Saraki loses again as CCT affirms jurisdiction

The Code of Conduct Tribunal on Thursday dismissed the motion by the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, seeking to quash the 13 counts of false and anticipatory asset declaration preferred against him.

The Danladi Umar-led tribunal resolved all the issues raised by the Senate President against him and affirmed that it had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Umar, who read the ruling, directed that the next thing was for the prosecution to open its case.

Thursday made the second time the tribunal would be affirming its jurisdiction to preside over Saraki’s trial, the Senate President having earlier challenged it up till when the Supreme Court validated his trial in its judgment delivered on February 5, 2016.

In its ruling on Thursday, Umar ruled that contrary to Saraki’s contention, the Attorney-General of the Federation was competent to institute charges before the CCT.

The tribunal ruled that Saraki’s contention that he was being prosecuted for offences allegedly committed about 13 years ago was out of place.

The CCT chairman agreed with the lead prosecuting counsel, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) that, that the argument by Saraki that there must be official complaint against him within a reasonable time of his submitting the declaration, was baseless.

The tribunal chairman held that there could be no clearance by implication, unless it was expressly stated by the statutes and time never ran against the state.

“It is not out of place to charge the accused person now and ask him to answer to the charges against him as there is no statute of limitation in relation to his case,” Umar said.

The CCT chairman rejected Saraki’s contention that the Attorney General of the Federation was without powers to initiate and prosecute cases before the tribunal.

It also faulted  Saraki’s reliance on its (CCT’s) earlier ruling dismissing the charges against a former Governor of Lagos State, Bola Tinubu.

Saraki had argued that under section 3(d) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act,  the Code  Code of Conduct Bureau ought to have confronted him with the alleged infractions in his asset declaration forms before charges were instituted against him.

The Senate President is being prosecuted by the Federal Government for the alleged breaches in the four forms which he submitted to the CCB as  Governor of Kwara State between 1999 and 2007.

He contended in his motion that the CCB’s failure to confront him with the alleged infractions had rendered the charges incompetent.

The CCT held on Thursday that it had since realised that the ruling discharging Tinubu on that grounds was made in error.

It ruled, “The accused persons relied on the decision of this tribunal in the Federal Republic of Nigerian versus Bola Tinubu that was delivered on November 30, 2011. That decision was given per incuriam (given without following principles of law).”

He held that the provision of Paragraph 3(e) of Part I of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution had removed  and omitted the proviso relied on by the Senate President.

“That proviso that is repeated in Section 3(d) of the CCB/T Act cannot be sustained any longer under the 1999 Constitution. The decision in Tinubu’s case was given per incuriam and the tribunal should not follow such a decision,” he said.

The tribunal chairman dismissed Saraki’s claim that he was denied a fair hearing because he was not invited to make a written statement before the filing of the charges.

He held that the argument was premature and could be raised during the hearing of the substantive case.

“The motion by the defendant to quash the charge against him is refused. In the final analysis, the tribunal assumes jurisdiction in this case. The prosecution is to invite its witness,” he ruled.

After the ruling, the prosecuting counsel, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), said he was ready to go on with the case as his first prosecution witness was in court.

But the lead defence counsel, Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN), asked for an adjournment to prepare for trial.

The tribunal chairman agreed with the defence counsel, insisting that criminal cases must not be rushed.

He noted that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, was though aimed at achieving expeditious hearing of criminal cases, the CCT recognised  the need for the accused person to be given adequate time to prepare its defence.

He said, “We do not need to rush. We need to proceed carefully in the interest of justice and to ensure that justice is done to all parties.

“The ACJ Act did not say the defendants should not be given adequate time to prepare its defence.”

The trial was adjourned till April 5.




You may also like...

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *