By Ramalan Ibrahim
Abuja
With less than 72 hours to the resumption of the trial of the Senate President at the Code of Conduct Tribunal(CCT), the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, will today rule on whether the trial will continue or be halted via its pronouncement.
The court had on Friday fixed the date for the ruling after taking final brief of arguments from counsel to parties in the suit.
The Senate President is standing trial before the CCT for allegedly making false assets declaration while he was governor of Kwara state.
When summoned by the CCT, Saraki declined the invitation, a development that necessitated a warrant of arrest being issued on him. And to stave off the trial and possible arrest, he headed for both the Federal High Court as well as the Court of Appeal, but failed.
At the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Morri Adumein, his ex-parte application for a stay of execution was rejected. Ditto for the the Federal High Court, also sitting in Abuja, where the presiding judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed declared that he would not waste judicial time on interlocutory matters.
With all these aborted moves, he was consequently brought forth by his legal team on September 21,and consequently docked by the CCT during which he pleaded not guilty to all charges read out to him.
But his legal team, led by Joseph Bolorunduro Daudu, SAN returned to the appellate court on Friday where their submissions and briefs were adopted alongside that of the prosecuting team .
Justice Adumein, who led two other justices to hear the case, had said the verdict, would be handed down by 2 p.m. today.
At last Friday’s sitting, Daudu, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), led some five other Senior Advocates of Nigerian namely; Malam Yusuf Olaolu Ali, Adebayo Adelodun, Mahmud Magaji, Ahmed Raji and Kayode Eleja.
Moving the case, Daudu raised five major issues for determination of the court on what he described as the illegality of Saraki’s trial at the tribunal.
They argued that the CCT erred in law by proceeding with the trial with two members instead of the mandatory three provided for by the constitution.
Daudu informed the court that the composition of the tribunal during the trial of Saraki, violated paragraph 15(1) of the 1999 constitution by sitting with two members instead of three, and therefore asked the court to nullify last month’s proceedings of the CCT for lack of quorum.
But the appellant’s counsel disagreed with the arguments of the prosecuting counsel, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, that the interpretation of the Act could be used to resolve the constitutional logjam since the
constitution was silent on the quorum for the tribunal membership.
Daudu insisted that the Interpretation Act cannot override the constitution, being the supreme law and the Act being inferior to the constitution.
“To ask that the Act of Interpretation be used to override constitutional provision is wrong and unheard of. That, itself, will amount to product of mis-interpretation because constitution is the supreme law and not an Act”.
He also argued that the tribunal was wrong in assuming criminal jurisdiction against the Senate President when it was not a superior court of record.
Daudu who cited several authorities, further submitted that the tribunal cannot assume concurrent jurisdiction with the federal high court, adding that the code of conduct tribunal was by law inferior to the federal high court.
He therefore urged the appeal court to nullify the proceedings of the tribunal against Saraki and to also set aside the criminal charges filed against him by the federal government on account of being illegal and unlawful.
Opposing the submissions however, Rotimi, the prosecuting lead counsel, asked that the appeal be dismissed for lacking in merit.
Jacobs told the 3-man appeal court panel that the constitution was silent on the quorum of the tribunal memberships.
He urged the court to invoke the Interpretation Act to resolve the issue in favour of the respondent. The respondent’s counsel also submitted that the tribunal has criminal jurisdiction because of the use of words like “guilty” and “punishment” in the law that established the tribunal.
Meanwhile, Justice Adumein struck out an application by Saraki, praying for a stay of further proceedings at the tribunal on the ground that event had overtaken the application with the hearing of the substantive matter.
