This OP is just dumb.There was no order by the FHC stopping the tribunal in 2016.The latest judgment of the FHC barred the CCT from commencing trial.

baralatie:
This is an except from the judgement delivered by the supreme court in the case of saraki vs cct
.Note the bolded


I have carefully gone through the record particularly the order of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/775/2015 issued on the 17th day of September, 2015 and reproduced at pages 946 - 949 of Vol. 2 of the record and the judgment of the lower court on the issue particularly at pages 1243 - 1244 of the record and I have no hesitation in agreeing with
the decision of the lower court on the matter. The lower court found/held as follows, inter alia-
"It is apparent on the face of the record of appeal that the tribunal was misled into believing or thinking that the Federal High Court made an order "barring" it from sitting. There was[b] no such order.[/b] The order of the Federal High Court reproduced above, merely directed the main respondents "to appear before this court ………… And show cause why the interim orders of injunction being sought by the plaintiff/appellant should not be made ……… " The respondent to the Appellant ex-parte application could "appear" before the Federal High Court either by themselves or by their legal practitioners* to react to the appellant's motion on notice for interim injunction. The order of the Federal High Court did not ask the Tribunal to stay proceedings or further proceedings in the case, the subject matter of this appeal Since there was[b] no order by the Federal High Court directing the tribunal to stay proceedings, the argument of the contending parties on whether or not the tribunal is a superior court having coordinate jurisdiction with the Federal High Court are merely of academic relevance." [/b]

the present ruling by the Fhc abuja BARRED the cct from hearing the matter
which means that the cct cannot rely on the saraki vs cct case as a precedence.

This is exactly what i saw.I wonder if the OP could nor comprehend what he posted.English language is not that difficult naa.

omonaijiria:


Stop confusing yourself.

NJC must recommend so in this case.

This judgment is totally different

Find another thing to say

Zombies and BMV bring it on

The point is that the judgement given by the federal high court today is irrelevant, null and void, and won’t stop the arraignment of Onnoghen before the CCT on January 22. It is now left for the CCT to decide on whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain the matter without NJC recommendation.

^^
"injunction irrelevant ke, how is it irrelevant?"
the cct cannot entertain, hear or process on this case unless it wants to continue in the many fruitless adventure of wasting time,energy and resources

omonaijiria:


Stop confusing yourself.

NJC must recommend so in this case.

This judgment is totally different

Find another thing to say

Zombies and BMV bring it on

The complaint upon which the NJC can exercise its powers of investigation is one bordering on the judicial misconduct which a judge committed in the course of discharge of his duties as a judicial officer. This includes taking any step to subvert the course of justice in a particular case before him or any judge such as taking bribe among others. In this regard, the NJC will first investigate such judge and then subsequently take appropriate disciplinary action against him. After this, he or she may be prosecuted either on the recommendation of the NJC or not. But where a judge is alleged to have committed an offence not in the course of discharge of his responsibility as a judge, then the court or tribunal which the law creating the offence he contravened confers jurisdiction can validly try him. Thus, if a judge is alleged to have committed an offence bordering on money laundering, drug trafficking, rape among others, the Efcc, Ndlea and the police can validly arraign him before any court of competent jurisdiction like any other Nigerian. In the case at hand, there are allegations that the CJN has not declared his assets with the CCB as well as he maintains a foreign domiciliary accounts full of dollars and Euros contrary to the provisions of the law in his capacity as a public servant or officer this time not as a judicial officer. Like any other public officer such as a Vice Chancellor of a public university in Nigeria, he or she can be legally tried by the Code of Conduct Tribunal for contravening the provisions of the law relating to same. After all, the CJN does not enjoy immunity from prosecution. As provided by section 308 of the 1999 constitution as amended, only the president, vice president, Governor and Deputy Governor enjoy immunity from prosecution. CJN is not included. Any attempt to say that the CCT cannot try him will amount to conferring him with immunity from prosecution. Thus, those who are saying he has to be referred to NJC do not appreciate the provisions of the constitution which clearly distinguish the offence which must be refertrd to NJC and those that are not. No matter the number of SAN that are available for his defence notwithstanding the law will take its course. CJN is not above the law like any other Nigerian. The trial will create impression that the rule of law is in operation in the country. Let him face his trial. If he is not guilty, he would be discharged and acquitted. We are watching