Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,176,844 members, 7,898,992 topics. Date: Wednesday, 24 July 2024 at 01:10 AM

Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment - Politics - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment (10746 Views)

Why Tribunal Sacked Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke / Onnoghen: Tribunal Adjourned To January 22 / Embattled Justice Onnoghen To Be Replaced By Justice Tanko Ibrahim Mohammed (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (Reply) (Go Down)

Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by agwom(m): 4:23am On Jan 15, 2019
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen was absent yesterday as the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) heard allegations of false asset declaration against him.

The Chairman of the CCT Justice Danladi Umar has however adjourned the arraignment to Tuesday, January 22 to enable proper service of summons be effected on the CJN.

A team of over 90 lawyers, including over 40 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) led by Wole Olanipekun, challenged the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the case against Justice Onnoghen.

Olanipekun said the position of the law is that where a defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the defendant does not have to be in court.

He said he and other defence lawyers only appeared in court in protest against the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

He added that from the account given by the official of the tribunal earlier in the proceedings, the CJN was not served with the charges and summons personally, but through his aide.

He argued that Section 123(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) has directed that in a criminal case, the summons must be personally served on the defendant.

However, prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar (SAN) said the defendant was aware of the provisions but of his own volition directed the court registrars to serve the summons on his personal secretary.

“There is no law that says a defendant may refuse to appear before the court and say he is protesting against the jurisdiction of the court. He has to come to the tribunal and can then refuse to take his plea,” he said.

After minutes of argument from both parties, Umar applied to the tribunal to issue another summons on the CJN. He made this application after conceding to the impropriety of the earlier service based on the provisions of the ACJA.

Tribunal adjourns case to Jan 22

He however asked the tribunal to order that the summons be served personally on the CJN and not received on his behalf so as to avoid what earlier happened.

The chairman of the tribunal’s three-man panel, Danladi Umar, while ruling on the application, initially said the fresh summons must be served on the CJN between Monday and Wednesday, and that the trial would resume on Thursday.

However, Olanipekun appealed that no date in this week would be convenient for the defence. He also queried the perceived haste with which the case was moving from the moment the charge was filed.

“Justice also entails fairness. With all respect, this matter started on Friday, why the speed of lightning? We are talking of service and the tribunal is talking about this week? I want to ask, why the hurry”, he asked.

After several back and forth, the tribunal adjusted its earlier scheduling and adjourned the case to January 22.

The chairman also ruled that the defendant’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal and the prosecution’s motion on notice would be taken together on the day.

Daily Trust reports that Olanipekun announced the names of over 40 SANs who were in the tribunal as part of the CJN’s defence team.

They include: Adegboyega Awomolo, Kanu Agabi, Yusuf Ali, Chris Uche, Hassan Hassan, Paul Erokoro, S.I. Ameh, Sebastine Hon, Magaji Mahmoud, James Onoja, Akinlola Kehinde, Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, Victoria Awomolo, Tawo Tawo, Muyiwa Akinbolohun, Varile Azinge, Abdul Ibrahim, Olubowale Taiwo, Garba Tetengi, Offiong Effiong, Patrick Okolo and Kehinde Ogunwumiju.

Onnoghen reports for work

Daily Trust reports that the CJN reported for work in his office at the Supreme Court premises in Abuja yesterday.

Sources told Daily Trust that the CJN, who usually arrive the court around 8 am when he is to preside over a panel, arrived the office around 9 am as he was not sitting on Monday and stayed in his office until the close of work.

However, a panel of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour sat briefly over about seven civil appeals and rose before 11.30 am.

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) filed a six-count charge against the CJN over alleged failure to declare his asset upon assumption of office as provided in Section 15 (1) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act C15, punishable under Section 23 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the same Act.

But the CJN was absent at the CCT, citing lack of personal service of the summons in line with Section 123 of the ACJA.

Court restrains CCT from arraigning CJN

A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an interim injunction restraining the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) from trying the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

Justice E.N. Maha on Monday ordered for status quo that exists as at January 14, 2019 and “shall not take steps that will interfere with the RES or subject matter of the suit pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.”

