Onnoghen closes case at CCT after calling a witness | Nairalaw

* …Parties to adopt final addresses April 12

The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter
Onnoghen, on Wednesday, shelved his earlier resolve to produce
three witnesses to debunk the allegation that he did not declare
his assets as prescribed by the law.

At the resumed proceeding on the six-count charge the Federal
Government preferred against him before the Code of Conduct
Tribunal, CCT, the embattled CJN, announced his decision to close
his defence with only the testimony of his driver.

Justice Onnoghen’s driver, Mr. Lawal Busari, had last Monday,
testified before the tribunal as the first defence witness,
DW-1.

The witness had in his Evidence-In-Chief, told the Mr. Danladi
Umar-led CCT panel that he personally drove Onnoghen to Code of
Conduct Bureau, CCB, in 2010, to submit his assets declaration
form.

His evidence was contrary to the allegation that the defendant
failed to declare his assets between 2006 and 2016.

FG had in the charge marked CCT/ABJ/01/19, alleged that
Onnoghen’s failure to properly declare his assets, was in violation
of section 15(2) of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

It further alleged that the suspended CJN operated five foreign
bank accounts, contrary to the code of conduct for public
officers.

The suspended CJN had at the last adjourned date, persuaded the
CCT panel to issue a subpoena to compel a Director at the Code of
Conduct Bureau, Mrs Theresa Nwafor, to appear as his second
witness.

The proposed witness is currently serving at the CCB office in
Edo State.

The application by the suspended CJN to produce her to testify
in the matter was not opposed by the prosecution.

Though the tribunal acceded to the request and summoned Mrs.
Nwafor to appear as at witness, however, when the matter was
called, Justice Onnoghen, said he would no longer need her
testimony.

The defence lawyer, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, said his client took
the decision after “a very deep review of the case”.

He said: “My lords, after a very deep review and consideration
of evidence already before this tribunal, the defence has taken the
decision to close our case.

“And pursuant to paragraph 14 of the practice direction of this
tribunal, we are applying to file our final written address.

“However, may we most humbly apply for record of the proceedings
from the inception of this case. This is because we will need it to
be able to appropriately review the entire proceedings”, Uche
submitted.

Meantime, despite plea by Onnoghen’s lawyer to be granted at
least 14 days to file a final written address, the CCT Chairman,
Mr. Umar, declined, even as he slated April 15 for the parties to
adopt their briefs of argument.

The tribunal said it would after the parties have adopted their
final addresses, fix a dat for judgement and to deliver two rulings
that are pending in the matter.

Whereas one of the pending ruling is challenging jurisdiction of
the tribunal to entertain the charge, in his second application,
Onnoghen, asked the CCT Chairman to recuse himself from the matter,
alleging bias.

Specifically, the suspended CJN had queried the validity of the
charge against him, contending that FG failed to respect
established judicial precedents by not allowing the National
Judicial Council, NJC, to firstly investigate the allegation
against him, before it rushed the matter to the CCT.

He argued that failure to channel the petition against him, as
well as the outcome of the investigation that was purportedly
conducted on assets declaration forms he submitted to the Code of
Conduct Bureau, CCB, to the NJC, rendered the charge invalid.

More so, the defendant urged the CCT to abide by a subsisting
Court of Appeal decision in Nganjiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria
(2017) LPELR-43391, to the effect that any misconduct attached to
the office and functions of a judicial officer, must first be
reported to and handled by the NJC, pursuant to the provisions of
the laws.

He maintained that only after the NJC has pronounced against
such judicial officer could prosecuting agencies of the Federal
Government proceed to initiate a criminal proceeding.

Justice Onnoghen drew attention of the tribunal to its judgment
that quashed a similar charge against another Justice of the
Supreme Court, Sylvester Ngwuta, on the ground that the NJC ought
to have been allowed to look into the matter before the case was
filed.

He stressed that the two judgments were yet to be set aside by
the Supreme Court.

Aside challenging powers of the tribunal to try him, Onnoghen,
said he was afraid that he would not be accorded fair hearing by
the tribunal which he described as an appendage of the
Presidency.

