ABUJA – The propriety of the 13-count criminal charge against the
Senate President, Dr. Olubukola Saraki has created a sharp division among
Appeal Court Justices.
Whereas Justice Moore Adumein dismissed the appeal that
was lodged by Saraki as lacking in merit, another member of the panel, Justice
J.E. Ekanem upheld the appeal, declaring the charge before the CCT as
incompetent.
Justice Ekanem specifically quashed the
charge and discharged Saraki on the basis that the Deputy Director at the
Ministry of Justice, M. M. S. Hassan who signed the charge, did not specify who
authorised him to initiate the criminal proceeding.
“A look at the charge showed that Mr. Hassan instituted
the action pursuant to section 24 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal
Act, 2004 which permits only the Attorney General of the Federation to initiate
criminal proceedings”.
Justice Ekanem stressed that though
the constitution permits the Solicitor-General of the Federation, SGF, to
commence criminal action in the absence of the AGF, he said that Hassan failed
to produce any document showing that he was properly authorised by the SGF.
“The opening paragraph of the letter
Hassan sent to the CCT on September 11, wherein he applied to commence trial
against the appellant is very instructive.
“He merely said ‘I am authorised to
file this action’ but did not say that he was authorised by the
Solicitor-General. He went short of identifying who authorised him.
“It is therefore my view that the
charge before the tribunal is incompetent. It is for this view that I hold that
this appeal has succeeded and I hereby set-aside the charge and discharge the
accused person”, Justice Ekanem held.
However, the third member of the panel,
Justice M. Mustapha, concurred with the lead verdict which declined to quash
the charge against Saraki.
Earlier, leader of the panel, Justice
Adumein dismissed Saraki’s appeal, saying he should go to the tribunal to
answer the charge against him.
He held that Justice Danladi Umar-led
tribunal was properly constituted to try the offences against Saraki, noting
that he was not charged in his official capacity, but as an individual.
Justice Adumein placed reliance on
paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution and section
20(2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, 2004, and held that the
two-man panel of Justices at the tribunal formed a quorum to entertain the
charge.
“The above provisions are very clear
and unambiguous and should be given their ordinary meaning. This is in line
with the golden rule of interpretation. There is no provision on minimum
number of members which the tribunal must have before it can sit to hear
cases”.
Justice Adumein held that the charge
was competently instituted, saying the tribunal had the requisite powers to
issue bench warrant against Saraki.
He dismissed all five grounds of appeal that Saraki filed
before the court for want of merit.
Saraki had gone before the appellate court to query the legality of the charge against him. He was among other offences, alleged to have owned and operated foreign bank accounts while being a public officer.
However, aside challenging the
charge, Saraki also queried the constitutionality of the warrant of arrest that
was initially issued against him by Chairman of the CCT, Justice Umar.
Besides, the embattled Senate
President, through his team of lawyers led by a former President of the
Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mr. J.B. Daudu, SAN, wants the higher court to
ascertain whether the Justice Umar-led panel subscribed to the appropriate
legal procedure when it ordered him to mount the dock and enter his plea to
the charge despite preliminary objections against his trial.
He described the criminal proceeding that was initiated
against him by the Federal Ministry of Justice as “a politically motivated
witch-hunt”.
He begged the appellate court to quash the proceeding of the tribunal and discharge him, a request that was refused by two members of the appeal court panel today.
He begged the appellate court to quash the proceeding of the tribunal and discharge him, a request that was refused by two members of the appeal court panel today.
More details soon.
Comments
Post a Comment