be summarily sent to prison because that is contempt.

    “It does not matter whether the contempt is committed in facie curiae (before the court) or ex facie curiae (outside the court).”

    Umar, who brought copies of the newspapers that published the stories he complained about, made the remarks at the beginning of Thursday’s proceedings.

    Meanwhile, the prosecution led by Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN), called the second prosecution witness shortly after the tribunal chairman made his remarks.

    In his testimony, the second prosecution witness, Mr. Awal Yakassai, a retired director at the Code of Conduct Bureau, said he received from Onnoghen two assets declaration forms for years 2014 and 2018 on December 14, 201

  • Why I ignored court’s judgement to halt Onnoghen’s trial – CCT chair

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Chairman Danladi Yakubu Umar on Monday defended the ex-parte application he granted for the suspension of Justice Walter Onnoghen as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).

    The decision is in line with the inherent powers of the tribunal, Umar said, adding: “It is left to the appellate court to determine whether or not the order was rightly or wrongly granted.”

    He also explained why the tribunal did not comply with orders by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and the National Industrial Court to halt Justice Onnoghen’s trial. They are courts of coordinate jurisdiction, Umar said.

    He, however, stressed that the chairman and members of the CCT are not “constitutionally subject to disciplinary proceedings by either the National Judicial Council (NJC) or the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC)”.

    According to the CCT chairman, only the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have supervisory powers over the tribunal.

    Umar made the clarifications in his response to a query sent to him by the FJSC following a petition by a lawyer, Grace Stephen Wogor, that the CCT chairman acted ultra vires in granting an order for the suspension of the CJN.

    The tribunal, on January 23, approved an ex-parte application which led to the suspension of Justice Onnoghen by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    In his response to the FJSC query/letter, Umar said the tribunal has the powers to hear the ex-parte motion.

    Besides, he said the tribunal has the jurisdiction to try the CJN.

    It was the first time the position of the tribunal on Justice Onnoghen’s trial will become public knowledge.

    Umar said: “I acknowledge the receipt of your letter Ref: FJSC/ 38/01/5/58 dated 1st February 2019 on the above subject matter, I have examined the contents of your letter under reference and the accompanying petition thereto and would like to comment as follows;

    “The petitioner, Grace Stephen Wogor, in her petition, alleged eight grounds in her petition, which in summary could be consolidated to only four grounds.

    “The petitioner had alleged that I granted an ex-parte Order directing the President to suspend the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who is a defendant in a charge filed against him at the tribunal.

    “It is important to state that I acted within the inherent powers and jurisdiction of the tribunal and that whether or not the order was rightly or wrongly granted is now a matter to be determined by the Court of Appeal since the defendant appealed against the ex-parte order.

    “Therefore, with the appeal against the ex-parte Order at the Court of Appeal, the matter is now subjudice.”

    On the assumption of jurisdiction for the trial of Justice Onnoghen, the CCT chairman said the tribunal has the legal backing to put him in the dock.

    He said: “The petitioner alleged that I assumed jurisdiction on the matter of the CJN as defendant in a charge filed against him by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

    “The defendant (Onnoghen) had appealed the ruling of the tribunal on the jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal.

    “On 30th January, 2019, the Court of Appeal delivered a ruling on the appeal filed by the defendant to the effect that the defendant should appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal to answer the charges filed against him by the CCB.

    “Consequently, the appeal by the defendant was dismissed by the appellate court, thereby affirming the ruling on the tribunal’s jurisdiction.”

    On failure to comply with some lower court orders to halt the Justice Onnoghen’s trial, the CCT chair said it was because they are courts of coordinate jurisdiction with his tribunal.

    He added: “The petitioner alleged that I failed to comply with orders issued by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and the National Industrial Court restraining the tribunal from taking further steps in a matter before it.

    “It is worthy of note that both the High Court of FCT and the National Industrial Court are courts of coordinate jurisdiction with the CCT.

    “More so, the High Court of FCT and the National Industrial Court have nothing to do with any matter pertaining to Non-Declaration of Assets. The tribunal is the only court that has jurisdiction on the matter relating to failure to declare assets or false declaration by public servants.

    “The only courts that have supervisory powers over the tribunal are Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”

    The CCT chair denied breaching judicial oaths because he did not subscribe to such, he could not be sanctioned either by the NJC or the FJSC.

    Umar said: “The petitioner alleged that judicial oaths were breached and that the NJC should consider appropriate sanctions.

    “It is to be noted that the chairman and members of the CCT are not judicial officers. This is predicated on the fact that the chairman and members of the tribunal, during swearing into office, only subscribe to official oaths and not judicial oaths.