The ex parte application was brought by a group of students of Economics through their lawyer, J.C. Njikonye challenging the proceeding at the CCT in Abuja.

But the Incorporated Trustees of International Association of Student Economists and Management had filed the action against the Attorney General of the Federation, the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the chairman of CCB and the Inspector General of Police.

The group had asked the court to make an interim injunction restraining the defendants from arresting, arraigning, prosecuting, charging the CJN or giving effect to charge no: CCT/ABJ/01/19 on the grounds that Section 153 (1) (i), 158(1) and Paragraph 21 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution “pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice filed together with this application.”

The case was adjourned to January 17 for hearing.


https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/why-tribunal-adjourned-onnoghens-arraignment.html
Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by MANNABBQGRILLS: 4:58am On Jan 15, 2019
This is NOTED!

1 Like 2 Shares

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Racoon(m): 5:52am On Jan 15, 2019
You can't fight corruption with a warped abuse of the court processes.The useless govt is simply on a vendetta.
No trial of any corrupt and indicted APC member have ever taken this lightening speed.Your final disgrace will be unprecedented.Shameless lots.

39 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Randy100: 6:38am On Jan 15, 2019
Finally Buhari will be put to shame followed by disgracing him out of office.

16 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Johninko(m): 9:42am On Jan 15, 2019
naija! scam
Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Waakanda: 9:42am On Jan 15, 2019
angry
Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by jimooo: 9:43am On Jan 15, 2019
wow
Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Buharimustgo16F: 9:43am On Jan 15, 2019
Buhari is a degrace to woman kind. God go degrace You come Feb 16

4 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Hotfreezer: 9:44am On Jan 15, 2019
Let's see how it all pans out.

Strength is not knowing how to strike but knowing when to strike. There are many idiots in Nigeria and you must consider them when making decisions.

The CJ has already confessed being on the wrong side of the law and should be punished. However, the timing would raise suspicions and sentiments which would make a right step look wrong.

Nepal just sacked their CJ for false declaration of age. This one here in Nigeria has already confessed but it's like our IQ no reach that of Nepalese.

7 Likes

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Viergeachar: 9:44am On Jan 15, 2019
Why?
Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by EndASUUstrike: 9:44am On Jan 15, 2019
FG should stop Making Empty promises
FG should meet the demands of ASUU/ASUP
FG should grow the Educational Sector
FG should STOP toying with the students future

FG should EndASUUstrike
FG should EndASUUstrike
FG should EndASUUstrike

FG should EndAsupStrike
FG should EndAsupStrike!!

We want it to END NOW!!!!!

1 Like

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by shachris02: 9:44am On Jan 15, 2019
post=74772421:
This is NOTED!

the game plan.

Charge him to court.

Ask him to step aside while proceeding continue.

Appoint an Hausa Fulani buhari boy as acting CJN.

Rig 2019 election.

5 Likes

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Ghidey(m): 9:47am On Jan 15, 2019
From the NBA Chairman, Akure Branch:

RE: ARRAIGNMENT OF HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE WALTER SAMUEL ONNOGHEN, CJN:
LET THE LAW BE THE GUIDE.

Divergent reactions have greeted the news filtering in that the the Chief Justice of Nigeria, His Lorsship, Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen will be arraigned before the Code of Conduct Bureau on Monday 14th January. Surprisingly, these reactions, coming from lawyers, are not based on law as it is. Most opinions and condemnations being voiced out are based on emotions, sentiments, political affiliation and all you can think of but law.

The starting point is to examine the proposed charge(s) against His Lordship. From reports made available, the CJN is alleged to have maintained foreign accounts and domiciliary accounts in foreign currency; His Lordship is alleged to have failed to declare his assets in violation of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.

The second step is to examine the provisions of the law as it relates to the allegation about to be turned charges against His Lordship, the Hon. CJN.

Now, Schedule V, Part 1, of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended provides in paragraph 11 thereof as follows:

11.1. "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every public officer shall within three months after the coming into force of this Code of Conduct or immediately after taking office and thereafter -
a. at the end of every four years; and
b. at the end of his term of office, submit to the Code of Conduct Bureau a written declaration of all his properties, assets, and liabilities and those of his unmarried children under the age of eighteen years.

