in my view, as athe third citizen in the country, he should have set a better example by going to the tribunal to raise his objections [/b]to the charges instead of running to the High Court. He should have known that this is politics. [b]That is why I hold the view that the Senate President goofed morally and politically.

dialfa:
The op is a false interpretetation of the constitution.

Dacosa:
[b][/b]•Saraki
As the face-off between the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) continue to generate interest across the country, some legal practitioners who spoke to The Nation yesterday said the third citizen goofed when he failed to appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal but preferred to file an application before the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking to stop the scheduled trial at the tribunal.

Explaining the development and the position of the law on this matter to The Nation, Idahosa Anthony, a lawyer, said, “The ex-parte application is the most frustrating avenue through which justice is frustrated and judicial process abused in our country’s courts of ‘justice’.  The fact that the number three man in our political hierarchy chose this route to circumvent justice is profoundly disappointing.

“Perhaps due to ignorance of what really transpired in court, a section of the media reported that the application was granted. That would have been in manifest error of trite law.

“In the first place, no court of law has the powers to interfere with, or in any way restrain the exercise of the judicial powers of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. In this case, the Federal High Court and the Code of Conduct Tribunal are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction: appeals from the decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal lie to the Court of Appeal (s.23 (4) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act) and appeals from the decisions of a Federal high Court lie to the court of Appeal (s. 243, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999).

“In the second place, an injunction restraining the Code of Conduct Bureau will be misdirected and therefore, futile. The Code of Conduct Bureau is not a prosecuting authority; under section 3 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, it is merely an administrative and investigative authority and its role in the prosecution of defaulters under the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act is limited to recommending persons for prosecution. The prosecuting authority in respect of offences under the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act is the Office of the Attorney-General. Thus section 24 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act provides the Attorney-General or any one nominated by him may bring charges in respect of offences under the Act.

“In the third place, it is incorrect for Saraki to hinge the basis of his ex parte application on the fact that there is no incumbent Attorney-General capable of instituting actions against him or any criminal action whatsoever. This line of legal reasoning, once regularly cited, has since been discredited by the Supreme Court in a number of cases and, most recently, in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Senator Adewunmi.

The decent course for an accused, if he has concerns, is to raise preliminary objection(s) before the tribunal where he has been charged.”

On CCT’s issuance of a bench warrant for the arrest of the Senate President on September 18, 2015, following Saraki’s failure to appear before it, Idahosa Anthony said, “this power is inherent in any tribunal having the full powers of a court of law, such as the Code of Conduct Tribunal.”

Two other legal practitioners, Dr Sony Ajala and Chief Maxi Okwu, who commented on the development in a telephone chat with The Nation yesterday agreed with Anthony’s views.

Dr Sony Ajala, a legal practitioner in Abuja, told The Nation that the position of the law would not support Senator Saraki’s actions in this matter. According to Ajala, “The straight forward question is, does the Federal High Court have supervisory or power of appellate review over the decision of the Code of Conduct Tribunal? The answer by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution is ‘no.’

In other words; the Code of Conduct Tribunal and the Federal High Court are of coordinate jurisdiction. But then, the politics of litigation over and above the legal philosophy of litigation is often the overriding consideration of our time.

“Again, the law is not that there must be an incumbent AGF for officers of the Federal Ministry of Justice or even officers of any other agencies with statutory fiat to initiate criminal proceedings such as EFCC, NDLEA, DSS, etc to sign and to charge.”

Chief Maxi Okwu, another lawyer and top politician also told The Nation yesterday that the Senate President’s actions is not in tandem with the position of the law, when he said: “The Supreme Court ruling, which is today the position of the law on the issue of having or not having an incumbent Attorney-General, is that it is the office of the Attorney-General that is considered the legap person who has the authority.

My personal opinion on the Supreme Court’s ruling notwithstanding, that is the position of the law today. So, in my view, Saraki goofed by running to the High Court when he would have gone to the tribunal to raise any objection he has. He also goofed morally and politically by failing to go to the tribunal.  Although some SANs hold the view that the High Cout he ran to is superior to the tribunal, in my view, as athe third citizen in the country, he should have set a better example by going to the tribunal to raise his objections to the charges instead of running to the High Court. He should have known that this is politics. That is why I hold the view that the Senate President goofed morally and politically.

Dacosa:
[b][/b]•Saraki
Explaining the development and the position of the law on this matter to The Nation, Idahosa Anthony, a lawyer, said, “The ex-parte application is the most frustrating avenue through which justice is frustrated and judicial process abused in our country’s courts of ‘justice’.  The fact that the number three man in our political hierarchy chose this route to circumvent justice is profoundly disappointing.