    “Therefore, not being a judicial officer, I did not subscribe to Judicial Oaths and therefore could not have breached any Judicial Oaths as alleged.

    “With regards to the prayer of the petitioner for appropriate sanction against the CCT chairman, it is important to note that the chairman and members of the tribunal, not being judicial officers, are not constitutionally subject to any disciplinary proceedings by either the NJC or the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC).”

  • Onnoghen appears in court as prosecution opens case, calls first witness

    The prosecution team in the trial of suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has opened its case by calling its first witness.

    Proceedings were put off in the case on March 12 this year over report that the suspended CJN was ill.

    Onnoghen, looking smart, is at the CCT proceedings, which commenced Monday a little over 10 am.

    Lead prosecution lawyer, Aliyu Umar (SAN) informed the tribunal that he was ready with his witnesses, following which he invited his first witness after obtaining the tribunal’s permission to proceed.

    The first prosecution witness, James Opala, a Senior Investigation Officer of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), has been invited to the witness box to tell all he knows about the case.

    Details shortly…

  • JUST IN: CCT orders day-to-day proceedings in Onnoghen’s trial

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal ( CCT ) has ordered that proceedings in the trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen should now be conducted on an day-to-day basis.

    Tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, in a bench ruling, on Monday, relied on the provision of Section 296(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to order a day-to-day proceedings in the case.

    Umar also relied on Section 296(2) of the ACJA to reserve ruling on the two applications filed by Onnoghen, which were argued on Monday, till the point of judgment in the substantive case.

    The two applications are challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear the charge against Onnoghen and asking the CCT Chairman to recuse himself from the case on grounds of likely bias.

    Onnoghen was present all through the proceedings on Monday. When asked to sit down, Onnoghen, who stood in the earlier part of the proceedings, later elected to sit on a chair, which his aides brought along with them from home. He refused the chair provided by officials of the tribunal.

    Details shortly…

  • We’ve not removed Onnoghen, Fed Govt tells Supreme Court

    The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, has not been illegally removed from office, the Federal Government and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) said yesterday.

    Faulting claims by the Cross River State Government that the embattled CJN has been eased out of office, the government and the AGF explained that Justice Onnghen was suspended to enable him stand trial for the charge of breach of code of conduct, before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    Solicitor-General of the Federation (SGF) Dayo Apata spoke for the government and the Office of the AGF at the hearing of a suit by Cross Rivers State, in which it challenged Onnoghen’s suspension and asked that the decision be set aside.

    Apata contended: “There is a clear distinction between suspension and removal. There is no evidence before the court to show that the CJN was removed or dismissed from office.”

    He argued that Justice Onnoghen’s suspension was not arbitrary, and that President Muhammadu Buhari acted on a valid order made by a competent court, the suspended CJN has now appealed.

    The solicitor-general was reacting to an argument by plaintiff’s lawyer, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), to the effect that Onnoghen’s removal from office by the executive was a violation of the Constitution, attack on the Judiciary and a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.

    Apata argued the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection and counter affidavit, filed in response to the plantiff’s originating summons.

    He urged the court to uphold his objection and dismiss this suit, marked: SC/45/2019, for lack of locus standi,on the grounds that the subject matter does not qualify as a dispute between

    He said: “Our submission is that there is no dispute between Cross River State and the Federal Government of Nigeria on the subject matter of this case or the charge pending before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    “In the absence of any dispute, the original jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked by the plaintiff. The office in question is the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, not the Chief Judge of Cross River State.”

    On the competence of the suit, Apata faulted Nwosu’s argument that it was intended to protect the Constitution and current its violation by the Executive in the manner Onnoghen was removed from office.

    Apata argued that as against the plaintiff’s position, the suit seeks to obstruct the efforts of the defendants to protect the interest of justice as provided in Section 174 of the Constitution, where the AGF is enjoined to ensure that every prosecution should be done in the interest of justice.

    “The interest of justice is being done with the decision by the Federal Government to prosecute the CJN before the CCT. By this suit, the plaintiff is seeking to frustrate that effort, so the case of Fawehinmi and Akilun cited by the plaintiff’s lawyer, does not support their case,” Apata said.

    He also faulted Nwosu’s reference to the oath he took, on being conferred with the rank of SAN, to protect the Constitution and defend the country’s interest.

    Apata argued that Nwosu was not the plaintiff, but a lawyer to the plaintiff. He noted that if Nwosu was interested in keeping faith with the oath he swore to, he should have instituted the suit himself.

    He added: “The lawyer is not the plaintiff here, but the Cross River State Government. And since the subject is not a dispute between the Cross River State and Federal Republic of Nigeria, the objection should be sustained.”

