CCT and a Timeline of Inconsistencies

By Bamikole Omishore
Potter Stewart, a renown Associate Justice of the United States Supreme
Court who played a significant role in the interpretation of Civil Rights
laws, coined the basic phrase: “Fairness is what Justice really is.” This
phrase, conceived to propel the notion of every individual’s equitable
right under the law, demonstrates that an unbiased legal system, is a
necessary component for justice to be dispensed.
As things stand, the case of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) against
the Senate President, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki, has proven to be full of
contradictions and inequity. ‘Contradictions’ because since the case was
in its preliminary stages, there has been a mismatch between the facts
being propelled by the prosecution, the methods being employed by the
tribunal, and the charges that have been brought against the Senate
President.
Since the case was brought to light in late 2015, few weeks after Dr.
Saraki’s emergence as President of the Senate, members of the Nigerian
public have come to understand that the charges against Saraki, and the
testimony of the chief witness have not been in sync.
Additionally, Nigerians have started to also understand that certain legal
precedents have not been followed by the tribunal. For example, based on
the non-adherence to Section 3, paragraph D of the act that established
the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Tribunal, the Senate President
ought to be given an opportunity to respond to the charges brought against
him.
One noteworthy instance that comes to mind is that in 2007, the CCT
dismissed the charges against former Vice-President, Atiku Abubakar based
on the non-adherence to the precedent clause. Another ocassion, in 2011,
the same CCT quashed the case against Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the same
ground. However, in what has been described by many legal practitioners as
an abuse of judicial precedent, the same judicial body, with the same
Chairman that delivered the Tinubu judgement, went back on the legal
precedent that it had set on several occasions, and threw out the proviso
which created a condition precedent clause before the law can be applied
against Saraki case.
What was even more disturbing, was the self-indictment by Dan Ladi Umar in
the case, as he casually revealed that Tinubu’s ruling was simply “made in
error.” This outright reversal stirs up questions regarding if Umar was
under duress when he delivered his judgement; if the tribunal understands
the legal implications of their actions; and if the same 1999 Constitution
and Code of Conduct Bureau acts were not the documents used in the cases
of Atiku and Tinubu.
Furthermore, the contributions of the prosecution’s Chief Witness, Michael
Wetkas, an operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC), has poked further holes in the prosecution’s case.
Some clear examples are Wetkas admitting that neither he nor his team
investigated three crucial exhibits (11, 12, and 13) tendered as evidence
against the Senate President. Another example is the witness mentioning
that it was the EFCC that investigated Saraki, as opposed to agents from
the CCB. In essence, the case before the CCT now is money laundering,
instead of false Asset Declaration which it is created to handle.
These inconsistencies lend credence to what the Senate President and his
team have been saying for a while: “This case is not about prosecuting
alleged corruption, but about some powerful individuals settling political
scores, using their control of the judiciary.”
Finally, in another ruling by the Chairman of the CCT that demonstrates
his bias in the Saraki situation, Mr. Danladi Umar mandated the trial of
the Senate President to proceed on a day-to-day basis – citing the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), despite the fact that he
has adjourned other cases – that are also under the purview of the ACJA.
This situation came to a head on Wednesday, April 20th, 2016, when the
Counsel for the Former Minister of Niger Delta, Godsday Orubebe, argued
that because the trial had earlier been moved from April 14 to 20 for
continuation, their case should be heard before Saraki’s case which was
adjourned just a day before. However, Justice Umar insisted that the
Senate President’s case must continue, and stood down Orubebe’s case –
leaving many to question if in fact there is a timeline (as some have
speculated) to convict Saraki by hook or by crook before a certain date.
As the head of the Senate President’s New Media team, based on all these
observations, it has become not only necessary, but mandatory to let the
Nigerian public know that as things stand, the case against my principal,
the Senate President, is concocted on shaky evidence as the outcome of the
on-going cross-examination has indicated. As the prosecution is attempting
to make this a media trial, I enjoin Nigerians to urge the CCT to make
this a trial that is based on the substance and the spirit of the law.
Doing this, would ensure that the process is free and fair, so that at the
end of the day, we can all be able to claim that justice was in fact done.
Bamikole Omishore is the Special Assistant on New Media to President of
the Senate