The trial of the Senate President, Senator Bukola Saraki, before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) over alleged false declaration of assets was yesterday stalled due to the pending judgement of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division had on Monday adjourned indefinitely judgement in an appeal filed by Saraki seeking to stop his trial.
The Federal Government had last month arraigned Saraki before the tribunal on a 13-count charge bothering on false assets declaration. Saraki, though pleaded not guilty to the charge, approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of the tribunal to try him.
At the resumed hearing yesterday, Saraki arrived at the tribunal at 9:57a.m. wearing a cream colour ‘agbada’ with cap to match in the company of about 34 other senators including the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu. All the senators including the Senate President came in four coaster buses with registration number ‘NASS MGT’.
However, the tribunal resumed at 10:46a.m. to commence the business of the day. After announcing appearance, the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) noted that it was proper and procedural for the accused person who is present in court to stay in the dock while the trial proceeds.
Counsel to accused person, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), however, opposed the submission but rather urged the court to take judicial notice of the fact that there is a pending appeal before the Court of Appeal, hence the tribunal lacks the power to continue with the trial. In a short ruling, the chairman of the tribunal, Justice Danladi Umar held that the accused person should enter the dock, after which any other application can be made.
It was at this point that the Senate President moved into the dock and was given a chair to sit. Jacobs, however, informed the court about the pendency of the judgement at the Court of Appeal, noting that it will be a sign of respect to the appellate court for the prosecution to wait for its judgement before any other thing could be done on the matter.
He, therefore, prayed the court to adjourn for two weeks. Magaji, however, opposed the application for two weeks adjournment, he consequently prayed the court to adjourn sine dine pending the judgement of the Court of Appeal. Delivering a short ruling, Justice Umar held that the adjournment will be for two weeks.
According to him, “the fact that the Court of Appeal adjourned indefinitely cannot make us here to also adjourn indefinitely. If we do so, the defendant may go and relax and we want defendant to be on his toes.
“The tribunal is therefore adjourned till November 5 and 6 for report from Court of Appeal and possibly hearing.” At the Appeal Court, Saraki through his team of lawyers led by J.B Daudu (SAN) contended that the CCT erred in law by proceeding with the trial with two members instead of mandatory three as provided by the constitution.
He argued that the composition of the tribunal during the trial of Saraki violated paragraph 15(1) of the 1999 constitution by sitting with two members instead of three and asked the court to nullify the CCT proceedings of last month due to lack of quorum.
The appellant counsel disagreed with the arguments of the Federal Government counsel, Jacobs, that the Interpretation Act can be used to resolve the constitutional logjam since the constitution was silent on the quorum for the tribunal membership. Daudu insisted that the Interpretation Act cannot override the constitution being the supreme law and the Act being inferior to the constitution.
He also argued that the tribunal was wrong in assuming criminal jurisdiction against the Senate President when it was not a superior court of record. Daudu, who cited several authorities, submitted that the tribunal cannot assume concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal High Court, adding that the CCT was by law inferior to the Federal High Court.
He, therefore, urged the Appeal Court to nullify the proceedings of the tribunal against Saraki and to also set aside the criminal charges filed against him by the Federal Government on account of being illegal and unlawful.
However, opposing the submissions of Saraki’s counsel, the Federal Government through Jacobs asked that the appeal case be dismissed for lacking merit.
Jacobs told the threeman appeal court panel that the constitution was silent on the quorum of the tribunal membership. He urged the court to invoke the Interpretation Act to resolve the issue in favour of the respondent.
The respondent counsel also submitted that the tribunal has criminal jurisdiction because of the use of words like “guilty” and “punishment” in the law that established the tribunal.
Post a Comment