The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) in Kano State has reminded all outgoing elected and appointed political office holders to declare their assets at the end of their tenure. This is contained in a statement signed by the CCB state Director, Umar Saulawa and made available to reporters on Saturday.
He said there was need for the affected political office holders to declare their assets in line with the provision of the 1999 constitution as amended. “We want to remind all the outgoing elected and appointed political office holders in the state to come forward to the Bureau’s office to collect their assets declaration form,” he said, adding that failure to comply with the directive amounts to the breach of the law and attracts necessary sanctions against defaulting public officers.
The statement came after lawyers, in the wake of the guilty verdict passed on the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, demanded that the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) be extricated from the grip of the executive arm of government in order to guarantee its independence and enhance its perception as an unbiased umpire. The tribunal, considered a quasi-criminal court, is established by Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) under Federal Executive Bodies.
But the lawyers argue that as long as the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) remains tied to the apron strings of the Presidency, it can never act independently, hence there is a high tendency for its decisions to be subject to the whims and caprices of that arm of government. Speaking on the need for the CCT to be independent, especially in the trial of Justice Onnoghen, the Executive director, Access to Justice, Joseph Otteh said the cardinal rule of law requirement is that courts and tribunals, which exercise judicial powers should be independent of the other arms of government and appear in the perception of reasonable observers, to be so independent.
“Unfortunately, the CCT did not offer this guarantee of independence, neither its perception; far from it. The tribunal had, from the word go, drawn the handwriting on the wall indicating that it was bent on a particular outcome, and that it would look neither to the left, nor to the right in the blind pursuit of that goal. At several pivotal junctures in the course of the trial, the tribunal appeared to demonstrate that it was clearly on the same side with the government, and was not sitting as an unbiased umpire or judicial arbiter,” he said.
According to him, undue interference in the work of the tribunal was more evident when Danladi Umar and other members of the tribunal granted, an ex-parte order removing Justice Onnoghen as CJN on January 23, 2019. The bizarre and egregious procedure taken to unseat Justice Onnoghen, he said, was an unmistakable indication that no barrel was too deep to plumb in getting to achieve what the tribunal wanted to achieve, and no rule or principle of law was strong or revered enough to forestall its plan.
“It will not surprise many that the CCT reached the verdict it did after using very questionable procedures from the very start. A tribunal under the Presidency cannot be independent of the Presidency, which is a political institution,” he declared.
For the former chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch, Alex Muoka, “Judicial functions should be under the judiciary. The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) plays an executive function,” he stated. A law lecturer at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Uju Peace Okeke, expressed doubt about the capacity of the CCT to be fair and independent under the current enabling law.
She explained that Item 12 (Part 1) of the 5th schedule of 1999 Constitution provides that “any allegation that a public officer has committed a breach, or has not complied with the provisions of the code shall be made to the CCB, and by Item 12 (Part II), chairman, members and staff of CCB/CCT are included public officers for the purpose of Code of Conduct.
“If an allegation against members of CCB/CCT are made to the CCB, the same body investigating, how can it be fair in the investigation? The worst part of it is that only the CCB can refer matters to the CCT. So, if the CCB refuses to refer a genuine case to the CCT, nothing happens. This gives room for corruption as absolute power corrupts absolutely,” she said, adding that there is the need to bring the CCT under the National Judicial Council (NJC) since by item 15(3) of the Third Schedule of the constitution, the chairman and members of the CCT are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the NJC.
“If NJC is the recommending body, then it should be the sanctioning body. Item 16(2) providing that the power to appoint and discipline the staff of CCT vests in the members of the CCT does not seem proper in a democracy. Furthermore, considering the powers conferred on the CCT, it is best that it is brought under the judiciary proper with Nigerians (apart from CCB) having the right and opportunity to institute actions bothering on code of conduct. That way, it will truly serve its purpose,” she declared.
The former International Prosecutor, United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Mr. Segun Jegede, in his submission held that the philosophy behind the creation of the tribunal is to make it an independent entity with jurisdiction over judicial officers straddling the three organs of government.
“If this is so, it would appear that the CCT is meant to act as an administrative tribunal devoid of executive or judicial control. In practice however, while it is clear that the CCT is not a judicial body given the provision of Section 6(5) of the Constitution, which vests judicial powers on certain enumerated courts, excluding the CCT, it is less so difficult to assert that the CCT is not under the control of the executive,” he said, adding that it is difficult to imagine how the tribunal can dispassionately discharge its constitutional functions under the judicial arm as well.
His words: “This so because there is no institution, secular or religious, that is untouched by the unmatched vice of putrefying corruption that has permeated all facets of life in our country. Left to me, I would recommend a court that is structurally independent of all arms of government, in all respects, with the virtue of integrity as its watchword.”
While the Federal Government refers to the executive arm, the Federation refers to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, comprising the 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory. Securing the independence of the CCT and the judiciary must start from a consideration of the calibre of individuals recommended for ultimate appointments. These persons must be individuals ready to live above board and to defend the Constitution at all cost.
