The Court of Appeal yesterday failed to deliver judgment in the case filed by Senate President Bukola Saraki against the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
A female court official told the parties that the verdict was not ready, adding that they would be notified as soon as it is ready.
She gave no details on what informed the development.
This is not the first time that the appeal or Supreme Court will defer verdicts.
It is an age-long practice by the appellate courts to postpone verdicts to enable them give what is known in legal parlance as “considered decision”.
Saraki’s trial before the CCT resumes tomorrow.
If the verdict is delivered before then and it favours him, the case will be discontinued.
But if he loses, the trial will go on.
Saraki’s supporters left the appellate court disappointed following the non-delivery of the verdict.
Last Friday, the appeal court after taking arguments from parties, fixed judgment for 2pm yesterday.
Saraki, who was arraigned last month before CCT on a 13-count charge for alleged false asset declaration, is appealing the tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over his trial.
But lawyers to the parties, Kehinde Eleja (SAN) – for the appellant – and Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) – for respondents – said they would not pre-empt the court, but will await it’s decision whenever it is ready.
Eleja said he was told by the court registrar that the judgment was not ready.
Jacobs said: “We don’t know yet what the court’s decision will be. We don’t know if the Court of Appeal will deliver its judgment before the tribunal’s next adjourned date.”
CCT Chairman Justice Danladi Umar had, after Saraki’s arraignment on September 22, adjourned to October 21 for the hearing of pending applications, particularly the preliminary objection filed by the defendant.
He said trial would begin after the pending applications were decided.
On October 8, a three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Moore Adumein, granted accelerated hearing in Saraki’s appeal, promising to give judgment before his appearance before the CCT on October 21.
Listed as respondents in the appeal are the CCT, Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Federal Ministry of Justice and a lawyer in the ministry, Muslim Hassan.
Arguing the appeal on Friday, 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 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 constitutional three-member provision.
He also argued that the tribunal, not being a superior court recognised by the Constitution, could not exercise criminal jurisdiction.
Daudu said the CCT could not exercise the power of “a court to enable it to do some of the things they did which were exclusive to a court of criminal jurisdiction”.
The lawyer 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 on to assume jurisdiction in 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 argued that the CCT was 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 that it was based on a “misconception and wrong interpretation of the law”.
He faulted Daudu’s prayer in dismissing the charge on the grounds that the tribunal was not properly constituted because two of its three members were currently sitting.
“Their prayer is at large. If they are contesting the proceedings of the tribunal of September 18, how does that affect the charge before the tribunal,” he said.
Jacobs argued that two of the three members of the tribunal could validly conduct proceedings by virtue of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act recognised by the Constitution in Section 308(4).
He added that Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution dealt with the establishment and composition of the panel, but it was silent on the number of the 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.
Justice Moore Adumein had earlier struck out the appellant’s application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.
