Go And Face Trial, Supreme Court Tells Saraki

I’m Disappointed, Says Senate President<em

THE Supreme Court Friday dismissed the appeal brought before it by the Senate President Bukola Saraki, seeking to stop his trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Walter Samuel Onnoghen, the court dismissed Saraki’s pleas for lack of merit.

It also held that the CCT was properly constituted to exercise jurisdiction over the trial of Saraki.

It further maintained that the quorum was formed and that the tribunal can actually sit with only the chairman and one other member to decide on a case.

In his reaction, the Senate President expressed disappointment over the judgment.

In a statement signed by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Mr. Yusuph Olaniyonu, Saraki, however, said he remained confident that he would be vindicated during the proper trial at the CCT.

The apex court said: “There is no issue before the tribunal and the lower court concerning the authority of the Solicitor General authorising Mr. Hassan to file the charge, since by the provisions of Section 4 of the Law Officers Act supra, the Solicitor General, in the absence of a sitting Attorney General, as in the instant case, may perform any of the duties and shall have the same power as are imposed by law on the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).”

“In the circumstance and having regard to the state of the law, applicable to the facts relevant to the issue considered here, I find no merit in issues 3, which is hereby resolved against the appellant.”

According to Justice Onnoghen, the charge was valid even when the AGF was not in place, saying: “Even in the absence of AGF, the charge can be valid and it is valid.”

The court also resolved the issue of whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to try criminal matters and issue bench warrants against the Senate president.

Saraki’s Counsel, Joseph Daudu, had pegged his brief on the facts that the CCT in its trial of the Senate president was not properly constituted and that the tribunal was not a court of competent criminal jurisdiction.

He also noted that his client was not properly served with the court charge, adding: “The CCT is just a disciplinary panel for public officers.”

Daudu also argued that the case against his client was not properly initiated, owing to the absence of an AGF at the time.

Daudu insisted that the tribunal has three members and at the time Saraki was put on trial, there were only two members and since the third one was not available, the trial was illegal.

But Counsel to Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Rotimi Jacobs, urged the apex court to dismiss the appeal made by Saraki for lack of merit.

He argued that the tribunal was properly constituted, as only two members were required to form a quorum to sit in judgment on a case.

He further submitted that in the absence of the AGF, an officer in his office could initiate criminal proceedings against anyone, as was in the case against of Saraki.

The court, however, on the issue of improper service of the charge, which was issue no. 4 on the brief, ruled that the administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 has cured the defect in the service and that once one appears in court, that is final.

The Section 136 (a) of the Act provides that “where a defendant is before a court, whether voluntary or on summons or after being arrested with or without warrant, or while in custody for the same or any other offence, the trial may be held notwithstanding.”

Consequently, the issue was resolved against the appellant.

Before the new law, a charge must be personally handed to the respondent to be considered properly served.

The Supreme Court also considered the Federal High Court ruling, urging the CCT to stay further proceedings as an attempt to intimidate the CCT.

“I hold the view that if the appellant felt aggrieved with the conduct of the respondents, in respect of the order in issue, appropriate process could be initiated in the suit, in which the order was made to seek appropriate redress.”

“In any event, there was no order of the Federal High Court staying the proceedings of the tribunal, which was disobeyed by the tribunal.”

“I hold the view that the instant issue is an attempt at intimidating the CCT, which is very unfortunate.”

“In the circumstance, I find the issue, like the others already considered, of no merit and is accordingly resolved against the appellant,” Justice Onnoghen declared.

On the issue of jurisdiction, it added: “The CCT is a court of criminal jurisdiction, albeit limited jurisdiction. The immediate question is whether it is a court or not. There is no inherent difference between a court and a tribunal.”

“The only difference is that tribunals, in most cases, handle special cases. The tribunal has power to impose sanctions according to the law. It is a court with specific criminal jurisdiction.”

“I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.”

“The judgment of the lower court delivered on October 30, 2015, dismissing the appeal of appellant against the ruling of CC of September 18, 2015 is hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed.”

Saraki, his aide said, after listening to the Supreme Court judgment, stated as follows: “He expresses disappointment over the judgment of the apex court on the six grounds of his appeal.

“He, however, would like to put it on record that the facts of the substantial matter are not before the Supreme Court, since the apex court was only invited to rule on some preliminary issues in the process of commencing the trial.”

“The Senate president believes he will have his day in the court to prove his innocence of the charges preferred against him during the trial proper.”

Saraki was arraigned on September 18, last year on false declaration of assets at the CCT, but he failed to appear on the ground that he was not properly served.

A bench warrant was subsequently issued for his arrest, but Daudu filed application to challenge his trial at the CCT on the ground that the trial was illegal, saying the trial can only be initiated by the AGF and that in the absence of an AGF, nobody can put Saraki on trial.

In October last year, Saraki approached the Appeal Court, seeking to quash his trial at the CCT on the ground that the CCT was not properly constituted and that it lacked the power to try criminal matters.

But on October 30, the Appeal Court dismissed his argument that the CCT was not a court of competent jurisdiction to handle the criminal charges preferred against him.

On November 5, his lawyers staged a dramatic walkout of the CCT courtroom after the tribunal ruled that his trial must continue, despite the pending appeal at the Supreme Court.

Seven days later, the Federal High Court in Abuja asked the CCT to stay proceedings in the trial, pending the determination of the appeal before it.

Jacobs told The Guardian concerning the Supreme Court ruling: “Law is the king, not a person,” urging Nigerians to have confidence in the judiciary and also to uphold the fact that the law is no respecter of persons or positions.

He added: “It shows there is rule of law in the land. He should go and face trial,” he added.