I’m Not Guilty – Onnoghen Challenges CCT’s Conviction

• Files 16 grounds of appeal

BY VICTOR BUORO, ABUJA – Determined to clear his name as well as prove alleged bias and incompetence of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to convict him, embattled former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, has approached the Court of Appeals in Abuja demanding justice and equity.

In a 16-point notice of appeal adducing reasons to quash his conviction by the Tribunal, Onnoghen maintained that the Mr Danladi Umar-led panel erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice against him by failing to decline jurisdiction in entertaining the six-count charge preferred against him by the Federal Government.

Justice Onnoghen also submitted that the CCT Chairman should have recused himself from presiding over his trial for alleged bias.

Onnoghen therefore urged the Court of Appeals to declare that the charge against him at the CCT had become a mere academic exercise.

Equally applying for a seven-point relief, Onnoghen is seeking for an order setting aside his conviction, as well as quashing the forfeiture of his assets to Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN).

The former CJN is also asking the appellate court to discharge and acquit him of all the charges levelled against him by the Federal Government at the CCT.

The convicted ex-CJN, who listed in his appeal notice some particulars of error in the Tribunal’s ruling, further submitted that he was at the time the charges were filed against him on January 11, 2019, a judicial officer and was therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the lower court.

“On the authority of Nganjiwa v. FRN (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1609) 30: at 340.341 only the National Judicial Council (NJC) has the power to discipline the Appellant for misconduct and not the lower tribunal. “The lower tribunal had in the case of FRN V. Sylvester Nwali Nguta in charge No: CCT/ABJ/01/2017 delivered on 9th January, 2018, affirmed the position of the Court in FRN Nganjiwa v. FRN and dismissed the charges and acquitted and discharged Justice Ngwuta being a Judicial Officer subject only to the discipline of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

“The lower Tribunal has no jurisdiction over serving judicial officers such as the appellant, save the National Judicial Council.”

He further stated that; “The Motion on Notice dated 14th January, 2019, challenging jurisdiction ought to be granted in all material particular as it purports to save the lower tribunal of needless futile exercise”, adding; “The lower tribunal erred In law when it dismissed the Appellant’s Application seeking the chairman to recuse himself from further proceedings on the ground of real likelihood of bias and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”

According to Justice Onnoghen’s appeal; “Once an allegation of real likelihood of the bias is raised, the Court or Tribunal will have nothing more to say except to wash its hands from further proceedings in the matter.

“The Appellant has alleged that the chairman of the lower Tribunal is biased towards him as a result of open remarks in the Tribunal as well as the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted”.

Furthermore, the Notice of appeal denied the submission that Onnoghen admitted the fact of non-declaration of assets from year 2005 as the Justice of the Supreme Court, saying; “The Appellant only stated that he did not declare in 2009 as required because he forgot. The evidence and exhibit tendered has affirmed the statement of the appellant that he forgot to make a declaration in 2009 but did in 2010 when he remembered, showing there was a declaration after all, contrary to count one of the charge.

“The lower Tribunal erred in law when it held that the evidence of DW-I, did not create reasonable doubt on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the Appellant did not make declaration of assets since 2005 and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

“The lower tribunal erred in law when it held that the Appellant is guilty of counts 2-6 of the charge in view of the fact that the Appellant made an admission that he did not declare the Standard Chartered Bank Account Numbers in the 2014 declaration and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

“The Appellant’s statement that he did not declare the Account numbers in the Standard Chartered Bank in the 2014 Declaration because he never believed the account numbers were opened, does not amount to an admission in law that he made false statements as indicated in counts 2-6.

“The declaration for 2014 and 2016 were all made the same day being 16th December, 2016, but the disparity was that whereas the 2016 declaration had the account numbers, in Standard Chartered Bank, that of 2014 did not have but in any event, the said account numbers were declared.

“The Account numbers were the ones declared by the Appellant himself in the 2016 declaration and was not found out from any other source.

“The Appellant did not make any false statement or declaration by the omission to state the account numbers in the 2014 declaration.

“The lower tribunal erred in law when it held that the Appellant made false statement by the omission to declare the Account numbers in Standard Chartered Bank in 2014 declaration the same way he did in the 2016 declaration and held counts 2-6 to be proved and thus occasioned miscarriage of justice.

“Section 15 (2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act is very clear and unambiguous when it provides that there must be verification. The lower tribunal erred in law when it held that count one of the charge is valid and proceeded to convict the Appellant upon it.”

Onnoghen, whose appeal was filed through his team of counsels, led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), therefore maintained that; “The Honourable Tribunal erred in law when it tried and convicted the Defendant/Appellant for failure to declare and submit assets declaration Forms, between 2005 and 2016, which alleged offence ls unknown to law; and in total violation of Section 36 (12) of the 1999 Constitution.”