CCT Chairman’s Sack: Senate Goofed — Senior Lawyers

Three senior legal practitioners including the Executive Director of the Centre for Socio- Legal Studies, Prof Yemi Akinseye George, SAN and a Law scholar, Dr Wahab Shittu, SAN, have dismissed as illegal and unconstitutional last Wednesday’s sack of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Yakubu Danladi Umar.

The lawyers contended that the upper chamber of the National Assembly has no powers under the law to sack a judicial officer just as they expressed worry that a Senate populated by senior and knowledgeable lawyers could go that route. They have consequently advised the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN to call the attention of President Bola Tinubu to the anomaly, saying the senate cant remove a judicial officer as it did in the case of the CCT chairman

from office in a democracy. The other lawyer who condemned the senate on its stance while speaking with Vanguard on the matter is a former leader of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, but who pleaded anonymity.

CCT Chairman can’t be removed without input of the House of Reps —Shittu

According to Shittu, SAN, “Section 17 (3) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides that “A person holding the office of Chairman or member of the Code of Conduct Tribunal shall not be removed from his office or appointment by the President except upon an address supported by two- thirds majority of each House of the National Assembly praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office in question (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body) or for misconduct or for contravention of this Code.

“The powers of removal of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal under the above provision is vested in the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who is to act based on a two-thirds majority decision of each House of the National Assembly supporting the move.

In other words, the power of removal is vested in the President subject to the recommendation of both the House of Representatives and the Senate exercisable by a two-thirds majority of their votes. “The question that arises is whether in the present circumstances, the Senate is entitled to act to finality without carrying along its counterpart—the House of Representatives and without reference to the President? In my view, it will amount to putting the cart before the horse or acting in defiance of presidential powers.

“The Senate is entitled to take that decision but it can only be finalized by carrying along its counterpart—House of Representatives together with reference to the President. The removal authority is actually the president while the two chambers of the National Assembly is the recommender.

“The implication is that no removal can be constitutional without the input of both chambers of the National Assembly and the President. In other words, while it will appear that the Senate acted within constitutional limit of 157(1) of the Constitution to the extent that the incumbent was removed for misconduct, it is important to stress that section 157 (1) of the 1999 Constitution relied upon by the Senate to sack the Code of Conduct Tribunal is inapplicable. He can not be sacked without the input of the House of Representatives and the President as contained in Section 17(3) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution,” he added.

Another lawyer who is a member of the inner bar from the South-South but who pleaded anonymity told Vanguard: “Is it the senate that removes a judge? The Senate president knows he can’t remove a judge, he can only make recommendations. He cannot remove anybody. If the Senate has anything, it knows what to do. The senate has petitioned judges before. They can petition,” he rang off.

CCT not among offices Senate can exercise its powers —Prof George

But Prof Akinseye George, SAN who spoke extensively on the matter specifically said: “I have just read section 157(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution relied upon by the Senate to sack the CCT chairman. Section 157 (1) of the 1999 Constitution does not give powers to the Senate to

remove the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. For emphasis, Section 157 (1) provides that a person holding the offices to which this section applies may only be removed from that office by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct.

“Under Section 157 (2), a list of the offices that the senate can exercise its powers under Section 157(1) include that of the Code of Conduct Bureau, the Federal Civil Service Commission, the Independent National Electoral Commission, the National Judicial Council, the Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Federal Character Commission, the Nigeria Police Council, the National Population Commission, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission and the Police Service Commission.

“The Code of Conduct Tribunal is missing from the list. And I know that while the Code of Conduct Bureau is an executive body, the Code of Conduct Tribunal is a judicial body. The Senate can’t remove the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. For the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal to be removed, there must be compliance with the provision of section 17 of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. Specifically, Section 17(3) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides:

“A person holding the office of Chairman or member of the Code of Conduct Tribunal shall not be removed from his office or appointment by the President except upon an address supported by a two-thirds majority of each House of the National Assembly praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office in question (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body) or for misconduct or for contravention of this Code.

“We have to follow the constitution. This is democracy. You may not like the face of the person there but you will need to follow the process. Otherwise, we will all be endangered. So, in my view, the Attorney General of the Federation should advise Mr President to follow the constitution.

And the man who has been appointed will also need to follow the constitution. What goes round comes round. They must follow the constitution. It will be on record that Mr President who is a known democrat is disregarding the constitution. And I don’t think he will do that. They should call his attention to that.

“And if the President goes ahead and it is challenged in court, the process will be reversed. Unless there is something they know that we don’t know. But as far as the letter of the constitution that I can read and interpret is concerned, you cannot remove the chairman of the code of conduct tribunal without two third from each house. We must follow the constitution,” he added.

Meanwhile, another respected member of the inner bar and former Attorney-General of Abia State, Prof Awa Kalu says

Illegality begets another —

Awa Kalu, SAN who also shared his perspective with Vanguard spoke in parable.

His words: “I will just ask you a question: Is it not the same Code of Conduct Tribunal that removed a sitting Chief Justice? Abi, no be so? As they say abroad, illegality begets another (laughed).” When he was asked to confirm if the decision of the Senate was constitutional or not, he simply answered: “I’m not going to go that far. I’m not going that far. If we go into the history and legal development, you will see that the Code of Conduct Bureau is interchanged with Code of Conduct Tribunal. It is like the story of the egg and the hen. Which one came first? That’s where we are.

“Nigeria will be moving in such a way that one day, we will all wake up and be doing what is right. Because one day, you will wake up and see somebody who will remove himself thinking that he is removing another person. Nigeria go better (laughed). The Senate President is a senior lawyer. He understands all these. There is no need to make a categorical statement about this. The hen and the egg, which one came first?”, he asked rhetorically.

Another source from the Code of Conduct Tribunal who also preferred anonymity told Vanguard that the CCT Chairman heard the news of his removal by the senate on TV while going home on Wednesday. “The government can remove or sack any civil servant. But it must be done following procedure.

In July this year, President Tinubu by a press statement announced one Dr Mainasara Umar Kogo as the new Code of Conduct Tribunal chairman without following procedure. The Federal Judicial Service Commission and the National Judicial Council did not screen Dr Kogo. They were not aware of the appointment.

Whereas, the chairman of the CCT is a judicial officer who is appointed into office the same way other judicial officers are appointed. A press statement from the Presidency stated that Dr Kogo would take over fromDanladi Umar

“The Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Fagbemi, SAN, was embarrassed as he was not carried along.

The attention of the Presidency was drawn to this and the error has been corrected by changing the office of Dr Kogo to the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau. He has since been sworn into office about two months ago.

So, which appointee of the President is the senate talking about on Wednesday that will replace Justice Umar when it purportedly sacked the tribunal chairman? The Senate has senior lawyers in its fold. They should know that the Senate can only exercise the power of removal from office over officials of executive bodies listed under section 157(2) of the 1999 Constitution and not judicial bodies like the Code of Conduct Tribunal

“I personally have no problem with the decision of the government to remove any civil servant from office if there is a reason to do so. But in all things, the procedure should be followed,” he added.

Saturday reporters recalls that the Senate on Wednesday sacked the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT, Yakubu Danladi Umar, from office with immediate effect. That was more than five months after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had removed him and named a replacement, Dr Mainasara Umar Kogo, without following procedure.

<