11.2. Any statement in such declaration that is found to be false by any authority or person authorised in that behalf to verify it shall be deemed to be a breach of this Code."

The same law provides that no public officer shall maintain any foreign account.

The third step is to enquire whether these constitutional provisions apply to the Chief Justice of the Federation and the answer can only be found in the law.

Schedule V part ii of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides for the categories of persons recognised by law as public officers. These includes

5. "Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justices of the Supreme Court, President and Justices of the Court of Appeal, all other judicial officers and all staff of courts of law."

It is thus without much ado that one can safely submit that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, His Lordship Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen is a Public Officer. His Lordship is also bound by the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers as contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic.

The fourth step is to examine the law as to what step could be taken by the Federal Government, through the Attorney General of the Federation when there is a breach or an alleged breach of any of these provisions.

Paragraph 12 of part 1 if the fifth schedule to the 1999 constitution provides:

12. "Any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach of or has not complied with the provisions of this Code shall be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau."

Now what is the AGF proposing to do? Nothing but complying with the law. Then why the hullabaloo? Those who oppose the step being taken by the Federal Government have advanced basically three arguments. First, they claim that independence of the judiciary is paramount. They have however forgotten to differentiate between the person of Mr. Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen as a Nigerian who is not above the law and who could commit offence: a Nigerian who is not immuned and who is not better than many others His Lordship had tried and sentenced. The proponents of independence of the judiciary have failed, whether by commission or commission, to see that the office of the CJN is what is meant by judicial independence and not the person in the office. They have refused to appreciate the necessity of subjecting every person to equal treatment before the law, knowing that failure to so do portends great risk to our commonwealth.

The second reason being put forward by defenders of His Lordship, Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen CJN is that the timing of the arraignment is suspect. According to them, the proposed charge is akin to an attempt by the ruling political party to compromise Election Petitions. This argument, every trained legal mind who agree, is fallacious. An offence can only be reported and tried when discovered. The GJN must be prepared to face and stand trial. And the burden is on His Lordship to prove his innocence as Paragraph 11.3, Part 1 of Schedule V of the 1999 Constitution deems a defendants guilty until contrary is proved.

11.3. "Any property or assets acquired by a public officer after any declaration required under this Constitution and which is not fairly attributable to income, gift, or loan approved by this Code shall be deemed to have been acquired in breach of this Code unless the contrary is proved.

Admittedly, the premise upon which the third argument is based is true but the conclusion drawn therefrom is false. The premise of the argument is that the Federal Government cannot remove the CJN without following due process, that is through the JSC. Yes, that is the law and it has received judicial backing in the case of NGANJIWA v. FRN, However, the conclusion drawn by anti-prosecution of Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen CJN is fallacious. Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen CJN cannot be removed except by recommendations of the National Judicial Service Commiasion. His Lordship can however be prosecured by the Code of Conduct Bureau and a conviction by the Bureau can be a basis for NJC's recommendation for removal.

Let us allow the rule of law and not the law of rulers. Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen is just another Nigerian who should subject himself to laws that govern all Nigerians.

Ola Dan Olawale Esq.,
Chairman,
NBA, Akure Branch.

*Me: Nothing to add*

4 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by GreenArrow2: 9:49am On Jan 15, 2019
I don't need to know why. I don't give a fucck about that. In fact, I'm fuccking tired of this topic. Are we going to have an end to these needless bulshît dramas? Someone should tell President Abba Kyari GCFR that we are tired of his cabal's nonsense public show of shame.

P.S, Atiku is still not an option.

2 Likes

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Mopolchi: 9:49am On Jan 15, 2019
Buhari na yeye president. He is very corrupt and never obeys court orders. He must go back to Daura come next month. angry angry

1 Like

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Nobody: 9:50am On Jan 15, 2019
agwom:
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen was absent yesterday as the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) heard allegations of false asset declaration against him.

The Chairman of the CCT Justice Danladi Umar has however adjourned the arraignment to Tuesday, January 22 to enable proper service of summons be effected on the CJN.

A team of over 90 lawyers, including over 40 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) led by Wole Olanipekun, challenged the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the case against Justice Onnoghen.

