Why we didn’t wait for NJC on CJN Onnoghen – FG

The minister of Information, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, gave the
position at the world press conference in Abuja on Monday.

Mohammed said that having admitted that he made a ‘mistake’ by
‘forgetting ‘ to declare his assets as required of him as a public
officer in Nigeria, CJN Onnoghen should have simply stepped aside
once he realised he had erred in that regard.

The minister said it was also wrong for the embattled justice to
have dodged services by the Code of Conduct Tribunal and refused to
appear before it, having known that it was the same court that has
exclusive power to try him for the offence.

Mohammed drew attention to the ruling given by Onnoghen in 2013
in which he declared that it is only the CCT that has the exclusive
right to try offences bordering on assets of public officers and no
other court in the land.

The minister said: “It is unfortunate that in the ensuing
debate, the talk about due process has overshadowed the talk about
the substance. Procedure cannot or should not trounce substance.
That brings me to the role of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
Some have argued that the Justice Onnoghen issue should have been
referred to the NJC to handle. They would have been right if
Justice Onnoghen had been accused of professional misconduct, which
is what is within the purview of the NJC. The allegations against
Justice Onnoghen go beyond professional misconduct. It is the
alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers. And only
one body is statutorily empowered to deal with this: The Code of
Conduct Tribunal.

“Interestingly, Justice Onnoghen himself has elucidated on this.
In various judgments, he upheld the provisions of the law
concerning the CCT. In one particular judgement he delivered on
July 12, 2013,

Justice Onnoghen held that the CCT had EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
(emphasis mine) to deal with all violations contravening any of the
provisions of the Code of Conduct Bureau. Let me put this in a
layman’s language: All breaches of the Code of Conduct for Public
Officers must be handled by the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Pure and
simple. In other words, Justice Onnoghen’s judgement held that the
provisions expressly ousted the powers of ordinary regular courts
in respect of such violations.”

“In a case between Ismaeel Ahmed and Nasiru Ahmed, Congress for
Progressive Change (CPC), Chairman of the Kano state chapter of the
party, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC),
which has been reported by the media, Onnoghen, while interpreting
Paragraph 12 of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as
amended) as regards CCT’s jurisdiction held that, “…the said
paragraph 12 provides as follows: ‘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.”

“The judgement, which was delivered at the Supreme Court with
suit number ‘SC.279/2012’ before Justices Onnoghen and others, also
held that the provisions of the law are clearly unambiguous.
Justice

Onnoghen said that the provisions are, “so construed literally
meaning that any breaches of any provisions of the said 5th
schedule or matters of noncompliance with any provisions of the
Code shall be made to the Code of Conduct Bureau that has
established its Tribunal with the exclusive jurisdiction to deal
with any violations of any provisions under the Code.”

“Is anyone still in doubt that the CCT is the right court to try
the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers
levied against Justice Onnoghen? Is it not clear that challenging
the jurisdiction of the CCT to try him is an abuse of court process
by Justice Onnoghen?

“As for those who argued that the CCT is wrong in ordering
Justice Onnoghen’s suspension, are they aware that Justice Onnoghen
himself disagreed with them? In the judgement I referred to
earlier, he wrote:

“The Tribunal to the exclusion of other courts is also empowered
to impose any punishments as specified under sub-paragraphs (2)
(a), (b) & (c) of paragraph 18 as provided in sub-paragraphs 3 and
4 of paragraph 18 while appeals shall lie as of right from such
decisions to the Court of Appeal.” In essence, the CCT is right to
have directed Justice Onnoghen’s suspension, and the President did
the right thing by acting on the orders of the CCT. Needless to say
that in many of the cases of professional misconduct against judges
that Justice Onnoghen has presided over at the NJC; judges have
been suspended while still undergoing trial!