Code Of Conduct Tribunal Chairman Orders IGP To Produce Saraki In Court On Monday

The Code of Conduct Tribunal [CCT] has ordered the Inspector General of Police, Mr. Solomon Arase and other security agencies to arrest and produce the Senate President, Senator Bukola Saraki before the tribunal on Monday, next week.

But in s swift reaction, the Senate President through his lawyers, led by Joseph Daudu [SAN] with Mahmud Magaji,SAN said they would challenge the ruling of the tribunal at the Court of Appeal.

Saraki who was expected to appear before the tribunal today on a 13-count charges bordering on alleged false declaration of his assets was absent in court because his lawyers said he was challenging the validity of the charges as well as the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

The prosecution counsel, Muslim Hassan, a Deputy Director in the Federal Ministry of Justice with six other lawyers said he was shocked over the absence of the Senate President in court since he was duly served with the court summons. It was at this stage that he asked the tribunal to issue a bench warrant against Saraki to compel his appearance in court.

But counsel to the Senate President vehemently opposed the application for a bench warrant on the ground that the prosecution has no locus standi to initiate criminal proceedings against him in the absence of a sitting Attorney-General of the Federation.

Magaji who argued the case for Saraki, further made reference to a Federal High Court ruling duly served on the tribunal via suit FHC/ABJ/CS/775/2015 between Senator Bukola Saraki V Federal Ministry of Justice, Chairman Code of Conduct Bureau, Chairman Code of Conduct Tribunal and Barrister Hassan as defendants/ Respondents, urging the court to decline the request for a bench warrant.

In his ruling, Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Danladi Umar upheld the submissions of the prosecution to the effect that the Federal High Court is a court of coordinate jurisdiction and has no powers to halt proceedings of the tribunal.

“On the issue of a court order by a Federal High Court, let it be put on record that this tribunal is established and empowered by section 15 [1] of the 5th schedule paragraph 1 to the 1999 constitution as a special vehicle vested with powers with regards to the enforcement of probity an accountability in the civil service . See also the case of AGF V Abubakar [2007].

“The tribunal cannot accede to the decision of the Federal High Court to halt its proceedings as courts are not bound to follow decisions of courts of coordinate jurisdiction. An injunction restraining the proceedings of this tribunal by a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot stand.”

On the non-appearance of Saraki at the tribunal, the tribunal Chairman held that the Senate President is expected to respect the summons of the tribunal.

“There is evidence before this tribunal that this criminal proceedings were filed and served on the defendant with a proof of service dully signed by one of his aides. It is also on record that the defendant filed a memorandum of conditional appearance on September 17, 2015 so we have no doubt that he is fully aware of the summons.”

“He is expected to respect the summons of this tribunal. Accordingly, the Inspector General of Police [IGP] Mr. Solomon Arase and other relevant security agencies to produce the defendant in court on the next adjourned date. A bench warrant is to be issued against the defendant.”

In his ruling on the issue of whether criminal proceedings can be initiated by any other person other than the Attorney General of the Federation, the tribunal agreed with the submissions of the prosecution counsel that the absence of a sitting AGF cannot stop the initiation of criminal charges against anybody.

“We have taken notice that there is no sitting AGF, however, by paragraph 1 of the 3rd schedule of the Code of Conduct Bureau provides mode of instituting criminal proceedings. The case cited by the prosecution AGF v Hassan is a locus classicus. Also section 2 [4] of Law Officers Act, provides that in the absence of the AGF, the Solicitor General of the Federation, or any other officer named in the section can institute criminal proceedings in the name of the AGF.”

Before that, a heated argument ensued between the prosecution counsel and that of Saraki in the course of proceedings especially over the absence of the Senate President in court.

Hassan who was the first to call the shot said, “I’m surprised that the accused person is not in court as he was dully served with a copy of the summons. Besides, they have even exhibited the summons in their processes filed before the tribunal. It means that he was dully served and he is not here.

“I apply that a bench warrant be issued against him for disobedience of the order of a competent court of law, to command the appearance of the accused person who has flagrantly disobeyed the order of this court. We humbly applied that the matter be stand down for two hours for the accused person to be produced to court.”

In his reply, Magaji stated “My lord, the application before you should be expunged from the record including his appearance. The basis of our application is simply that the person making that application lacked the locus standi to even appear before you as a prosecutor because there must be a sitting Attorney General of the Federation in place.

