The trial of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, for alleged refusal to declare his assets and for operating foreign bank accounts is coming about two years after the invasion of residences of some judges and their subsequent arraignments. Is this another dent on the image of the judiciary? TOPE SUNDAY and KEHINDE OSASONA ask in this report.
These are not the best of times for the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, given the on-going legal fireworks over the alleged refusal of the nation’s principal interpreter of the law to declare his assets and for operating foreign bank accounts.
Onnoghen’s travails followed a petition by a Non-governmental organisation (NGO), Anti-Corruption and Research Based Data Initiative (ARDI), at the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) the CJN.
The petition, which was filed on January 7, 2017, according to the body, was an offshoot of a painstaking investigation into the dealings of the embattled CJN. ARDI, Executive Secretary, Mr. Dennis Aghanya, told journalists that the body had acted as a whistle blower.
Operatives of the Department of State Service (DSS) had in 2016 invaded the home of two Justices of Supreme Court – Justices Walter Onnoghen and Sylvester Ngwuta at the Judicial Officers’ Quarters in Abuja.
Also, they invaded residences of two judges of the Federal High Court, Justices Adeniyi Ademola and Nnamdi Dimgba. Both judges are neighbours at Apo Legislative Quarters, Abuja.
The raid on Onnoghen, who at the time was nominated acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), was later said to be a ‘mistake’. All the other judges had their day in court but were later discharged.
How, their experience had opened another chapter in the nation’s judiciary. Before then, judges were seen in the country as the ‘untouchable.’
Allegations against CJN
ARDI in the petition alleged that Justice Onnoghen made five different cash deposits of $10,000 each on March 8, 2011, into Standard Chartered Bank Account 1062650.
The group also alleged that the CJN on June 7, 2011, made two separate cash deposits of 5000 dollars each, claiming that on the same day, transactions were followed by another four cash deposits of 10,000 dollars each.
The ARDI further alleged that Justice Onnoghen had on June 27, 2011, made another set of five separate cash deposits of 10,000 dollars each and made four more cash deposits of 10,000 dollars on June 28, 2011.
The group further alleged that the Code of Conduct Bureau Forms (Form CCB 1) belonging to Justice Onnoghen for 2014 and 2016 were dated and filed on the same day.
It alleged that the acknowledgement slip for Declarant SCN: 000014 was issued on December 14, 2016, while that for Declarant SCN: 000015 was also issued on December 14, 2016.
Similarly, the petitioner alleged that the two CCB acknowledgment slips were issued to the Justice Onnoghen when he had been sworn-in as the CJN.
“The affidavit for SCN: 000014 was sworn to on 14th December 2016; 2 of 6 b. The affidavit for SCN: 000015 was sworn to on December 14, 2016. Both forms were received on December 14, 2016, by one Awwal Usman Yakasai. The discrepancy between Justice Walter Onnoghen’s two CCB forms that were filed on the same day is significant.
“In filling the section on Details of Assets, particularly cash in Nigerian Banks, His Lordship as Declarant SCN: 000014 mentioned only two bank accounts,’’ the petitioner alleged.
According to the petitioner, the CJN runs Union Bank account number 0021464934 in Abuja, with balance of N9, 536,407 on November 14, 2014.
The body also alleged that the second account the CJN agreed to run was Union Bank number 0012783291 in Calabar, with balance of N11,456,311 as at November 14, 2014.
ARDI claimed that the sources of the funds in the accounts were stated as salaries, estacodes and allowances, however, Onnoghen as Declarant SCN: 000015, had listed seven bank accounts that were in use.
The group said that the CJN was linked to Standard Chartered account 00001062667, with balance of N3, 221,807.05 as at November 14, 2016.
Another account they suspected was operated by the CJN included Standard Chartered account 00001062650, with balance of $164,804.82, as at November 14, 2016.
The other account linked to him is Standard Chartered with account number 5001062686, with balance of 55,154.56 Euros as at November 14, 2016, among others.
Onnoghen’s defence
In his response to the CCB query dated January 11, 2019, the CJN said: “My asset declaration form numbers SCN 00014 and SCN 00005 were declared on the same day, 14/12/2016 because I forgot to make a declaration of my assets after the expiration of my 2005 declaration in 2009.
“Following my appointment as acting CJN in November, 2016, the need to declare my assets anew made me to realise the mistake. I then did the declaration to cover the period in default. I did not include my standard chartered bank account in SCN 000014 because I believed they were not opened.
