30th October, 2015
Ayorinde Oluokun/Abuja
The Court of Appeal, Abuja has started to deliver judgment in the appeal by Senate President, Bukola Saraki, over his trial for alleged false asset declaration at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.
The three-man Court of Appeal panel led by Justice Moore Adumen entered the court at 9:25 am Friday to beging sitting.
After the lawyers announced their appearance, Justice Adumen began reading his judgement at 9:35 am.
Justice Adumen said the judgement could not be delivered eralier because the justices were trying to reach a consensus.
He declared that the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) was properly constituted and can sit with the chairman and one other member. He relied on Section 28 of the Interpretation Act to reach the decision.
He said the CCT/CCB (Code of Conduct Bureau) and the constitution were silent on quorum.
Justice Adumen also ruled that CCT has criminal jurisdiction, though limited.
He also ruled that the CCT has powers to issue bench warrant.
The court also ruled that the Solicitor General can institute proceedings in the absence of the attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) since the office of the AGFA is statutory and cannot die, wheter the AGF is in court or not.
He then dismissed Saraki’s appeal.
Proceedings was still ongoing at the time of this report as anothe judge is reading his judgement.
Saraki wants the appellate court stop his trial at the CCT, where he has been charged on 13-counts with false asset declaration.
Judgment was initially fixed for 19 October, but was postponed at the 11th hour, with the court promising to communicate a new date to parties.
Notices were sent to parties informing them about Friday’s date, The Nation reported.
Arguing the appeal on October 16, Saraki’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), urged the appellate court to set aside the entire proceedings before the CCT, including the charge before it.
He argued that the CCT was not properly constituted on when it assumed jurisdiction to entertain the charges because it was made up of two members as against three, which is provided for in Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.
Daudu contended that the provision of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act relied upon by the respondents to argue that the tribunal could validly sit with its Chairman and one other member, was a contradiction of the three-member provision in the Constitution.
He also argued that the tribunal not being a superior court recognised by the Constitution could not exercise criminal jurisdiction.