Olanipekun said the position of the law is that where a defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the defendant does not have to be in court.

He said he and other defence lawyers only appeared in court in protest against the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

He added that from the account given by the official of the tribunal earlier in the proceedings, the CJN was not served with the charges and summons personally, but through his aide.

He argued that Section 123(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) has directed that in a criminal case, the summons must be personally served on the defendant.

However, prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar (SAN) said the defendant was aware of the provisions but of his own volition directed the court registrars to serve the summons on his personal secretary.

“There is no law that says a defendant may refuse to appear before the court and say he is protesting against the jurisdiction of the court. He has to come to the tribunal and can then refuse to take his plea,” he said.

After minutes of argument from both parties, Umar applied to the tribunal to issue another summons on the CJN. He made this application after conceding to the impropriety of the earlier service based on the provisions of the ACJA.

Tribunal adjourns case to Jan 22

He however asked the tribunal to order that the summons be served personally on the CJN and not received on his behalf so as to avoid what earlier happened.

The chairman of the tribunal’s three-man panel, Danladi Umar, while ruling on the application, initially said the fresh summons must be served on the CJN between Monday and Wednesday, and that the trial would resume on Thursday.

However, Olanipekun appealed that no date in this week would be convenient for the defence. He also queried the perceived haste with which the case was moving from the moment the charge was filed.

“Justice also entails fairness. With all respect, this matter started on Friday, why the speed of lightning? We are talking of service and the tribunal is talking about this week? I want to ask, why the hurry”, he asked.

After several back and forth, the tribunal adjusted its earlier scheduling and adjourned the case to January 22.

The chairman also ruled that the defendant’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal and the prosecution’s motion on notice would be taken together on the day.

Daily Trust reports that Olanipekun announced the names of over 40 SANs who were in the tribunal as part of the CJN’s defence team.

They include: Adegboyega Awomolo, Kanu Agabi, Yusuf Ali, Chris Uche, Hassan Hassan, Paul Erokoro, S.I. Ameh, Sebastine Hon, Magaji Mahmoud, James Onoja, Akinlola Kehinde, Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, Victoria Awomolo, Tawo Tawo, Muyiwa Akinbolohun, Varile Azinge, Abdul Ibrahim, Olubowale Taiwo, Garba Tetengi, Offiong Effiong, Patrick Okolo and Kehinde Ogunwumiju.

Onnoghen reports for work

Daily Trust reports that the CJN reported for work in his office at the Supreme Court premises in Abuja yesterday.

Sources told Daily Trust that the CJN, who usually arrive the court around 8 am when he is to preside over a panel, arrived the office around 9 am as he was not sitting on Monday and stayed in his office until the close of work.

However, a panel of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour sat briefly over about seven civil appeals and rose before 11.30 am.

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) filed a six-count charge against the CJN over alleged failure to declare his asset upon assumption of office as provided in Section 15 (1) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act C15, punishable under Section 23 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the same Act.

But the CJN was absent at the CCT, citing lack of personal service of the summons in line with Section 123 of the ACJA.

Court restrains CCT from arraigning CJN

A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an interim injunction restraining the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) from trying the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

Justice E.N. Maha on Monday ordered for status quo that exists as at January 14, 2019 and “shall not take steps that will interfere with the RES or subject matter of the suit pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.”

The ex parte application was brought by a group of students of Economics through their lawyer, J.C. Njikonye challenging the proceeding at the CCT in Abuja.

But the Incorporated Trustees of International Association of Student Economists and Management had filed the action against the Attorney General of the Federation, the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the chairman of CCB and the Inspector General of Police.

The group had asked the court to make an interim injunction restraining the defendants from arresting, arraigning, prosecuting, charging the CJN or giving effect to charge no: CCT/ABJ/01/19 on the grounds that Section 153 (1) (i), 158(1) and Paragraph 21 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution “pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice filed together with this application.”

