Court Orders stopping Onnoghen’s trial not binding on us, says CCT

…Interim orders violate Constitution- CCT … Court orders must be obeyed until set aside- Atedze In a split ruling of two to one, the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), on Tuesday, held that four separate orders of the Federal High Court, Federal Capital Territory High Court and National Industrial Court Abuja restraining it from proceeding with the trial of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, are not binding on it. The tribunal also ruled that it cannot stop Onnoghen’s trial even in view of the appeal he had filed challenging the decision of the Tribunal because his trial is criminal in nature. Ruling on the submissions made by defence lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), and the prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar (SAN), the Chairman of the Tribunal, Danladi Umar, stated that the interim orders by the Court was made in violation of the Constitution. He said the orders must be discountenanced on the grounds that Federal High Court and National Industrial Court are of equal and coordinate jurisdiction with CCT. He said besides the High Courts being of coordinate jurisdiction, the CCT is a special Court empowered to handle exclusively the issues relating to public officers and public servants misconducts and assets declaration. Umar said that those who obtained the orders of the High Courts restraining the tribunal were mere busy-bodies and they are not parties in the matter at the tribunal. He maintained that the orders of the High Courts and that of the National Industrial Court are null and void on account of being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, adding that section 246 makes it crystal clear that the tribunal has unquantified jurisdiction to hear any assets declaration case as may be referred to it by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB). Umar also disagreed with the request to adjournment the trial Sine Die, (indefinitely) on the grounds of a pending appeal at the Court of Appeal, adding that section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, 2015, did not make provisions for stay of proceedings in a criminal matter and that in the instant case, it shall proceed with trial by hearing the application on jurisdiction. The first member of tribunal, Mr. Williams Atedze, gave a dissenting ruling. He held that it would result to judicial anarchy for the tribunal to proceed with the trial in view of the four subsisting court orders and the pending appeal at the Court of Appeal. According to him, orders are binding on the tribunal until they are set aside in view of section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution which allow court orders to be enforced in all parts of the county, stressing that the CCT cannot operate in isolation. “Having summarised arguments from both parties, it is my opinion that CCT as a creation of law is bound by the existing court orders to avoid judicial anarchy”, he held. Atedze agreed that the issue of jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain the charge against CJN must first be resolved, but held that status quo must be maintained while proceedings adjourned sine die until all contending issues are resolved. The second member of the Tribunal, Juli Anabor, in her brief ruling, agreed with the Chairman, Danladi Umar’’ ruling and adopted it as her own. Although the Chairman ordered that the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal be moved immediately, counsel to the defendant, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, however, informed the tribunal that the response of the complainant, Federal Government was served on him late Monday and as such he needed time to study the response and then filed reply on point of law. Counsel to the Federal Government, Aliyu Umar, agreed that the government’s response was served late on the defendant, prompting the Chairman to adjourn further proceedings till Monday, January 28. At the resumption of sitting on Tuesday, a private prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar (SAN), who led nine other government counsels, had informed the tribunal that the business of the day was to arraign Justice Onnoghen and hear two applications. He said that one of the applications was filed by the prosecution praying the tribunal for an order directing CJN Onnoghen to step aside from office, while the second application by the defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the suit. He said however that Onnoghen’s arraignment cannot take place because he was not in court. Umar recalled that at the last sitting on January 14, the tribunal could not proceed because the defendant was not personally served. Umar, then asked the tribunal whether the defendant have been served with the charge. In his response, the lead defence counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), leading 43 other Senior Advocates and about 80 lawyers disagreed with the prosecution that the matter was adjourned for arraignment. He said it was adjourned specifically to hear two pending applications. He said however, that there have been intervening orders between last sitting and yesterday (Tuesday). He informed that the Federal High Court Abuja, the National Industrial Court Abuja, Federal Capital Territory High Court and Federal High Court Abuja on 14 January, 14 January, January 15 and January 19, 2019 respectively made various orders restraining the parties including the Code of Conduct Tribunal and Chairman who are also parties to the suits from proceeding with the trial pending the determination of the suits. Olanipekun further informed the tribunal that CJN Onnoghen is also a party to the suits in which the Federal High Court had ordered the parties to maintain status quo. He said that a senior counsel in the defence team had written the tribunal and furnished it with all the processes filed in the four suits and the respective orders of each of the Courts. Besides, Olanipekun SAN, continued that Justice Onnoghen had appealed against the 14 January ruling of the tribunal. Andrew Orolua, Abuja