The Court of Appeal in Abuja will on Monday decide whether or not the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) could proceed with the trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki on charges of false asset declaration.
The appellate court yesterday chose Monday for judgment in an appeal by Saraki, after taking arguments from parties in the case.
Saraki, who was arraigned last month before the CCT on a 13-count charge of false asset declaration, is appealing the tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over his trial.
Listed as respondents in the appeal are the CCT, the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the Federal Ministry of Justice and a lawyer in the ministry, Muslim Hassan.
Arguing the appeal yesterday, Saraki’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), urged the appellate court to set aside the entire proceedings before the CCT, including the charge before it.
He argued that the CCT was not properly constituted when it assumed jurisdiction to entertain the charges because it was made up of two members as against three, which is provided for in Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.
Daudu contended that the provision of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act relied upon by the respondents to argue that the tribunal could validly sit with its Chairman and one other member, was a contradiction of the three-member provision in the Constitution.
He also argued that the tribunal, not being a superior court recognised by the Constitution, could not exercise criminal jurisdiction.
Daudu said the CCT lacked the power to exercise the power of “a court to enable it to do some of the things they did which were exclusive preserve of a court with criminal jurisdiction.”
Daudu contended that an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal (per Justice Aboki in the case by ex-Vice President Atiku Abubakar) on which the CCT relied to assume jurisdiction over the case, was wrong.
He argued that the appellate court’s pronouncement in the Atiku case, to the effect that proceedings at the CCT were “criminal in nature,” was a mere obiter (a non-binding opinion).
Daudu also argued that the CCT is an inferior court to the Federal High Court, and ought to stay proceedings and await the determination of the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Saraki before the Federal High Court, Abuja.
In a counter-argument, respondents’ lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds it was based on “misconception and wrong interpretation of the law.”
He faulted Daudu’s prayer for the dismissal of the charge on the grounds that the panel of the tribunal was not properly constituted because two of its three members are currently sitting.
“Their prayer is at large. If they are contesting the proceedings of the tribunal of September 18, how does it affect the charge before the tribunal,” he said.
Jacobs argued that two out of the three members of tribunal could validly conduct proceedings by virtue of the provisions of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act recognised by the Constitution in its section 308(4).
He argued that the provision of Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution dealt with the establishment and composition of the panel, it was silent on the number of the panel members that formed its quorum.
He faulted Daudu’s position that the argument that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Atiku Abubakar’s case was an obiter.
“The decision of this court (the Court of Appeal), cannot be an obiter. The Court of Appeal ruled that the case at the Code of Tribunal was purely criminal and Justice Aboki who read the judgment said I so hold, meaning that it is a finding of fact,” Jacobs argued.
Jacobs described as misconception, the argument by the appellant that without a sitting Attorney-General of the Federation, the CCB could not validly file a charge against anybody.
Earlier, Justice Moore Adumein, who presided, struck out the appellant’s application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.
Justice Adumein said going ahead to hear the motion and write a separate ruling on it would amount to “a waste of judicial time” since the substantive appeal which would effectively decide the entire suit had been heard. Agency report
