Why I Ordered Onnoghen’s Suspension, By CCT Chair, Danladi Yakubu

Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Chairman Danladi Yakubu Umar
yesterday defended the ex-parte application he granted for the
suspension of Justice Walter Onnoghen as the Chief Justice of
Nigeria (CJN).

The decision is in line with the inherent powers of the
tribunal, Umar said, adding: “It is left to the appellate court to
determine whether or not the order was rightly or wrongly
granted.”

He also explained why the tribunal did not comply with orders by
the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and the
National Industrial Court to halt Justice Onnoghen’s trial. They
are courts of coordinate jurisdiction, Umar said.

He, however, stressed that the chairman and members of the CCT
are not “constitutionally subject to disciplinary proceedings by
either the National Judicial Council (NJC) or the Federal Judicial
Service Commission (FJSC)”.

According to the CCT chairman, only the Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court have supervisory powers over the tribunal.

Umar made the clarifications in his response to a query sent to
him by the FJSC following a petition by a lawyer, Grace Stephen
Wogor, that the CCT chairman acted ultra vires in granting an order
for the suspension of the CJN.

The tribunal, on January 23, approved an ex-parte application
which led to the suspension of Justice Onnoghen by President
Muhammadu Buhari.

In his response to the FJSC query/letter, Umar said the tribunal
has the powers to hear the ex-parte motion.

Besides, he said the tribunal has the jurisdiction to try the
CJN.

It was the first time the position of the tribunal on Justice
Onnoghen’s trial will become public knowledge.

Umar said: “I acknowledge the receipt of your letter Ref: FJSC/
38/01/5/58 dated 1st February 2019 on the above subject matter, I
have examined the contents of your letter under reference and the
accompanying petition thereto and would like to comment as
follows;

“The petitioner, Grace Stephen Wogor, in her petition, alleged
eight grounds in her petition, which in summary could be
consolidated to only four grounds.

“The petitioner had alleged that I granted an ex-parte Order
directing the President to suspend the Chief Justice of Nigeria,
who is a defendant in a charge filed against him at the
tribunal.

“It is important to state that I acted within the inherent
powers and jurisdiction of the tribunal and that whether or not the
order was rightly or wrongly granted is now a matter to be
determined by the Court of Appeal since the defendant appealed
against the ex-parte order.

“Therefore, with the appeal against the ex-parte Order at the
Court of Appeal, the matter is now subjudice.”

On the assumption of jurisdiction for the trial of Justice
Onnoghen, the CCT chairman said the tribunal has the legal backing
to put him in the dock.

He said: “The petitioner alleged that I assumed jurisdiction on
the matter of the CJN as defendant in a charge filed against him by
the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

“The defendant (Onnoghen) had appealed the ruling of the
tribunal on the jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal.

“On 30th January, 2019, the Court of Appeal delivered a ruling
on the appeal filed by the defendant to the effect that the
defendant should appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal to
answer the charges filed against him by the CCB.

“Consequently, the appeal by the defendant was dismissed by the
appellate court, thereby affirming the ruling on the tribunal’s
jurisdiction.”

On failure to comply with some lower court orders to halt the
Justice Onnoghen’s trial, the CCT chair said it was because they
are courts of coordinate jurisdiction with his tribunal.

He added: “The petitioner alleged that I failed to comply with
orders issued by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory
and the National Industrial Court restraining the tribunal from
taking further steps in a matter before it.

“It is worthy of note that both the High Court of FCT and the
National Industrial Court are courts of coordinate jurisdiction
with the CCT.

“More so, the High Court of FCT and the National Industrial
Court have nothing to do with any matter pertaining to
Non-Declaration of Assets. The tribunal is the only court that has
jurisdiction on the matter relating to failure to declare assets or
false declaration by public servants.

“The only courts that have supervisory powers over the tribunal
are Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”

The CCT chair denied breaching judicial oaths because he did not
subscribe to such, he could not be sanctioned either by the NJC or
the FJSC.

Umar said: “The petitioner alleged that judicial oaths were
breached and that the NJC should consider appropriate
sanctions.

“It is to be noted that the chairman and members of the CCT are
not judicial officers. This is predicated on the fact that the
chairman and members of the tribunal, during swearing into office,
only subscribe to official oaths and not judicial oaths.

“Therefore, not being a judicial officer, I did not subscribe to
Judicial Oaths and therefore could not have breached any Judicial
Oaths as alleged.

“With regards to the prayer of the petitioner for appropriate
sanction against the CCT chairman, it is important to note that the
chairman and members of the tribunal, not being judicial officers,
are not constitutionally subject to any disciplinary proceedings by
either the NJC or the Federal Judicial Service Commission
(FJSC).”