Assault Saga: Between NJC And Mr. President, Who Can Sanction CCT Chairman?

*Unmasking the Confusion and contradiction(s) of the Nigerian
Constitution in that regard

By O G. Chukkol

Preamble

On Thursday 31st March, 2021 the Chairman of the Code of Conduct
Tribunal, Danladi Umar, was caught on camera physically assaulting
a security guard at Banex Plaza in Wuse, Abuja. In a five-minute
video that has gone viral online, Mr Danlandi was seen slapping and
kicking the security guard, while police officers suspected to be
attached to him were trying to restrain him from attacking the
guard.

Reactions from lawyers have trailed the above incidence with
others calling on the National Judicial Council, NJC, to suspend
Umar. It should be noted that NJC exercises supervisory power on
judicial officers only. See part one paragraph 21 (a) and (b) of
the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

This question becomes paramount: is Umar a judicial officer?

Legal Analysis

By Section 318 of the constitution, “Judicial office” means the
office of Chief Justice of Nigeria or a Justice  of the
Supreme Court, the President or Justice of the Court of Appeal,
the  office of the Chief Judge or a Judge of the Federal 
High Court, the office of the Chief Judge or Judge of the High
Court of the  Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the office of
the Chief Judge of a State and Judge of the High Court of a State,
a Grand Kadi or Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal
Capital Territory, Abuja, a President or Judge of the Customary
Court of Appeal; of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, a
Grand  Kadi or Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of a
State;

The section adds that “a reference to a ‘judicial officer’ is a
reference to the holder of any such office”.

The office of the CCT Chairman is obviously missing in the above
list and the implication is that Umar is not a judicial officer
based on the rule of interpretation that the express mention of one
thing is the exclusion of the other not mentioned; what is not
included in a statute is not to be read into it. see
Michael v. Odu’a Investment Company Ltd (2017)
LPELR-42429(CA). That is to say, If the framers of the
constitution had wanted to make CCT Chairman a judicial officer,
they would have clearly mentioned it or simply included CCT
Chairman in the offices listed in section 318 of the
constitution.

Now here comes a lacuna, or rather, a confusion, in the Nigerian
constitution – paragraph 13 (b) of Part One of the Third Schedule
to the Constitution states that the Federal Judicial Service
Commission may recommend to the National Judicial Council, the
removal from office of a number of judicial officers including the
chairman and members of the CCT. However, paragraph 21 (a) and (b)
of the same Third Schedule omits the CCT chairman and members from
the list of persons that the National Judicial Council should
recommend their removal or suspension to the President or exercise
disciplinary control over.

One would have thought that the name of the CCT Chairman was
mistakenly omitted in paragraph 21 of the third schedule. Can we
also say that the omission of the name of the CCT chairman in
section 318 is a mistake?

One becomes lost as to why exactly FJSC is empowered to
recommend the removal of CCT Chairman to NJC and yet the
constitution becomes quiet as to what exactly the NJC should do
with the name after receiving same from FJSC. Does it then mean
that the NJC can at that stage remove or exercise any other
supervisory power over CCT Chairman? The constitution is silent on
that. But it appears that NJC cannot remove or discipline CCT
Chairman by dint of section 22 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau
and Tribunal Act which provides as follows:

“A person holding the office of Chairman or member of the Code
of Conduct Tribunal shall not be removed from his office or
appointment by the President except upon an address supported by
two-thirds majority of each House of the National Assembly praying
that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of
the office in question (whether arising from infirmity of mind or
body) or for misconduct or for contravention of this Code. A person
holding the office of Chairman or member of the Code of Conduct
Tribunal shall not be removed from office before retiring age save
in accordance with the provisions of this Code”.

It follows therefore that the person to remove or suspend the
CCT Chairman is the Nigerian President whose address must be
supported “by two‐thirds majority of each House of the National
Assembly”. He can suspend the CCT Chairman because irrespective of
the fact that suspension was not mentioned either in the
constitution or the CCBT Act, such power exists by operation of
section 11(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act which provides that
“where an enactment confers a power to appoint a person either to
an office  or to exercise any  functions, whether for a
specified period or not,  the power includes−…(b)  power
to remove or suspend him”.

The implication of the foregoing is that the CCT Chairman cannot
be removed or suspended by the NJC. The position would not have
been the same if the constitution had not omitted the CCT in
section 318 of the constitution and paragraph 21 of the third
schedule thereto. In such instance, the CCBT Act would have been
deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution
and thus, void.

Having said that, it is observed that the CCT is clothed with
enormous powers to punish for the contravention of the Code of
Conduct. Why its Chairman and other members are not under the
disciplinary oversight and purview of the NJC is still a
mystery.

It is hereby recommended that the Constitution be amended 
so that the CCT chairman and other members shall henceforth be
brought under the disciplinary purview of the NJC and  be
designated as judicial officers as well. This will bring it in
conformity with Third Schedule Part 1, paragraph 13 of the
Constitution which gives the Federal Judicial Service Commission
power to advise the NJC on removal of the chairman and members of
the CCT.

