Former Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter
Onnoghen, yesterday, berated the Federal Government for alleging that he
confessed to the non-declaration of assets charge that resulted to his removal
from office by President Muhammadu Buhari.
Suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen,
|
Onnoghen, who voluntarily resigned his position as the
CJN on April 4, maintained that contrary to Federal Government’s allegation, he
did not at any time, admit that he committed any crime to warrant his trial
before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT, in Abuja.
“This case is about alleged
non-declaration of assets or failure to make a declaration. Counts two to six
of the charge complained of false declarations.
We submit that where a complainant alleged false declaration, it
presupposes that there was a declaration”, Onnoghen’s lawyer, Mr. Okon Efut,
SAN, said while adopting the defendant’s final address with respect to the
charge.
He urged the tribunal to dismiss the charge in its entirety, contending
that FG failed to prove the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt as
required by law. On the issue of Exhibit C which was the statement, the former
CJN made before the CCB, Efut said it was grossly incorrect for the prosecution
to equate forgetfulness with the admittance of crime.
“This submission is
grossly incorrect in law. When he said he forgot, that did not amount to a
confession. He did not confess to the charge. The defendant cannot be convicted
for an offence that is unknown to the law, for which there is no prescribed
punishment.
“The allegation here is that he failed or falsely omitted to
declare assets. But our position is that there is no such offence that is known
to the law in Nigeria. Until the law is well defined, an accused cannot be
punished for an unknown offence.
“There is evidence that the defendant
substantially declared all his assets and it is not true that he did not
declare his assets since 2005 until 2016.
In fact, this argument even defeats their case because they said that he
falsely declared. What we are saying is that the prosecution has woefully
failed to prove its case,” the defence lawyer insisted.
More so, Onnoghen
argued that section 15 of the CCB and Tribunal Act, is in conflict with
Paragraph 11 of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. He argued that the
section upon which FG hinged the charge against him, was unconstitutional and
ought to be declared null and void. Consequently, the defendant prayed the
tribunal to discharge and acquit him of all the allegations against him.
However, Federal Government, through its lawyer, Mr Aliyu Umar, SAN, asked the
CCT to convict and impose maximum punishment on the former CJN, contending that
it successfully established that he acted in breach of the code of conduct for
public officers in the country. In its written address, Federal Government further urged the tribunal
to hold that the prosecution proved its case against the defendant, beyond
every reasonable doubt.
“We urge this tribunal to rely on hard facts before it
and convict the defendant accordingly,” Federal Government stated. It further
reinforced its position that the ex-CJN admitted that he forgot to declare his
ownership of various bank accounts that were operational as at the time he
declared his assets in 2016.
“Whether or not forgetfulness is an offence, is
for your Lordships to determine,” FG added. Moreover, FG argued that it was not
in Onnoghen’s position to determine whether or not the charge against him was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, saying “The defendant cannot place a burden
that the Constitution has not placed on the prosecution.” FG’s lawyers’ clash
Meanwhile, there was sharp disagreement in FG’s camp immediately the CCT
commenced its proceeding, yesterday, as
two senior lawyers in the prosecution team, struggled for the microphone to
address the panel.
Shortly after FG’s lead counsel, Mr Umar, SAN, announced his
appearance, a member of his team, Prof. Zainab Duke, attempted to take over the
microphone to address the Mr Danladi Umar-led three-man tribunal.
With a paper
in her hand, Prof. Duke tried to use the microphone but Umar, SAN, quickly
grabbed it and shouted on her to sit down. “There cannot be two leading counsel
in this matter. Sit down! You cannot speak,” Umar noted. Meantime, Prof. Duke,
who struggled to regain her position after she sank to her seat in the middle
of a struggle for the microphone with Umar, did not give up, as she kept
shouting, “My lord, I need your protection.” Intervening, the CCT Chairman, Mr
Umar, urged both parties to calm down, after which he foreclosed Prof.
Duke
from addressing the tribunal on behalf of the prosecution. “Only one of you can
speak for the team. Whatever you have to say to us, I suggest that you inform
the lead counsel,” the CCT Chairman stated. CCT fixes Thursday for judgment
Meanwhile, the tribunal fixed Thursday to deliver judgment on the charge
against Onnoghen.
The tribunal said it would also on that day, deliver a ruling
on two applications the erstwhile CJN filed to challenge the competence of the
criminal proceeding the government initiated against him. The application was
accordingly granted by the tribunal which ordered her exit, even as the former
CJN watched the drama from his vantage position in the dock.
Nevertheless,
speaking to newsmen outside the courtroom, Prof Duke said she only wanted to
draw the attention of the tribunal to the similarity between Onnoghen’s trial
and a case she said took place in England over 300 years ago. Meanwhile, the
tribunal fixed Thursday to deliver judgment on the charge against Onnoghen.
The
tribunal said it would also on that day, deliver a ruling on two applications
the erstwhile CJN filed to challenge the competence of the criminal proceeding
the government initiated against him. 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.
However, in opposition to his trial, Justice Onnoghen, queried the validity of
the charge against him, stressing that FG violated 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.
Justice Onnoghen drew the 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 from 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 a 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.
The tribunal had 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, held that it would not consider the merit of Onnoghen’s
objection to the charge, till conclusion of the trial.
While FG closed its case
against the ex-CJN after it produced three witnesses to testify before the
tribunal, the Defendant who initially proposed to also call three witnesses to
defend the charge, announced his decision to close his defence after his driver
testified that he was present when the disputed asset declaration forms were
submitted at CCB’s head office in Abuja.
Do you have any information or event for ABUJAPRESS to publish or cover? Kindly Call us on +2349075556668 or send us message on Whatsapp number +2349075556668 or send us an email [email protected]