FG asks S’Court to dismiss Saraki’s appea

The Federal Government has urged the Supreme
Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the Senate
President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, challenging the
majority judgment of the Court of Appeal in
Abuja, which affirmed the competence of the
charges of false asset declaration preferred
against him and the jurisdiction of the Code of
Conduct Tribunal to entertain the case.
In its respondent’s brief of argument opposing
the appeal filed by Saraki, the Federal
Government through its counsel, Mr. Rotimi
Jacobs (SAN), urged the Supreme Court to
uphold the majority decision of the Court of
Appeal which held that the Justice Danladi Umar-
led CCT was duly constituted.


Saraki had, through his lawyer, Mr. Joseph
Daudu (SAN), raised seven grounds of appeal
against the judgment of the Court of Appeal
which was delivered on October 30, urging the
Supreme Court to set aside the judgment, the
entire proceedings of the CCT and the charges
preferred against him before the tribunal.
The Federal Government filed its respondent’s
brief on November 18, 2015 in response to the
seven-ground notice of appeal dated November
2, 2015 and appellant’s (Saraki’s) brief of
argument filed on November 9, 2015.
Urging the apex court to dismiss the appeal,
Jacobs faulted the grounds of appeal by Saraki,
arguing among others that there was no conflict
between the provisions of paragraph 15 (1) of
the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution and
section 28 of the Interpretation Act, which
according to him, “provides that two out of the
three members of the CCT will form the quorum
that can validly conduct the proceedings of the
tribunal.”
On the second issue raised by the appellant who
maintained that the tribunal was not a criminal
court and thus lacked the power to issue arrest
warrant against him, Jacobs argued that from
the wordings of Paragraph 18(1) of the Fifth
Schedule of the constitution, the powers
conferred on the CCT to find guilt and impose
punishment, could only be exercised by a
criminal court.
The Federal Government’s lawyer also
maintained as held by the majority decision of
the Court of Appeal that the competence of the
charges preferred against Saraki were not
affected by the fact that it was signed by a
deputy director in the Ministry of Justice at the
time the Attorney-General of the Federation had
not been appointed.
He faulted Daudu’s contention to the contrary,
arguing that “the exercise of the power conferred
on law officers to initiate criminal proceedings
under subsection (2) of section 174 of the
constitution is not dependent on the existence of
a sitting Attorney-General of the Federation.”
Jacobs also faulted the appellant’s argument of
improper service of the summons on him to
appear before the CCT on September 18.
Jacobs dismissed the argument which he said
was not raised before the CCT but only put
forward for the first time at the Court of Appeal.
On the last issue raised by the appellant, Jacobs
said contrary to his (Saraki’s) contention, the
Court of Appeal was right to hold that the since
the Federal High Court did not make any order
on September 18, 2015 restraining the Code of
Conduct Tribunal from sitting, the issue of
disobedience of that order or the superiority of
the Federal High Court would not arise.
He stated, “In view of the argument canvassed
by the respondent in this brief, we urge your
Lordships to dismiss this appeal and hold that:
“The Court of Appeal was right in its unanimous
decision that the Code of Conduct Tribunal was
properly constituted when it heard and
determined the issues that culminated in the
tribunal’s ruling of September 18, 2015 with the
chairman and one other member.
“The Court of Appeal was right when it held that
the Code of Conduct Tribunal, through a court of
limited criminal jurisdiction was competent to
issue a bench warrant against the appellant in
the event of his failure to appear before it.”
The Supreme Court’s five-man panel headed by
Justice John Fabiyi, who retires from the bench
today (Wednesday), had on November 12, 2015
granted an order of stay of proceedings of the
trial before the CCT.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the
appeal by the Supreme Court.