The case was adjourned to January 17 for hearing.


https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/why-tribunal-adjourned-onnoghens-arraignment.html

As long as the courts or tribunal in question doesn't have the jurisdiction, The CJN won't show up in court until they are tired of this madness

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by GlorifiedTunde(m): 9:50am On Jan 15, 2019
Racoon:
You can't fight corruption with a warped abuse of the court processes.The useless govt is simply on a vendetta.
No trial of any corrupt and indicted APC member have ever taken this lightening speed.Your final disgrace will be unprecedented.Shameless lots.

True. But the the Nigerian justice system is now corrupt and partisan.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by pavoda: 9:51am On Jan 15, 2019
recklessness

1 Like

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by pawesome(m): 9:51am On Jan 15, 2019
But I don't think Buhari is aware of all this... It's a usual process of him to be unaware

1 Like

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by NothingDoMe: 9:53am On Jan 15, 2019
agwom:

However, Olanipekun appealed that no date in this week would be convenient for the defence. He also queried the perceived haste with which the case was moving from the moment the charge was filed.

“Justice also entails fairness. With all respect, this matter started on Friday, why the speed of lightning? We are talking of service and the tribunal is talking about this week? I want to ask, why the hurry”, he asked.

https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/why-tribunal-adjourned-onnoghens-arraignment.html

Why the haste? I have been asking this question for a few days now. Why is Buhari or Jubrin as he is fondly called in a hurry.
Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by vicfajeze: 9:55am On Jan 15, 2019
NORTHERN AGENDA

1 Like

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by sunsewa16: 9:56am On Jan 15, 2019
Their lightening pace they applied in charging cjn to court,why can't they apply it in dasuki and elzzazaki case,his cup is getting to the brim with this cjn case,where is tunubu and lie Muhammed, they have maintain seal lips as usual,but should it be their other way round, gani fawehmi freedom square would have been where jobless lagosians would have spent much of their day protesting.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by HomeOfMe(f): 9:57am On Jan 15, 2019
agwom:
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen was absent yesterday as the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) heard allegations of false asset declaration against him.

The Chairman of the CCT Justice Danladi Umar has however adjourned the arraignment to Tuesday, January 22 to enable proper service of summons be effected on the CJN.

A team of over 90 lawyers, including over 40 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) led by Wole Olanipekun, challenged the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the case against Justice Onnoghen.

Olanipekun said the position of the law is that where a defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the defendant does not have to be in court.

He said he and other defence lawyers only appeared in court in protest against the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

He added that from the account given by the official of the tribunal earlier in the proceedings, the CJN was not served with the charges and summons personally, but through his aide.

He argued that Section 123(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) has directed that in a criminal case, the summons must be personally served on the defendant.

However, prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar (SAN) said the defendant was aware of the provisions but of his own volition directed the court registrars to serve the summons on his personal secretary.

“There is no law that says a defendant may refuse to appear before the court and say he is protesting against the jurisdiction of the court. He has to come to the tribunal and can then refuse to take his plea,” he said.

After minutes of argument from both parties, Umar applied to the tribunal to issue another summons on the CJN. He made this application after conceding to the impropriety of the earlier service based on the provisions of the ACJA.

Tribunal adjourns case to Jan 22

He however asked the tribunal to order that the summons be served personally on the CJN and not received on his behalf so as to avoid what earlier happened.

The chairman of the tribunal’s three-man panel, Danladi Umar, while ruling on the application, initially said the fresh summons must be served on the CJN between Monday and Wednesday, and that the trial would resume on Thursday.

However, Olanipekun appealed that no date in this week would be convenient for the defence. He also queried the perceived haste with which the case was moving from the moment the charge was filed.

“Justice also entails fairness. With all respect, this matter started on Friday, why the speed of lightning? We are talking of service and the tribunal is talking about this week? I want to ask, why the hurry”, he asked.

After several back and forth, the tribunal adjusted its earlier scheduling and adjourned the case to January 22.

The chairman also ruled that the defendant’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal and the prosecution’s motion on notice would be taken together on the day.

Daily Trust reports that Olanipekun announced the names of over 40 SANs who were in the tribunal as part of the CJN’s defence team.

