ON CONVICTION OF JUSTICE ONNOGHEN BY THE CCT

ON CONVICTION OF JUSTICE ONNOGHEN BY THE CCT


Whilst supporting all measures to fight against corruption and to attain the goal of establishing the highest moral standards and accountability in the conduct of public affairs and behaviour of public officers, the conviction of Justice Onnoghen should never be celebrated as a victory for the fight against corruption. Rather than being seen as victory for the fight against judicial corruption, it should be seen as nothing but victory for planting a culture of fear, subjugation, intimidation and domination of the Judicial arm of government by the Executive arm.



Wiithout going into the merit of the allegations made against Justice ONNOGHEN and far from arguing that Onnoghen is guilty or not guilty of the allegations against him, the CCT decision to assume jurisdiction in the first place, given the background facts in the public domain, is a political, rather than a judicial decision.

Just two precedents would be used to support the argument that the assumption of jurisdiction by the CCT, is political and not judicial.

First, in 2011, Former Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu was taken before the CCT. He was set free on account that contrary to the proviso to Section 3(d) of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Act,  Tinubu was not afforded an opportunity by the CCB to either admit or deny allegations of breach of the Act. The CCT argued then that the CCT had declined jurisdiction in the cases of ten (10) other former Governors on the ground of lack of observance of the proviso to section 3(d) of the CCB & CCT ACT by the CCB and that the case of former Governor Tinubu should not be different.

In the instant case of Justice ONNOGHEN, the Prosecutor argued that Justice ONNOGHEN had admitted failure to declare certain assets due to forgetfulnes. According to the proviso to Section 3(d) of the CCB & CCT ACT, once there is an admission of the breach or non compliance of the Act complained of, "no reference to the Tribunal shall be necessary". It was on the ground of this provision, among others, that the CCT declined jurisdiction in the case of former Governor Tinubu, apart from the cases of ten other former Governors that the Tribunal relied on. We are not unaware of the legal principle that says what is admitted needs no further proof. However, in the context of section 3(d) of the CCB & CCT ACT, this legal principle would not apply as no court has jurisdiction to hold that what is clearly provided for in a law does not exist, no matter the objection we may have for such provisions.

Also, on January 9, 2019, the CCT declined Jurisdiction in the case of Justice Sylvester Ngwutta on the ground that Justice Ngwutta had not been previously processed through the National Judicial Council (NJC) before being brought to the CCT, as established by the Court of Appeal in the case of Justice Ngajiwa.

Similarly, in the insant case of Justice ONNOGHEN, there was no reference to the NJC before he was dragged to the CCT based on a petition written by an NGO headed by a former political aide of President Mohamnadu Buhari. Indeed, Justice Onnoghen had earlier been suspended through an ex parte injunction which lhad been fixed for hearing on 28th day of January 2019 but secretly heard and granted ex parte before 28th day of January earlier fixed for public hearing.

What the foregoing suggests is that the Executive arm of Government is determined to get Justice ONNOGHEN convicted by all means, at all costs, whether or not the procedure adopted is fair.

Fighting corruption is a consitutional mandate of government as prescribed in section 15 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. However, where the fight against corruption is not carried out according to constitutional and statutory procedures, it amounts to arbitrariness, which would be tantamount to tyranny with a view to subjecting society to political hegemony and domination of a segment of the Ruling class. Where the fight against judicial corruption is cartied out arbitrarily and without regard to constitutional and statutory procedures and principles, it means the Executive arm of government seeks to subjugate, intimidate and dominate the Judicial arm of government (albeit a theoretically equal and autonomous arm) with a view to subjecting the judiciary to the whims and caprices of the Executive. To avoid the Onnoghen arbitrary  dosage, rational and average judicial officers have, by now, been whipped into line, wherever members of the Executive have interests in cases before the court. This kind of incipient  totalitarianism ought to be avoided by voices of reason crying out, loud, saying, "No to intimidation of the judiciary".

However, where the Executive arm of government seeks to convince the public that it means well, then the standard with which Onnoghen has been measured and judged should be applied to all other former and serving  public officers, starting with the Executive arm of government.  To do this, government should establish an independent body comprising independent minded and non ruling political party partisan persons and professional bodies to take an inventory of all types of assets owned by former and serving top public officers in elective positions; establish what each of them was or is entitled to earn legitimately; obtain available assets declarations by the affected public officers and compare the results. Whoever owns assets more than the legitimate earnings can justify, should not only be given the ONNOGHEN dosage of treatment but should also be prosecuted in a court of law and jailed where necessary.

But for people who deserve to be in jail on account of the strong likelihood of possessing assets disprotionate to what their legitimate earnings as public officers can justify, superintending over a so called fight against corruption and telling us that the conviction of Justice ONNOGHEN represents victory for the fight against corruption, i reject it with the whole of my being.

For example, Paragraph 4 of the Code of conduct for public officers prohibits public sector pensioner receiving any other remuneration from public funds other than as a governing council  member of a company owned or controlled by the government (See Part 1, 5th Schedule to the Constitution and section 8 of the CCB & CCT ACT).

Also, paragraph 2 of the code of conduct for public officers and section 6 of the CCB & CCT ACT prescribe that a full time public officer shall neither receive remuneration from more than one public office nor engage in private business, trade or profession, except farming.

Many of the members of the Federal Executive cabinet cannot be absolved from violation of the provisions of the code quoted above. Many of them were former Governors who earn their pensions as former Governors at the rate earned by the incumbent governors. Yet, they earn undisclosed amounts in salaries and allowances as Ministers. These people are among those declaring that the conviction of Justice ONNOGHEN is victory for the fight against corruption. We are not as dull as the Ruling class imagines we are!

Finally, i suport the call by SERAP: The CCB should release the assets declarations of all other top public officers. Let us shun all niceties of the law and let all (including Mr President) be given the ONNOGHEN dosage, and let us see how many in the PMB Cabinet would not end up in jail.
 Femi Aborisade

END.