The Court of Appeal yesterday refused to stop the trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
In a unanimous judgment, a five-man panel of the Abuja division dismissed an appeal by Saraki, describing it as an abuse of court’s process and a bid to evade trial before the CCT.
The judgment was one of the many appeals filed by Saraki, challenging the jurisdiction of the CCT to try him on charges of false assets declaration.
The judgment has effectively resolved all issues surrounding the jurisdiction of the CCT to try the case against the senate president.
This is the second time the court has ruled against Saraki in his challenge of the tribunal’s jurisdiction to try him.
The court had in a judgment on October 30, 2015, dismissed an appeal by Saraki on the jurisdiction of the CCT. The court asked him to submit himself for trial on the 16-count charge brought against him.
The October 30 judgment of the Appeal Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on February 5 in an appeal by Saraki.
Justice Abdul Aboki, who read the lead judgment yesterday, affirmed the jurisdiction of the CCT to try Saraki based on the charge brought against him by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation.
The court upheld an earlier ruling of the Danladi Umar-led CCT that the tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to try Saraki.
It held that the AGF acted within his statutory powers in filing the charge.
As against Sarali’s contention that he was not invited by the CCB before the charge was filed, the appellate court held that by the provision of the Constitution, the CCB waýs not under obligation to first invite anyone to make a written admission of breaches in his asset declaration forms before charges could be filed against him.
It held that the tribunal had rightly departed from its earlier decision exonerating a former Governor of Lagos State and a stalwart of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Tinubuý on account that he was not invited by the CCB the allegations levelled against him.
The court held that the filing of the charge about 13 years after the offences were allegedly committed was immaterial, describing Saraki’s argument in that regard as sentimental.
The court upheld the tribunal’s decision to depart from its earlier decision in the case involving Tinubu.
The tribunal had freed Tinubu on account that he was not first invited by the CCB to confront him with the allegations levelled against him before a charge was filed.
The appellate court also struck down the provisions of the CCB/CCT Act relied on by Saraki’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) in making his submission.
“The proviso relied upon by the appellant is a slippery ground; it cannot stand side by side with the provisions of paragraphs 3(d) and (e) of the 1st Schedule to the Constitution.
“The said Constitution having expressly established the constitutional powers of the Bureau and at the same time bestows power to investigate upon the Bureau, all the added and unsolicited provision of 3(b) of the CCB/CCT Act cannot stand.
“The alleged unproven evidence that the appellant was not accorded opportunity to a make a written admission pursuant to Section 3(a) and (b) of the CCB/T Act is not condition precedent for adjudication by the Code of Conduct Tribunal. It is not an issue of jurisdiction.
“The lower tribunal did not also violate the doctrine of judicial precedents as it has not been proved that it did not follow any relevant judicial precedent.
“The appellant also claimed, albeit erroneously, that the lower tribunal not only refused to follow Supreme Court decision it also refused to be bound by its own earlier decision in FRN Vs Tinubu.
“The appellant is very much aware that the lower tribunal has subsequently reversed itself in the Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Emil Lemke Inyang because it found out that the decision in Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Tinubu was reached per incuriam.
“And the tribunal did not avert its mind to clear provision of paragraph 3(e) of the 1st Schedule when Tinubu’s case was decided,’” Justice Aboki said in the lead judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment