Why The CCT Ruling Refusing To Be Bound By The Order Of FHC And NIC May Not Survive An Appeal

Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has today refused to obey the
exparte orders of the Federal High Court (FHC) and the National
Industrial (NIC) which have restrained it from prosecuting
Onnoghen, Chief Justice of Nigeria.

Justice Danladi held that CCT ranked equal with FHC and NIC.
With profound respect this position is skewed. I am finding myself
unable to agree with the ruling of CCT. The tribunal must have
misdirected itself in law.

The Supreme Court has settled the issue of the status of the CCT
in the case of METUH V. FRN (2017) ALL FWLR PT.
901 wherein it stated as follow:

“This court (the Supreme Court) pronounced also in Olubukola
Saraki v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) SC
531 that *the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) is not a court of
superior record of jurisdiction, but a court of quasi-criminal
jurisdiction.”

How do we reconcile the above wisdom of the Apex Court with the
ruling of the CCT? Do we follow the decision of the Supreme Court
or that of the Tribunal? In the light of the decision of the
Supreme Court above, how possible is it for CCT to be court of
coordinate jurisdiction with Superior Courts of Record, in this
instance, FHC and NIC?

CCT seemed to have made heavy weather of section 246 of the
constitution which  provides for appeals from CCT to Court of
Appeal. In my view this cannot still help the decision of the CCT.
I say so because if we are to accede to such reasoning, the result
would produce an awkward situation where Appeal Committee of Body
of Benchers will start claiming superiority over Superior Courts of
Record, not even equality, simply because appeals from it go to
Supreme Court. Other tribunals like Accountants Disciplinary
Tribunal and Medical and Dental Practitioners Tribunal will also
begin to claim equality with Superior Courts of Record simply
because appeal from both of them go to Court of Appeal. Can that be
the intention of the framers of the constitution and lawmakers?

We need to ask ourselves questions. Why did the constitution
establish CCT as a tribunal? Was it a typographical error on the
part of the drafters of the constitution?

A tribunal is a tribunal. No matter how highly placed a tribunal
is, it is inferior to the FHC and NIC and subject to their
supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal did not mince words. In National Electoral
Commission (N.E.C) v. Nzeribe (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt 192) it held as
follows:

“A tribunal, no matter how highly clothed
with power is still a tribunal and so an inferior Court and
subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of a superior court
of record, such as the High Court of Lagos. Section
6(5)(h) (now k) of the Constitution makes this clear.” Per
AWOGU, J.C.A (Pp. 29-30, paras. G-A)

In the light of the foregoing, it is my view that the ruling of
the CCT will not survive an appeal. But most importantly, any
decision on the issue by the Apex Court will expand the frontiers
of our jurisprudence.

The battle that engulfed NIC then is still fresh in our memory.
It was a constitutional amendment that saved the situation. Perhaps
another constitutional amendment clearly recognizing CCT as a
Superior Court of Record under section 6(5)(a)to(i) is the only
solution even in the current situation.

O G Chukkol is a student, Faculty of Law, ABU,
Zaria oliverchukkol@gmail.com^[1]