*Says Onnoghen’s suspension breached his right to fair hearing
By Alex Enumah in Abuja
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division on Friday berated the Code of Conducted Tribunal (CCT) over its refusal to obey orders of court made against it during the trial of former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.
Onnoghen, who was in January this year dragged before the tribunal over charges of failure to declare his assets as required by law for public officers, was on April 18, 2018 convicted by the CCT on all six count charge preferred against him by the Federal Government.
However delivering judgment in four interlocutory appeals filed by Onnoghen, the appellate court held that orders of court are sacrosant and must be obeyed until they are set aside.
The Court of Appeal in another judgment also faulted the suspension of Onnoghen on the grounds that the suspension violated the right of the former CJN to fair hearing, adding that the order which was obtained in secrecy poses a lot of questions.
In the first appeal which borders on Onnoghen’s suspension as Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC), the 3 member panel presided over by Justice Stephen Adah, held that justice must not be shrouded in secrecy as done in the granting of the exparte application.
The appellate court said, from the record of proceedings, parties have joined issues and matter adjourned to a later date, only for the federal government to go behind to take order that affected the interest of the appellant, thereby denying him the opportunity to be heard in the matter.
However, the court declined to make any order against the suspension since the trial had been concluded and an appeal on the substantive matter was pending before the court.
“Since the ex parte order had been spent and cannot serve any useful purpose and judgment in the substantive matter had been delivered, the appeal is hereby struck out”, Justice Adah held.
In the second appeal relating to the bench warrant issued against Onnoghen by the CCT, the court struck out the appeal on the ground that the records of proceedings transmitted to the court did not show that bench warrant was issued and that there was no supplementary records to establish that warrant for arrest was made.
“There is nothing in this appeal that requires the attention of the court, it is hereby struck out”, Justice Adah held.
In the third appeal, Justice Tinuade Akomolafe Wilson, who delivered the judgment of the 3-man panel, agreed with the tribunal that the new law allows the action of the CCT.
According to the judgment, although the general principle of law is that when jurisdiction of a court is challenged, the issue of jurisdiction must be first determined, nonetheless, the judge held that the specific legislation in Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 overrides the general principle of law.
The appeal was consequently dismissed.
In the fourth appeal which borders on the refusal of the CCT to obey orders of four different courts restraining the tribunal from proceeding with the trial of Onnoghen pending the hearing and determination of the various substantive suits in their courts, the appellate court held that the tribunal erred in law by disobeying the orders.
Justice Peter Igeh, who delivered the judgment held, “Judgments, rulings, decisions and orders issued by court of law are sacrosanct and must be obeyed until they are set aside.
“Parties are bound by court orders and the order must not be treated with levity”.
Justice Igeh, while insisting that the tribunal was bound by the order of the courts said, what the Tribunal ought to have done was to tarry a while and make effort to set aside the court orders to avoid foisting anarchy.
He stressed further that the tribunal cannot sit as an appeal on the decision of the high courts, saying that, the rule of law must be allowed to circulate for peace.
The appellate court however disagreed with Onnoghen on the request for the disqualification of the CCT chairman, adding that it was not established that the prejudicial statement made by the CCT will affect the main trial.
The appellate court had on February 27 reserved judgment to a date to be communicated to parties after counsel had made their final submissions in the matter.