They include: Adegboyega Awomolo, Kanu Agabi, Yusuf Ali, Chris Uche, Hassan Hassan, Paul Erokoro, S.I. Ameh, Sebastine Hon, Magaji Mahmoud, James Onoja, Akinlola Kehinde, Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, Victoria Awomolo, Tawo Tawo, Muyiwa Akinbolohun, Varile Azinge, Abdul Ibrahim, Olubowale Taiwo, Garba Tetengi, Offiong Effiong, Patrick Okolo and Kehinde Ogunwumiju.

Onnoghen reports for work

Daily Trust reports that the CJN reported for work in his office at the Supreme Court premises in Abuja yesterday.

Sources told Daily Trust that the CJN, who usually arrive the court around 8 am when he is to preside over a panel, arrived the office around 9 am as he was not sitting on Monday and stayed in his office until the close of work.

However, a panel of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour sat briefly over about seven civil appeals and rose before 11.30 am.

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) filed a six-count charge against the CJN over alleged failure to declare his asset upon assumption of office as provided in Section 15 (1) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act C15, punishable under Section 23 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the same Act.

But the CJN was absent at the CCT, citing lack of personal service of the summons in line with Section 123 of the ACJA.

Court restrains CCT from arraigning CJN

A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an interim injunction restraining the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) from trying the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

Justice E.N. Maha on Monday ordered for status quo that exists as at January 14, 2019 and “shall not take steps that will interfere with the RES or subject matter of the suit pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.”

The ex parte application was brought by a group of students of Economics through their lawyer, J.C. Njikonye challenging the proceeding at the CCT in Abuja.

But the Incorporated Trustees of International Association of Student Economists and Management had filed the action against the Attorney General of the Federation, the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the chairman of CCB and the Inspector General of Police.

The group had asked the court to make an interim injunction restraining the defendants from arresting, arraigning, prosecuting, charging the CJN or giving effect to charge no: CCT/ABJ/01/19 on the grounds that Section 153 (1) (i), 158(1) and Paragraph 21 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution “pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice filed together with this application.”

The case was adjourned to January 17 for hearing.


https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/why-tribunal-adjourned-onnoghens-arraignment.html
I pray the man is not assasinated before or immediately after the elections,I just pray...
Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by StaffofOrayan(m): 10:00am On Jan 15, 2019
Nepal followed their constitution, we should follow ours


Hotfreezer:
Let's see how it all pans out.

Strength is not knowing how to strike but knowing when to strike. There are many idiots in Nigeria and you must consider them when making decisions.

The CJ has already confessed being on the wrong side of the law and should be punished. However, the timing would raise suspicions and sentiments which would make a right step look wrong.

Nepal just sacked their CJ for false declaration of age. This one here in Nigeria has already confessed but it's like our IQ no reach that of Nepalese.

3 Likes

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by AK481(m): 10:02am On Jan 15, 2019
Ghidey:
From the NBA Chairman, Akure Branch:

RE: ARRAIGNMENT OF HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE WALTER SAMUEL ONNOGHEN, CJN:
LET THE LAW BE THE GUIDE.

Divergent reactions have greeted the news filtering in that the the Chief Justice of Nigeria, His Lorsship, Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen will be arraigned before the Code of Conduct Bureau on Monday 14th January. Surprisingly, these reactions, coming from lawyers, are not based on law as it is. Most opinions and condemnations being voiced out are based on emotions, sentiments, political affiliation and all you can think of but law.

The starting point is to examine the proposed charge(s) against His Lordship. From reports made available, the CJN is alleged to have maintained foreign accounts and domiciliary accounts in foreign currency; His Lordship is alleged to have failed to declare his assets in violation of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.

The second step is to examine the provisions of the law as it relates to the allegation about to be turned charges against His Lordship, the Hon. CJN.

Now, Schedule V, Part 1, of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended provides in paragraph 11 thereof as follows:

11.1. "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every public officer shall within three months after the coming into force of this Code of Conduct or immediately after taking office and thereafter -
a. at the end of every four years; and
b. at the end of his term of office, submit to the Code of Conduct Bureau a written declaration of all his properties, assets, and liabilities and those of his unmarried children under the age of eighteen years.

11.2. Any statement in such declaration that is found to be false by any authority or person authorised in that behalf to verify it shall be deemed to be a breach of this Code."