O. G. Chukkol is a final year student, Faculty of Law, ABU,
Zaria and may be reached via oliverchukkol@gmail.com^[1] or
08032470318

*Unmasking the Confusion and contradiction(s) of the Nigerian
Constitution in that regard

By O G. Chukkol

Preamble

On Thursday 31st March, 2021 the Chairman of the Code of Conduct
Tribunal, Danladi Umar, was caught on camera physically assaulting
a security guard at Banex Plaza in Wuse, Abuja. In a five-minute
video that has gone viral online, Mr Danlandi was seen slapping and
kicking the security guard, while police officers suspected to be
attached to him were trying to restrain him from attacking the
guard.

Reactions from lawyers have trailed the above incidence with
others calling on the National Judicial Council, NJC, to suspend
Umar. It should be noted that NJC exercises supervisory power on
judicial officers only. See part one paragraph 21 (a) and (b) of
the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

This question becomes paramount: is Umar a judicial officer?

Legal Analysis

By Section 318 of the constitution, “Judicial office” means the
office of Chief Justice of Nigeria or a Justice  of the
Supreme Court, the President or Justice of the Court of Appeal,
the  office of the Chief Judge or a Judge of the Federal 
High Court, the office of the Chief Judge or Judge of the High
Court of the  Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the office of
the Chief Judge of a State and Judge of the High Court of a State,
a Grand Kadi or Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal
Capital Territory, Abuja, a President or Judge of the Customary
Court of Appeal; of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, a
Grand  Kadi or Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of a
State;

The section adds that “a reference to a ‘judicial officer’ is a
reference to the holder of any such office”.

The office of the CCT Chairman is obviously missing in the above
list and the implication is that Umar is not a judicial officer
based on the rule of interpretation that the express mention of one
thing is the exclusion of the other not mentioned; what is not
included in a statute is not to be read into it. see
Michael v. Odu’a Investment Company Ltd (2017)
LPELR-42429(CA). That is to say, If the framers of the
constitution had wanted to make CCT Chairman a judicial officer,
they would have clearly mentioned it or simply included CCT
Chairman in the offices listed in section 318 of the
constitution.

Now here comes a lacuna, or rather, a confusion, in the Nigerian
constitution – paragraph 13 (b) of Part One of the Third Schedule
to the Constitution states that the Federal Judicial Service
Commission may recommend to the National Judicial Council, the
removal from office of a number of judicial officers including the
chairman and members of the CCT. However, paragraph 21 (a) and (b)
of the same Third Schedule omits the CCT chairman and members from
the list of persons that the National Judicial Council should
recommend their removal or suspension to the President or exercise
disciplinary control over.

One would have thought that the name of the CCT Chairman was
mistakenly omitted in paragraph 21 of the third schedule. Can we
also say that the omission of the name of the CCT chairman in
section 318 is a mistake?

One becomes lost as to why exactly FJSC is empowered to
recommend the removal of CCT Chairman to NJC and yet the
constitution becomes quiet as to what exactly the NJC should do
with the name after receiving same from FJSC. Does it then mean
that the NJC can at that stage remove or exercise any other
supervisory power over CCT Chairman? The constitution is silent on
that. But it appears that NJC cannot remove or discipline CCT
Chairman by dint of section 22 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau
and Tribunal Act which provides as follows:

“A person holding the office of Chairman or member of the Code
of Conduct Tribunal shall not be removed from his office or
appointment by the President except upon an address supported by
two-thirds majority of each House of the National Assembly praying
that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of
the office in question (whether arising from infirmity of mind or
body) or for misconduct or for contravention of this Code. A person
holding the office of Chairman or member of the Code of Conduct
Tribunal shall not be removed from office before retiring age save
in accordance with the provisions of this Code”.

It follows therefore that the person to remove or suspend the
CCT Chairman is the Nigerian President whose address must be
supported “by two‐thirds majority of each House of the National
Assembly”. He can suspend the CCT Chairman because irrespective of
the fact that suspension was not mentioned either in the
constitution or the CCBT Act, such power exists by operation of
section 11(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act which provides that
“where an enactment confers a power to appoint a person either to
an office  or to exercise any  functions, whether for a
specified period or not,  the power includes−…(b)  power
to remove or suspend him”.

The implication of the foregoing is that the CCT Chairman cannot
be removed or suspended by the NJC. The position would not have
been the same if the constitution had not omitted the CCT in
section 318 of the constitution and paragraph 21 of the third
schedule thereto. In such instance, the CCBT Act would have been
deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution
and thus, void.

Having said that, it is observed that the CCT is clothed with
enormous powers to punish for the contravention of the Code of
Conduct. Why its Chairman and other members are not under the
disciplinary oversight and purview of the NJC is still a
mystery.

It is hereby recommended that the Constitution be amended 
so that the CCT chairman and other members shall henceforth be
brought under the disciplinary purview of the NJC and  be
designated as judicial officers as well. This will bring it in
conformity with Third Schedule Part 1, paragraph 13 of the
Constitution which gives the Federal Judicial Service Commission
power to advise the NJC on removal of the chairman and members of
the CCT.

O. G. Chukkol is a final year student, Faculty of Law, ABU,
Zaria and may be reached via oliverchukkol@gmail.com^[1] or
08032470318