The Saraki objection and Code of Conduct Tribunal
By Asiwaju Awomolo, SAN
The ongoing arraignment and the legal gymnastic around the lawfulness or otherwise of the warrant for the arrest of the Senate President put the legal profession and administration of justice to question. The whole unfortunate senario questions our readiness to be part of the war against impunity, corruption and absence of integrity as honourable professionals. The Code of Conduct Tribunal is a special court with its specific statute and enjoying the status of sui generis like an Election Tribunal.
Whether the charges filed were lawful or whether the Senior State counsel who filed the charges was authorised or not are matters that should have been taken before the Tribunal, not before the FHCt.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that any cause, matter or claim which does not arise from or related to specified items under Section 251(1) of the Constitution, should not be filed at the Federal High Court no matter the parties.
We all know that the decision or interpretation of the validity of jurisdiction or competence of the charges filed before the CCTribunal or the so called locus standi of the State Counsel is utra vires the FHCt. The CCB &T Act allows any officer of the Ministry of Justice to institute charges before the Tribunal and no such authority can be challenged by any person. (I think this explains the rush to FHCt.). It was a frivolous suit filed at the FHCt to frustrate the arraignment .
I think the Senate President was wrongly advised to stay away from the Tribunal. The Tribunal acted within the law to have proceeded with the arraignment and order for his arrest.
Where is it in any law that counsel for a defendant can lawfully undertake to bring an unwilling defendant, binding on the court or Tribunal?
What if a counsel fails to bring the defendant for any lawful reason, including the case pending in another court?
Now an appeal was allegedly filed against the decision of the Tribunal that the IGP should produce the SP. Where is the right to appeal under the Act? The only right to appeal is limited to the final decision of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Counsel to SP knows the law.
Why scandalise the Chairman for doing his job?
Think for a moment If an election petition is filed at the Election Tribunal, do you ask a FHCt to determine its validity or competence of the petitioner?
It is important that counsel should consider the status of his client before adopting a strategy.
For the no 3 citizen to employ mundane strategies that ridicules the administration of justice, scandalises the judge; appeals where there is no right of appeal (and applied for a stay of proceeding) to frustrate his trial rather than face the due process of the law is sad, immoral, and diminishes the esteem of the office. It is insensitive and lacking in integrity, with respect. We need a change of orientation starting from the Bar.
Let the conversation continue.
Asiwaju Awomolo SAN