The same law provides that no public officer shall maintain any foreign account.

The third step is to enquire whether these constitutional provisions apply to the Chief Justice of the Federation and the answer can only be found in the law.

Schedule V part ii of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides for the categories of persons recognised by law as public officers. These includes

5. "Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justices of the Supreme Court, President and Justices of the Court of Appeal, all other judicial officers and all staff of courts of law."

It is thus without much ado that one can safely submit that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, His Lordship Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen is a Public Officer. His Lordship is also bound by the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers as contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic.

The fourth step is to examine the law as to what step could be taken by the Federal Government, through the Attorney General of the Federation when there is a breach or an alleged breach of any of these provisions.

Paragraph 12 of part 1 if the fifth schedule to the 1999 constitution provides:

12. "Any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach of or has not complied with the provisions of this Code shall be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau."

Now what is the AGF proposing to do? Nothing but complying with the law. Then why the hullabaloo? Those who oppose the step being taken by the Federal Government have advanced basically three arguments. First, they claim that independence of the judiciary is paramount. They have however forgotten to differentiate between the person of Mr. Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen as a Nigerian who is not above the law and who could commit offence: a Nigerian who is not immuned and who is not better than many others His Lordship had tried and sentenced. The proponents of independence of the judiciary have failed, whether by commission or commission, to see that the office of the CJN is what is meant by judicial independence and not the person in the office. They have refused to appreciate the necessity of subjecting every person to equal treatment before the law, knowing that failure to so do portends great risk to our commonwealth.

The second reason being put forward by defenders of His Lordship, Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen CJN is that the timing of the arraignment is suspect. According to them, the proposed charge is akin to an attempt by the ruling political party to compromise Election Petitions. This argument, every trained legal mind who agree, is fallacious. An offence can only be reported and tried when discovered. The GJN must be prepared to face and stand trial. And the burden is on His Lordship to prove his innocence as Paragraph 11.3, Part 1 of Schedule V of the 1999 Constitution deems a defendants guilty until contrary is proved.

11.3. "Any property or assets acquired by a public officer after any declaration required under this Constitution and which is not fairly attributable to income, gift, or loan approved by this Code shall be deemed to have been acquired in breach of this Code unless the contrary is proved.

Admittedly, the premise upon which the third argument is based is true but the conclusion drawn therefrom is false. The premise of the argument is that the Federal Government cannot remove the CJN without following due process, that is through the JSC. Yes, that is the law and it has received judicial backing in the case of NGANJIWA v. FRN, However, the conclusion drawn by anti-prosecution of Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen CJN is fallacious. Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen CJN cannot be removed except by recommendations of the National Judicial Service Commiasion. His Lordship can however be prosecured by the Code of Conduct Bureau and a conviction by the Bureau can be a basis for NJC's recommendation for removal.

Let us allow the rule of law and not the law of rulers. Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen is just another Nigerian who should subject himself to laws that govern all Nigerians.

Ola Dan Olawale Esq.,
Chairman,
NBA, Akure Branch.

*Me: Nothing to add*

Only an afonja branch of NBA can do this .

1 Like

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by Balet: 10:06am On Jan 15, 2019
Southwest governors never met over her matter, Jagaban never intervened on her matter, the Obas never lose sleep over her issue, the Yoruba youths never threatened over error. She never stole a dime but a victim of circumstances, yet she resigned. In Yoruba land, a good name is better than silver and gold.

Same country, South south governors have met, southern youths are threatening, activists are fuming, politicians are daring because 'our Son' must not be removed because he 'merely' forgot to declare a MEAGRE 700,000,000 million naira and 50 houses. So what?

What a people!!!! What a nation!!!!

3 Likes

Re: Why Tribunal Adjourned Onnoghen’s Arraignment by sammyj: 10:11am On Jan 15, 2019
ok

(1) (2) (Reply)

Akeredolu: Murderous Herdsmen Are Desperately Trying To Overrun Our State / Special Assistant On Fulani Affairs In Kwara State Appointed By Governor Ahmed / Masari: Bandits Have So Far Released 17 Of Kidnapped Students

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 101
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.