S'Court tells Saraki - you've case to answer on asset declaration

The attempt by the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, to stop his trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) over alleged false declaration of asset yesterday hit the wall as the full panel of Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed dismissed his appeal in its entirely. Saraki is standing trial on a 13-count criminal charge that the Federal Government preferred against him before the CCT. When Saraki was arraigned he had pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Though he had approached the Court of Appeal to stop the trial but the appellate court refused to halt it, a decision, which prompted the Senate President to approach to the apex court. Delivering judgment in the appeal, Justice Walter Onnoghen, who read the lead judgment, held that the CCT can legally issue a bench warrant. It was on that ground that the apex court dismissed the appeal filed by Saraki and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on October 30, 2015.

The court dismisses the appeal for lacking in merit. The court also held that the CCT was properly constituted to exercise jurisdiction over Saraki’s trial. On the issue of whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to try criminal matters and issue bench warrant against Saraki, the court held:

“I find no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed.” Saturday Telegraph recalls that full panel of the apex court led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed had on December 3 adjourned to deliver judgment on the appeal after it listened to arguments from both Saraki and the Federal Government today.

Saraki was accused of deliberately manipulating the assets declaration form that he filed prior to his assumption of office as the Senate President by making anticipatory declaration of assets, as well as, operated foreign bank accounts while in office as a public servant. The offence was said to have been committed while Saraki was the governor of Kwara state.
However, Saraki, through his counsel, J.B. Daudu (SAN), prayed the apex court to quash the charge for want of competence. The Federal Government on the other hand, sought the dismissal of the appeal, insisting it has successfully established a prima-facie criminal case against the Senate President.

At the last adjourned date, while persuading the apex court to allow the appeal by halting his trial, Saraki relied on the provision of Paragraph 15(1) to the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution as amended. He submitted that the Justice Danladi Umar-led panel of the CCT was not properly and legally composed to try him.

He further argued that the CCT, not being a court that is constitutionally equipped with criminal jurisdiction, lacked the powers to dock the Senate President on the basis of the 13-count charge that is pending before it. Daudu had submitted then that an attempt to make the CCT a court having criminal jurisdiction will have far reaching constitutional consequences and that that the tribunal was not among the courts established under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution.

He also argued that the fact that there was no substantive Attorney-General of the Federation as at the time the charge was filed rendered it incompetent. However, while praying the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal, Prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), relied on the provision of section 4(2)(b) of the interpretation Act, to insist that Saraki was properly charged before the CCT.

He submitted that going by the provision of section 284(4) of the Constitution, the two-members of the CCT panel, formed a quorum that can hear and determine the criminal case instituted against the Senate President by the Federal Government.
Meanwhile, Saraki, while reacting to the ruling yesterday, in a statement expressed disappointment over the judgment of the apex court in the country on the six grounds of his appeal. He said: “I will 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.”