Onnoghen; S’ Court splits, dismisses Cross River State suit

…As Justice Odilli faults CCT over suspension

Andrew Orolua, Abuja

The Supreme Court on Friday in a split decision of six to one dismissed the suit filed by the Cross River state government challenging the suspension and trial of former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen for being incompetent..

Justice Onnoghen has since resigned his position and the Code of Conduct Tribunal convicted him for misconduct after it found that the former CJN did not declare five of his bank accounts in his assets declaration form.

Cross River State had filed the action at the apex court trying to stop the suspension. The state equally asked the apex court to quashed the charge against Onnoghen, who is an indigene of the state.

However, in a dissenting judgment, justice Mary Peter- Odili of the Supreme Court granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff after holding that it has the locus standi to institute the action.

Justice Odilli who dismissed the preliminary objection filed by the Federal government held that it was proper for the plaintiff to bring the action having been clothed with locus standi.

In her dissenting judgment, Justice Odilli held that the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the criminal charge against Onnoghen.

She held that as a judicial officer, the matter ought to have been handled by the National Judicial Council (NJC) first as in Nganjiwa Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2017).

But in a majority judgment, six out of the seven justices of the apex court on the panel, held that the plaintiff lacked the requisite locus standi to institute the suit.

Other Justices of the Supreme Court who agreed with the majority and lead judgment delivered by Justice Paul Galilje were Justice Olabode Rodes Vivour; Musa Daitijo Mohammed; Kudirat Kekere- Ekun; John Inyang Okoro and Justice Sidi Bage.

At the last adjourned date when the case came up, counsel for the plaintiff, Locius Nwosu (SAN) had while adopting his brief of argument urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by the state.

On his part, counsel to the defendants and the Solicitor-General of the Federation, Dayo Akpata argued his notice of preliminary objection in urging the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to institute the action.

In a notice of preliminary objections filed by Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), the Federal government further challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter on the grounds that “there is ‎no dispute between the defendants in this suit and the plaintiff as envisaged under section 232(1) of the 1999 constitution (as amended)

It is also the contention of the Federal government that “the subject matter of this suit is personal to Hon. Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel and does not in any way affects the Cross River state government as to confer it with the locus to institute this suit.

“The reliefs and claims made herein by the plaintiff are not for the benefit of Cross River State but personal to Hon Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel”.

Besides, Akpata informed the apex court that the subject matter of the suit is already before the Court of Appeal which has reserved judgment.
He submitted that the action of the Cross River State amounted to ” forum shopping and an abuse of court process.”

Regardless, the plaintiff counsel, Locius Nwosu insisted that the case of his client is different from the appeal filed by Justice Onnoghen at the Court of Appeal.

“My lords, the suit is not about Justice Onnoghen but about the interpretation of the constitution.

“It is for the interpretation of the provisions of the 1999 constitution, particularly sections 4,5,6, 153(1), 158(1), Paragraph 21(b) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the 1999 constitution (as amended), the purported filling of the charge in charge No. CCT/ABJ/01/19 between FGN vs Hon. Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel before the Code of Conduct Tribunal against a Judicial officer who in this case is the Chief Justice of Nigeria, without any formal complaint having been made against him to the National Judicial Council (NJC) robbed the tribunal of jurisdiction to try the charge, and all the proceedings relating thereto are null and void, a nullity.