•Fault Senate President’s reliance on decision in Tibunu’s case

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) has cautioned Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Chairman, Danladi Umar against repeating some of its past errors in its handling of the case involving Senate President Bukola Saraki.

The CCB, which is prosecuting the Senate president on a 13-count charge of false assets declaration, faulted Saraki’s reliance on the CCT’s 2011 decision in the case involving former governor of Lagos State, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Saraki’s lawyer Kanu Agabi (SAN) urged the tribunal to adopt its decision in the Tinubu case and strike out the case against his client.

Agabi noted that since the charge against Tinubu was struck out on the ground that he was not first invited to either admit or deny the anomalies in his assets declaration forms, his the charge against Saraki should also be struck out because he was equally not allowed to either deny or accept responsibility for the perceived anomalies in his forms.

In its counter argument, now before the CCT, filed by its lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), the CCB reminded the CCT Chairman, that the tribunal has in subsequent cases after the Tinubu case, admitted being misled into committing an error in striking out the charge.

It contended that it would amount to a wrong paractice where the tribunal persists in rendering wrong decisions on the pretext of abiding by the principle of precedent.

The Bureau also faulted Saraki’s reliance on the provision of Section 3(d) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal (CCB/T) Act. In arguing that he was never invited to make written admission or denial of the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct.

It noted that the CCB/T Act was enacted in 1989 as Decree No. 1 of 1989 and that the Act and Section 3(d) thereof were patterned after the 1979 Constitution, which in Paragraph 15(1)(d) of Part 1 of the 5the Schedule to the 1979 Constitution.

The CCB noted that the effect of Paragraph 15(1)(d) of Part 1 of the 5the Schedule to the 1979 Constitution is that once a public officer, who contravened any provision of the Code of Conduct is invited and he/she makes a written statement, admitting the contravention, the CCB would be incapacitated and would not be able to try such public officer or refer the case to the CCT.

“This provision of the 1979 Constitution was however adopted in Section 3(d) of the CCB/T Act when the CCB and CCT were established in 1989. This absurd situation led to the failure of the CCB and CCT under the 1979 Constitution.

“This deficiency has however been corrected in the 1999 Constitution, with the deletion of the provision, in the 1979 Constitution and the Code of Conduct Decree N. 1 of 1989, to the effect that once a written admission is made by the erring public officer, no reference should be made to the tribunal.

“Paragraph 3(e) of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides that: ‘The Bureau (CCB) shall have power to…receive complaints about non-compliance 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 CCT.’

“Under the 1999 Constitution, the CCB needs not request the erring public officer to either admit or deny the allegation of breach of the Code of Conduct,” CCB said,

It argued that in view of the provision of Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the provision of Section 3(d) of the CCB/T Act, which was Decree No. 1 of 1989 cannot override the clear provisions of Paragraph 3(e) of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

“Decree No. 1 of 1989 codified in the Laws of the Federation as CCB/T Act, CAP C15, LFN 2004, as an existing law under Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution, is only applicable to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution itself,” it said.

The CCB opined that Saraki could not rely on the CCT’s decision in the case of FRN v. Bola Ahmed Tinubu, decided on November 30, 2011 to request that the charge against him be struck out. It cited other cases later decided by the CCT, including the case of FRN v. Emil Lemke Inyang (in charge No: CCT/ABJ/02/2012 where the CCT admitted being misled in giving the decision it gave in the Tinubu case.

“This tribunal, in its subsequent judgments, has realised that its decision in FRN v. Bola Ahmed Tinubu was given per incuriam (without due regard to the law or the facts) and had departed from it and followed the provision of the Constitution.

“This tribunal found (in the FRN v. Emil Lemke Inyang case) that its earlier decision was given by it without reference by counsel to the provision of Paragraph 3(e) of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. That Schedule emphatically removed and omitted the proviso requiring written admission or denial.

“That proviso that is repeated in Section 3(d) of the CCB/T Act cannot be sustained any longer under the 1999 Constitution. The decision in Tinubu’s case was given per incuriam and the tribunal should not follow such a decision.

“It is indeed, well settled that this tribunal will not perpetuate error through dogged application of the doctrine of stares decisis (requiring court to abide by principles established in earlier decided similar cases) by following a decision that was given per incuriam.

“The tribunal or any court must depart from its previous decision once it discovers that the decision was given per incuriam,” it said.

CCB also faulted Saraki’s argument to the effect that since the alleged anomalies in his assets declaration forms were not formerly brought to his attention by the CCT within a certain time, he was deemed to have been cleared, in view of the provisions in Paragraphs 3(b)and (c) of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

“The defendant failed to take cognizance of the provision of Paragraph 3(e) to the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution that enables the CCB ‘to receive complaint about non-compliance with or breach of the provision of the Code of Conduct or any law in relation thereto.’

“The provision did not limit the power of the CCB to the examination of the declaration only, but also empowers the CCB to receive complaint of non-compliance from outsiders, including body corporate such as the EFCC and Independent Corrupt practices and other related offences Commission (EFCC).

“Since there is no time limit within which an individual can submit a complaint of an infraction or non-compliance with the provision of the Code of Conduct, the defendant’s argument that once there was no official complaint against him within a reasonable time of his submitting the declaration, he could no longer be investigated and prosecuted, cannot stand.

“There can be no clearance by implication, unless it is expressly stated by the statutes and time does not run against the state,” the CCB said.

However, despite the Supreme Court’ judgment to the effect that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) was applicable to the CCT, and the provision of Section 396(2) of the ACJA, CCT Chairman, Umar has scheduled ruling for tomorrow.

Section 396(2) of the ACJA provides that: “After the plea has been taken, the defendant may raise any objection to the validity of the charge or the information at anytime before judgment, provided that such objection shall only be considered along with the substantive issues and a ruling thereon made at the time of delivery of judgment.”

http://thenationonlineng.net/sarakis-trial-ccb-urges-cct-not-repeat-past-errors/

so saraki is no longer denying false asset declaration but faulting the fact that he was not called for question to accept or deny false asset declaration before the probe abi, meaning the probe is no longer political as he earlier claimed?
CCT, Nigerians are watching o

Yes, this is the true position of law. For the avoidance of doubt, here is what 1979 constitution provides under Part I of the Fifth Schedule

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".

And it is a settled principle of law that where provision of an Act of National Assembly conflict with any provision of the Constitution, such provision shall be null and void. Though other consistent provision remains valid by the "doctrine of blue pencil rule". Therefore, that provision of CCB/T Act, CAP C15, LFN 2004 that conflict with the provision of section 3(1) (e) of Part I of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution is null and void.

In conclusion, If you compare the 1979 provision with the 1999, you will agree with me that Saraki cannot get same judgment like Tinubu.

NaijaLegalAnalyst*

this should be corrected after Saraki's case

rusher14:
Is that why Saraki is crying?

This is my Fears:

However, despite the Supreme Court’ judgment to the effect that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) was applicable to the CCT, and the provision of Section 396(2) of the ACJA, CCT Chairman, Umar has scheduled ruling for tomorrow.

“After the plea has been taken, the defendant may raise any objection to the validity of the charge or the information at anytime before judgment, provided that such objection shall only be considered along with the substantive issues and a ruling thereon made at the time of delivery of judgment.”

retry Tinubu.

Freeing Tinubu the wealthiest politician of our time is the greatest error that shouldn't be repeated by CCT. And that is where Saraki hinges his case on.

Head or tail, Saraki is in for a very long thing.