Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC)
Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) on Wednesday explained why Chief
Justice Walter Onnoghen’s assets non-declaration charge cannot
first be determined by the National Judicial Council (NJC).
In a statement, the eminent professor of law, citing
constitutional provisions, argued that not every offence committed
by a judicial officer must first be brought before the NJC.
He added: “By the very logic of the powers of the NJC, cases
arising out of a breach of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal
Act and the Code of Conduct provision in the Constitution cannot
come before the NJC.
“If the NJC first decides the matter before the defendant is
arraigned in court or at the Tribunal, what happens if the NJC
finds the defendant liable and removes him from office as a Judge?
In that case, he ceases to be a Judicial Officer as well as a
Public Officer.
“Can he, therefore, be tried as a public officer before the Code
of Conduct Tribunal? The answer is no, because he is no longer a
public officer.
“The extant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of
Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act would be rendered nugatory by a
prior NJC involvement.”
The PACAC chairman faulted arguments that the prosecution ought
to comply with the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Nganjiwa
vs. F.R.N.
He said: “It should be noted first that this judgment
contradicts the clear provisions of the Code of Conduct as
established in the Constitution which gives the Code of Conduct
Tribunal jurisdiction over all public officers, including the Chief
Justice of Nigeria. (See 5th Schedule, Part One, of the 1999
Constitution).
“Moreover, the Court of Appeal in Nganjiwa’s case was directing
its judgment to a judicial officer committing an offence in the
process of carrying out his duties as a judge in a court namely:
demanding bribe from a party to the case before him.
“Therefore, the ratio decidendi in this case is much narrower in
scope than is being touted by our all mighty Senior Advocates of
Nigeria (SANs).
Filling an Assets Declaration Form is totally outside the ambit
of a judicial officer’s work. It applies to all public
officers.
“If one may ask – should a drunken judge behind a car steering
wheel kill an innocent pedestrian, will the offence be taken before
the NJC, before the police can act on the crime?
“Indeed, inspite of its defects, the Court of Appeal judgment in
the Nganjiwa’s case expressly limited reference to the NJC only to
cases of a judicial officers’ misconduct in court whilst exercising
his authority as judge in case before him in court.
“According to the court: ‘It must be expressly stated that if a
Judicial officer commits theft, fraud, murder or manslaughter,
arson and the likes, which are crimes committed outside the scope
of performance of his official functions, he may be arrested,
interrogated and prosecuted accordingly by the State directly
without recourse to the NJC. These classes of criminal act are not
envisaged and captured by the provisions of paragraph 21, Part One
of the Third Schedule.’
“This demonstrates the hollowness and invalidity of the argument
that every offence committed by a judicial officer must first be
brought before the NJC, before the law enforcement agencies can
entertain it.”
Besides, Sagay believes that the NJC cannot be expected to be
fair in Chief Justice Onnoghen’s case.
“Almost all the Senior Advocates of Nigeria have argued that
even in a case involving the breach of the Code of Conduct, for
which the law has already made express provisions, the matter shall
be taken to the NJC rather than to the Code of Conduct
Tribunal.
“They can’t be serious. They must obviously be speaking tongue
in cheek. Even a baby, three months old, must realise that no one
can get justice against the CJN at the NJC.
“The CJN is not only the Chairman of the NJC, he is also the
appointor of 20 out of the NJC’s 23 members. The CJN is the
NJC.
“Only a grossly ignorant man or an extremely mischievous one
could seriously suggest that a matter involving the CJN should be
brought before the NJC for adjudication.
“Therefore, the whole idea of taking the present case to the NJC
is a nonstarter, for that would make the CJN the Chief Judge of his
own case – a clear violation, not only of the Constitution, but
also of a long standing common law principle coming all the way
from MAGNA CARTER in the year 1215,” the PACAC chairman said.
Sagay was of the view that the substance of the charge against
Chief Justice Onnoghen “is deliberately being abandoned by the SANs
and some other lawyers.”
“Why is Nigeria such a Theatre of the Absurd? Today, we are only
talking about preliminary objections, interim injunctions,
challenge of jurisdiction, wrong procedure, etc., etc.
“Nobody is talking about the substantive issue any longer. That
is now lost in the sands of time.
“Did he do it? Did he not do it? The questions we should all be
asking are contained in the front page of The Nation Newspaper of
Tuesday 15th January, 2019: Did the CJN fail to submit a written
declaration of all his assets and liabilities within prescribed
period of three months after being sworn it?
“Did he omit to declare a domiciliary (US dollar) account No.
870001062650 maintained with Standard Chartered Bank Nigeria
Limited? Did he falsely omit to declare a domiciliary (Euro)
account No. 93001062686 maintained with the bank?
“Did he falsely omit to declare a domiciliary (Pound Sterling)
account No. 285001062679 with the Bank?
“Did he falsely omit to declare an e-Saver Savings (naira)
account No. 5001062963 maintained with the bank? Did he falsely
fail to declare naira Account 010001062667?”
Sagay advised Nigerians not be distracted by what he called a
vicious and fraudulent campaign intended to sacrifice the substance
and justice of the case on the altar of technicalities, adding that
the truth must not be the first casualty in the matter.
Read more sagay-why-njc-cant-consider-onnoghens-case/