Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) yesterday explained why Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen’s assets non-declaration charge cannot first be determined by the National Judicial Council (NJC).
In a statement, the eminent Law professor, citing constitutional provisions, argued that not every offence committed by a judicial officer must first be brought before the NJC.
He said: “By the very logic of the powers of the NJC, cases arising out of a breach of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and the Code of Conduct provision in the Constitution cannot come before the NJC.
“If the NJC first decides the matter before the defendant is arraigned in court or at the Tribunal, what happens if the NJC finds the defendant liable and removes him from office as a Judge? In that case, he ceases to be a Judicial Officer as well as a Public Officer.
“Can he, therefore, be tried as a public officer before the Code of Conduct Tribunal? The answer is no, because he is no longer a public officer.
“The extant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act would be rendered nugatory by a prior NJC involvement.”
Read also: Court orders ex-Air Chief Amosu to forfeit N2.2b to Fed Govt
Faulting the arguments that the prosecution ought to comply with the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Nganjiwa vs. F.R.N., the PACAC chair said: “It should be noted first that this judgment contradicts the clear provisions of the Code of Conduct as established in the Constitution which gives the Code of Conduct Tribunal jurisdiction over all public officers, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria. (See 5th Schedule, Part One, of the 1999 Constitution).
“Moreover, the Court of Appeal in Nganjiwa’s case was directing its judgment to a judicial officer committing an offence in the process of carrying out his duties as a judge in a court namely: demanding bribe from a party to the case before him.
“Therefore, the ratio decidendi in this case is much narrower in scope than is being touted by our all mighty Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs). Filling an Assets Declaration Form is totally outside the ambit of a judicial officer’s work. It applies to all public officers.
“If one may ask – should a drunken judge behind a car steering wheel kill an innocent pedestrian, will the offence be taken before the NJC, before the police can act on the crime?
“Indeed, in spite of its defects, the Court of Appeal judgment in the Nganjiwa’s case expressly limited reference to the NJC only to cases of a judicial officers’ misconduct in court whilst exercising his authority as judge in case before him in court.
“According to the court: ‘It must be expressly stated that if a Judicial officer commits theft, fraud, murder or manslaughter, arson and the likes, which are crimes committed outside the scope of performance of his official functions, he may be arrested, interrogated and prosecuted accordingly by the State directly without recourse to the NJC. These classes of criminal act are not envisaged and captured by the provisions of paragraph 21, Part One of the Third Schedule.’
“This demonstrates the hollowness and invalidity of the argument that every offence committed by a judicial officer must first be brought before the NJC, before the law enforcement agencies can entertain it.”
Besides, Sagay believes that the NJC cannot be expected to be fair in Justice Onnoghen’s case.
“Almost all the Senior Advocates of Nigeria have argued that even in a case involving the breach of the Code of Conduct, for which the law has already made express provisions, the matter shall be taken to the NJC rather than to the Code of Conduct Tribunal.
“They can’t be serious. They must obviously be speaking tongue in cheek. Even a baby, three months old, must realise that no one can get justice against the CJN at the NJC