He insisted that he was entitled to fair hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, under section 36(1) of the 1999
Constitution, as amended.

The defendant argued that the CCB which recommended his trial,
the Attorney General of the Federation who is prosecuting him, and
the tribunal itself, are all answerable to the Executive Arm of the
government.

He equally asked the CCT chairman to disqualify himself from the
matter considering that he equally has a criminal allegation
pending against him.

Nevertheless, the tribunal, in a ruling on March 11, relied on
section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA,
2015, and Paragraph 5(5) of its Practice Direction, and held that
it would not consider the merit of Onnoghen’s objection to the
charge, till conclusion of the trial.

The CCT Chairman further ordered that the trial would be
conducted on a day-to-day basis, stressing that ruling on the
defendant’s preliminary objections would be delivered alongside
judgment on the substantive charge.

Onnoghen had since gone to the Abuja Division of the Court of
Appeal to challenge the decision the tribunal took against him.

Noting that Justice Ngwuta’s trial was stopped at the
preliminary stage, the CJN who was suspended from office by
President Muhammadu Buhari on January 25, wondered why his own case
would be treated differently by the tribunal.

FG had earlier closed its case against him after it called three
witnesses that testified before the CCT.

Attempt by the defendant to stop the trial at that stage was
rejected by the tribunal which he dismissed his no-case-submission
and ordered him to open his defence to the charge.

The Mr. Umar-led three-member panel tribunal declined to
discharge and acquit the defendant, insisting that he has
explanations to give with respect to allegations FG levelled
against him.

Owing to the development, Onnoghen called his lone witness to
testify in the matter.

In his testimony, the DW-1, who said he joined the judiciary in
February 1999, told the CCT that he was there when Onnoghen
submitted the completed asset declaration forms at the CCB office
in Asokoro, Abuja.

He said the forms which were issues to both himself and Onnoghen
on July 28, 2010, were filled and returned back to the CCB
sometimes in November same year.

Mr. Busari told the tribunal that Onnoghen submitted the asset
declaration form before he was appointed the CJN.

FG’s first witness, PW-1, Mr. James Akpala, who is a senior
investigative officer at the Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB, had in
his testimony, told the tribunal that the charge against Onnoghen
was filed before his team concluded investigation on the allegation
that he falsely declared his assets.

Similarly, the PW-2, Mr. Awal Yakassai, who is a retired
Director at the CCB, told the Mr. Umar led three-man panel that
contrary to what was alleged in the media, he said the suspended
CJN owned only five houses.

He said it was not true that CCB investigators linked the
ownership of 55 houses to the defendant.

The witness made the disclosure after he was shown copies of
Justice Onnoghen’s asset declaration forms, which FG tendered in
evidence before the CCT.

The CJN was said to have submitted the forms marked as Exhibit 2
and 3, to the CCB in 2014 and 2016.

Answering questions under cross-examination, the PW-2, told the
tribunal that he served at the CCB for 29 years before he retired
in April 2018.

He admitted that the CCB was yet to verify Justice Onnoghen’s
assets with a view to finding out if he made false
declarations.

FG had insisted that it was the CCB that okayed Onnoghen’s trial
based on certain infractions that were discovered in his asset
declaration forms.

On her part, the PW-3, Mr. Ifeoma Okagbue, a staff of Standard
Chartered Bank in Abuja, told the tribunal that it was not true
that the defendant possessed either $1million or £1million in any
of the five bank accounts that necessitated the charge.

Declare your assets publicly, Afenifere tells Buhari

Okagbue who told the tribunal that she started managing
Onnoghen’s bank accounts since 2015, gave a load down of both the
opening and closing balance of all the accounts from January 2018
to January 2019.

She said the accounts were all linked to one Bank Verification
Code, BVN, adding that the bank had upon securing an approval from
the defendant, diverted funds from the accounts into various profit
yielding ventures.

The PW-3 told the tribunal that profits that accrued from the
investments were credited back into the accounts.

While two of the accounts are in Naira, the three others were
Pounds Sterling, Euro and Dollar accounts.

The witness told the tribunal that all the accounts were
domiciliary, and were opened and managed at the branch of the bank
in Wuse 2, Abuja.