“I did not make a fresh declaration of asset after my substantive appointment as CJN because I was under the impression that my SCN 000015 was to cover that period of four years which includes my term as CJN.”
FG’s stance
The federal government consequently filed a motion before the Code of Conduct Bureau asking for the removal of the CJN who also doubles as the Chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
In a motion filed by Musa Ibrahim and Fatima Danjuma Ali on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Federation, the federal government held that it is aimed at ensuring that Onnoghen is not a judge in his case and that the next in line of seniority, Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, should become the acting CJN pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Furthermore, the federal government prayed the tribunal for an interlocutory order “directing the defendant/respondent to step aside as the CJN and chairman of the NJC over an allegation of contravening the provision of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act CAP C15 Laws of the federation of Nigeria 2004 pending the determination of the case.
Judiciary in crisis
Expectedly, Onnoghen’s purported arraignment and call for removal have continued to generate uproars in the judiciary firmament so much that bodies and legal stakeholders have taken different positions regarding the case.
Firing the first salvo, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the umbrella body of lawyers in Nigeria, had in a statement signed by its National President, Paul Usoro (SAN), asked the federal government to discontinue forthwith, the prosecution of the CJN, before the CCT, alleging that the six-count charge against Onnoghen was a calculated effort by the executive to push him out of office.
The statement further urged President Muhammadu Buhari’s government to follow the due process of the law in pursuing the agenda.
The NBA said: “We re-affirm our earlier position that the CJN could not be tried at the CCT without recourse to the National Judicial Council, NJC. For as long as the CJN remains a judicial officer, that process avails him and is mandatory of compliance by the FGN.
“Should the federal government, however, succeed in removing Justice Walter Onnoghen, GCON as the CJN pursuant to the provisions of Section 292(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution, there would be no need or requirement for the FGN to fulfil the NJC pre-condition ahead of his possible prosecution.
“With such a constitutional removal from office, Onnoghen, CJN would cease to be a judicial officer and the allegations against him would not need to be determined by the NJC ahead of any possible prosecution.
“The choice is therefore that of FGN to make, either to pursue the removal of the CJN pursuant to Section 292(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution or report the alleged assets declaration infraction to the NJC for its consideration as a pre-condition for the possible prosecution of the CJN.’’
Toeing the same line, the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) says the trial of the CJN Justice Walter Onnoghen before the Code Conduct Tribunal must be resolved carefully and responsibly.
According to the body, this is necessary in the interest of the legal profession and the country.
The body in a communiqué signed by Professor Ben Nwabueze and Mr Seyi Sowemimo, at the end of a meeting held at the Nigerian Law School, Lagos, said: “The Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria deplores the situation that has arisen from the preferment of charges against the CJN and head of the Nigerian Judiciary before the CCT.
“The Body urges respect for the Constitution, the rule of law,separation of powers, due process and the proper administration of justice.
“The Body considers that these issues must be resolved carefully and responsibly in the interest of the legal profession and the nation.”
Discordant tunes
For the Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), the prosecution of the CJN shows that Nigeria was slowly becoming a nation of laws, saying that nobody is above the law.
He says, “It shows that in Nigeria, nobody is above the law. I do not rejoice neither am I pleased that such high officials are being probed or investigated but it shows that in Nigeria, the law is working and that the rule of law operates and that no one is higher than the law.
“That is the good aspect of it. Otherwise, I am not happy about it but if the reason arises why they should be investigated or invited and they are invited, it shows that the Nigerian legal system is working and that the rule of law operates but if it is you or I, you know that automatically, we will be indicted; but when the bigger guns in the country, who have all the power are also being indicted, it means it is a good sign for the rule of law in Nigeria.”
Corroborating Sagay, a renowned legal luminary, Femi Falana (SAN), states that it is baseless to link the federal government’s arraignment of the CJN with the 2019 presidential elections.
Falana said that it is baseless to link the arraignment of Justice Onnoghen with the 2019 presidential election, adding: “I do not know the basis for the speculation. It is on record that Justice Onnoghen, along with Justice Adesola Oguntade and Justice Aloma Muktar, who later became the first female CJN, delivered a dissenting judgment in favour of candidate Muhammadu Buhari in the Buhari/Yar’Adua presidential election petition in 2007.