    Apata urged the court to resist the attempt by the plaintiff to make it determine a criminal proceedings that is still pending at the Court of Appeal, which has not been determined.

    He said that as at yesterday (Wednesday), the Court of Appeal reserved judgments on appeals on the same subject matter as this case. “This is a case of abuse of court process and forum shopping,” he said.

    When asked if the parties at the Court of Appeal were the same as those in the case before the Supreme Court, Apata said no, but that the subject matter is the same.

    In his argument, Nwosu urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ objection and grant all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.

    Nwosu argued that, by their objection, the defendants sought to treat the Office of the CJN as personal to Justice Onnoghen, being an office created by the Constitution, with responsibilities.

    He added: “The seat of the CJN is an institution specifically established by the Constitution of Nigeria, which also makes it tenured, to the effect that the occupant should stay there until his/her retirement age.

    “And the only way he/she can be removed before his/her retirement age, has also been stated in the Constitution. This dictates that even if there is any transgression, this procedure must be followed.”

    Nwosu described the Supreme Court as the proper forum for the case to be decided. He said, since the case was brought by a state, the Constitution says, where there is a dispute between a state and the Federal Government on any constitutional issue/question, the Supreme Court shall be the proper venue.

    Nwosu distinguished both cases and argued that the one before the Supreme Court was not personal to Onnoghen, but meant to cure a violation to the Constitution and the prevent such violation in future.

    He added: “My Lord, there is a siege on the court. They have broken into your (judges’) houses at night, now they have come for your necks.

    “We do not know who will be next. If we do not act now, you may not be sitting here in the next few weeks. You shall be remembered for what you have done. This is an opportunity for you now to stop this violation of the Constitution.”

    The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that it was outrageous and shameful that Apata claimed that Onnoghen was suspended based on an order of court and proceeded to exhibit a copy of the said order.

    H said: “It is a shame that the Solicitor General of the Federation exhibited the laughable order made by a lay magistrate. Can this court also just order the President to vacate office? If they say an order is an order, maybe you here, should order the removal of the President.”

    Nwosu cited Legal Practitioners Privileges Act, where every Senior Advocate pledges to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, and argued that it will be a gross dereliction of his oath to watch the CJN removed from office in a manner alien to the procedure created by the Constitution.

    After listening to the lawyers, a seven-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour adjourned to May 17 thus year for judgment.

  • Alleged false asset declaration: FG clears air on Onnoghen’s status as CJN

    The Federal Government and Attorney General of the Federation told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, had not been removed from office but was only suspended.

    Responding to a suit filed before the apex court by the Cross River State Government, the two respondents argued that Onnoghen was simply suspended to enable him to stand trial on charges of non-declaration of assets instituted against him before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    The Solicitor-General of the Federation and Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr. Dayo Apata, who represented the two respondents, asked the apex court to dismiss the suit which was filed by Cross Rivers State to challenge Onnoghen’s trial and suspension by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    Being a suit between the Federal Government and a state government, it did not arise from an appeal from the lower courts but was filed directly at the Supreme Court under the “original jurisdiction” of the apex court.

    Reacting to the argument by the plaintiff’s, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), to the effect that Onnoghen’s “removal from office, by President Muhammadu Buhari was a violation of the Constitution, attack on the judiciary and a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers, Apata contended that “there is a clear distinction between suspension and removal”.

    Insisting that Onnoghen’s suspension was not arbitrary, Apata said Buhari’s decision to suspend the CJN followed a valid order which Onnoghen himself has now appealed.

    Apata also argued, among others in his client’s notice of preliminary objection and counter affidavits, that the subject matter did not qualify as a dispute between a state government and the Federal Government to warrant being heard by the apex

    He said the suit did not disclose any dispute between Cross River State and the Federal Government of Nigeria on the subject matter of this case or the charge pending before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    In his argument, the plaintiff’s counsel, Nwosu, urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ objection and grant all the prayers sought by his client.

    He added, “The seat of the CJN is an institution specifically established by the Constitution of Nigeria, which also makes it tenured, to the effect that the occupant should stay there until his/her retirement age.

    “And the only way he/she can be removed before his/her retirement age, has also been stated in the Constitution. This dictates that even if there is any transgression, this procedure must be followed.”

    Nwosu insisted that the Supreme Court was the proper forum for the case to be decided.

    Nwosu argued that the suit before the Supreme Court was not personal to Onnoghen, but meant to cure a violation to the Constitution and the prevent such violation in future.

    The seven-man panel of the apex court led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour fixed May 27 for judgment.