“This is fortified by the provisions of section 22 [2] of the Code of Conduct Tribunal that prosecution must be initiated by the AGF or another officer as the AGF directs. Also paragraph 18 of the 3rd schedule to the Code of Conduct Bureau Act defines prosecution to mean the AGF or any other person authorized by him.

“You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. Cited the cases of Attorney General of Kaduna State V Hassan [1985] 2 NWLR part 8 page 483 at 486 where the Supreme Court said the powers of the AGF are personal to him and that the Solicitor General has no powers to excise the function and duties of the AGF.

“My lord, there must be an existing AGF who can donate his powers to any officer. I therefore urged the court to expunge the appearance of the prosecutor.

On the issue of bench warrant, Magaji submitted that the application is a nullity because you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. The application is grossly misconceived and should not be given attention. Besides, the prosecution is aware of ruling of a Federal High Court on a pending suit on the subject matter. By virtue of section 122 of the Evidence Act, the tribunal is to take judicial notice.”

“I’m referring to a Federal High Court ruling duly served on this tribunal via suit FHC/ABJ/CS/775/2015 between Senator Bukola Saraki V Federal Ministry of Justice, Chairman Code of Conduct Bureau, Chairman Code of Conduct Tribunal and Barrister Hassan as defendant/ Respondents.

“It is our submissions that the ruling of the Federal High Court duly served on this tribunal as well as other processes automatically operates as a bar to this proceedings. See the case of Toma V Ogiri and Ojukwu V Governor of Lagos state to the effect that when issues are joined between parries in a suit, it operates as a stay.

He argued that “there is no charge before this tribunal adding that when a person is challenging the competent of a charge and the jurisdiction of a court, he need to be in court. We have challenged the validity of the charge and the jurisdiction of this court.”

In his reply, Muslim Hassan cited section 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act [ACJC] 2015 to submit that no objection challenging the competent of the charge or jurisdiction of the court can be taken in the absence of an accused person. According to the section of the law, a defendant shall be arraigned for plea after that he may raise any objection to the validity of the charge. Any objection to a charge shall be raised after plea is taken.

The prosecution cited paragraph 17 of the 3r schedule to the Code of Conduct Tribunal Act provides that the power to initiate criminal proceedings is not limited to the AGF. Also section 174 [2] of the 1999 constitution provides that any officer in the office of the AGF is eminently qualified to initiate any criminal proceedings.

In addition, he argued that the Supreme Court in the case of Comptroller of Prisons V Adekaya [2002] 15 NWLR pt 790, 318, Justice Belgore held that the powers of the AGF to prosecute is not exclusive. Also in the case of FRN V Osahon [2006] 5 NWLR pt 973 at page 361-406, the Supreme Court interpreted section 174 of the 1999 constitution that the powers of the AGF is not exclusive, any officer mentioned in that section 174 [2] can discharge such functions and duties. He further cited the case of FRN V Adewumi [2007] 10 NWLR pt 1042, page 399-427, Amadi V FRN to support his argument.

The prosecution argued that section 24 of the Code of Conduct Bureau cannot override the provisions of section 174 of the constitution as doing so will offends the provision of section 1 [3] of the constitution to the extent that any law that is contrary to the provisions will be null and void.

In addition, the prosecution argued that section 2 and 4 of Law Officers Act provides that the office of the AGF, Solicitor General of the Federation in the absence of the AGF, may perform the functions, duties of the AGF as the law cannot create a vacuum.

He said that the Federal High Court has no supervisory powers over the Code of Conduct Tribunal since they are all superior court of records and coordinate jurisdiction and so the Federal High Court cannot compel this tribunal or stooped its proceedings.

Besides, prosecution argued that the accused person cannot seat in his comfort zone and send his lawyers to challenge his appearance in court, he must come personally. Cited the case of Kalu V FRN [2015] I NWLR pt 389.

At about 11.11 am local time, former NBA President, J.B. Daudu, SAN took over the defence by appealing to the court to tread cautiously so as not to desecrate the temple of justice by granting a warrant of arrest against his client. He said whether rightly or wrongly, there is an order of a Federal High Court. The only thing that will be done is to discharge the order. “Heaven will not fall if the court can adjourn till Monday next week”, he stressed.