There was a mild drama at the Code of Conduct Tribunal last week Friday when Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), demands his client’s discharge and acquittal the way it was done for Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, five years ago, adding that the CCT panel that was flawed as Saraki was not invited. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), while countering the argument, told the Tribunal that the CCB did not need to invite the defendant (Saraki) to make any clarification on the discrepancies in his assets because section 3, part one of third schedule of the 1999 Constitution has removed such conditions. According to him, the CCT was misled to discharge former Governor of Lagos state, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, in 2011.

As a LegalAnalyst, I shall guide you through the relevant legal principles of law as well as reproduce the said provision under review with a view to helping you form your own opinion (Be the Juror) with respect to the correct position of law on whether the Code of Conduct Bureau must invite a defendant before charge him before CCT.

LegalAnalyst: The first section bellow is the provision of section 15 (1) (d) of the Part I of the Fifth Schedule of the 1979 Constitution and while the second section is the provision of section 3(1) (e) of Part I of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution.


15(1) The Bureau shall have power to:

(d) receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of this Code and where it considers it necessary to do so, refers such complaint, unless the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, to the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

3.(1) The Bureau shall have power to:

(e) receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of the provisions of the Code of Conduct or any law in relation thereto, investigate the complaint and, where appropriate, refer such matters to the Code of Conduct Tribunal.


LegalAnalyst: On Whether or Not Code of Conduct Bureau Can Revisit Asiwaju Bola Tinubu's case and Consequently Lodge an Appeal. This Issue Will Come Under An Order for Re-trial If Tinubu Case Is Appealed Against. So, The Principle of Law bellow Would Guide You Form Your Opinion.

Firstly, the rule of law against double jeopardy entrenched in S. 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution is to the effect that no person who shows that he has been either convicted or acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredient as that offence save upon the order of a Superior Court.

LegalAnalyst: In view of the foregoing, Supreme Court has stated guidelines under which appellate court can give order of re-trial in criminal case. This principle is as stated bellow.


In the case of ISMAILA LASISI V . STATE ( 2013 ) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1367) 133, the Supreme Court held thus: the guiding principles to enable the appellate court make an order of retrial or fresh trial has been settled in long line of cases. The five guiding principles are as follows:

(a) that there has been an error in law (including) or an irregularity in procedure of such a character that on the one hand the trial was not rendered a nullity and on the other hand this Court is unable to say that there has been no miscarriage of justice.
(b) that leaving aside the error, or irregularity, the evidence taken as a whole discloses a substantial case against the appellant (accused)
(c) that there are no such special circumstances as would render it oppressive to put the appellant (accused) on trial a second time.
(d) that the offence or offences which the appellant ( accused) was convicted or the consequences to the appellant ( accused) or any other person of the conviction or acquittal of the appellant (accused) are not merely trivial; and
(e) that to refuse an order for a retrial would occasion a greater miscarriage of justice than to grant it.


LegalAnalyst: On Whether A Defective Charge Can Vitiate A Trial as Alleged by Saraki. The principle of law bellow will also guide you form your opinion on this.

In the case of Osondi v. FRN (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 682) 483 at 505 the court held: " It is also trite that a defect in the charge or count as alleged in the instant case does not vitiate a trial except where such a defect or defects occasioned a miscarriage of justice"


LegalAnalyst: In view of the foregoing, I know you must by now know the true position of law on this matter of inviting a defendant (accused) before trial commences at CCT and whether an accused can be tried twice.

Pass your judgment by leaving a comment.

*NaijaLegalAnalyst*

really?