“If the ruling party wins the forthcoming presidential election, the Supreme Court cannot afford to annul it. Frankly speaking, the Onnoghen-led judiciary is not ideologically antagonistic to the Buhari administration.
“In fact, in prosecuting the anti-corruption agenda of the Buhari regime, the judiciary has largely collaborated with the executive.
“The speed with which the various suits filed to challenge the charges against the CJN were heard and ruled upon by the courts was unprecedented,’’ he argued.
Maintaining a different stance, however, a constitutional lawyer and rights activist, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), accused the federal government of engaging in unnecessary political witch-hunt, saying that the six-count criminal charge it entered against the CJN over his alleged failure to declare his asset was politically motivated.
“The CJN can be removed from office either if he has been convicted or if under section 291 of the constitution, the Senate affirms a request by the President to remove him by two-third majority vote.
“Our system of justice being Anglo-Saxon-based, which is accusatorial, meaning that the innocence of a person is presumed. It is different from the criminal justice system of the French model which is inquisitorial, wherein the guilt of an accused person is presumed,’’ he argued.
Also faulting Onnoghen’s arraignment, another Constitutional Lawyer, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), advised the federal government to withdraw what he describes as a rubbish case against the CJN, insisting that unless the right thing is done by the government in the case, the situation might lead to a constitutional crisis.
Agbakoba explained further that the CJN like the president and the governor and their deputy also enjoy official immunity which has now been violated.
Similarly, Human rights activist and senior Lagos lawyer, Mr Jiti Ogunye, said: “the anti-corruption work of the federal government and that of the anti-corruption agency is a work that we support and it is a work that must be encouraged.
“In encouraging and supporting this work, we have always insisted that the due process of law is followed. As a matter of fact, it is contradictory in terms to imagine that you can fight corruption arbitrarily in a democracy which functions under the rule of law, according to the constitution, which is a written supreme law of the land.
According to him, “There is something called judicial immunity for judicial officers. But that judicial immunity only covers the works of the judge and the exercise of discretion of the judge, meaning that a judge cannot be sued for judging a case wrongly or not judging it expeditiously.
“The immunity does not insulate judges from criminal culpability if there is an infraction. That is our own understanding of the law.
“However, that law changed, at least for the time being, in Kangiwa vs the Federal Republic of Nigeria reported in 2018, 4NWLR Part 1609 page 301 particularly at page 343 and 349.
“The Court of Appeal held that no judicial officer who is accused of misconduct that may be or tantamount to infraction of criminal law which may amount to criminal offences can be arraigned before any court or tribunal in Nigeria until and unless he is first probed by NJC and then have the toga of judgeship removed from him so that he can then be handed over to the security agencies for investigation and prosecution.
“That judgment is a weighty one. And I say that people are not paying sufficient attention to that. In a way, that judgment impliedly overreached the case of Garba Vs University of Maiduguri reported in 1985 NWLR Part 18 and all other similar cases like that that had established for a long time that an administrative disciplinary panel cannot try criminal matters.” He maintained that, “It is improper, unfair and derogatory for the “authorities” to splash mud on the office of the CJN by publicly sharing his confidential information, such as his signature, his telephone numbers, his handwritings, his family details, etc, even on the social media.
“It is totally wrong for the government to apply Executive Order 6 to the CJN to freeze his assets, when he’s not facing a corruption related charge and when he’s not listed in the specific Schedule to the said Executive Order 6.
“The unwitting impression now created is that the motive of this trial is purely to humiliate and denigrate the office of the CJN and to expose the judiciary and the legal profession to public opprobrium and ridicule, ahead of the 2019 general elections.”
Dent on judiciary?
Though, the Court of Appeal has halted further proceeding in the CJN’s trial pending its ruling on whether or not the CCT has jurisdiction, there are opinions that the image of the country’s judiciary has been dented with the allegations of the financial infractions levelled against the CJN.
Though, some Lawyers are afraid to point out the new negative status of the Bar in the country, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Robert Clarke’s recent reaction suggests that the arm of government is battling with credibility crisis.
While featuring on Sunday Politics, a programme on Channels TV, Clarke said: “There is no way the federal government can make you and I know that a judge has so many accounts, has so much money in those accounts and has been operating those accounts.
“So, the only way they can bring this out to us is to follow this route that they have followed. They know they are not going to get success but they still want to inform you and I and the public that this is the rot in the Supreme Court; you and I must know.”
