President Bola Tinubu, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, and Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, have been dragged before a Federal High Court in Abuja over the alleged unlawful removal of Justice Danladi Umar as Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

The President and 10 others were sued by two civil society groups, Community Rescue Initiative and Toro Concerned Citizens Relief Foundation, as well as an Abuja based lawyer, Comrade Nasir Bala.

The three plaintiffs are praying the court to restrain the Clerk of the National Assembly from transmitting to Tinubu, the concurrent resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives which removed Umar as Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

They are also praying the court to stop the President from giving effect to the resolution of the two chambers of the National Assembly, on the grounds that clear provisions of the law, especially the 1999 Constitution, were not followed in the purported removal of the CCT boss.

Among others, the plaintiffs are seeking seven declarative reliefs against the President and the other defendants.

The suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1796/2024, was instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs by Mahmoud M. Maidoki Esq., A.G Salisu Esq., Jibrin S. Jibrin Baq., and Abubakar S. Idris Bag.

In faulting the action of the National Assembly, the plaintiffs asked the Federal High Court to determine the following:

“Whether by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1(1) and (3) , 6(5), 153 (1) (e) & (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as well as Paragraph 13 (a) (vii) and (b) of the Third Schedule thereof, the purported removal of the chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal by the 4th Defendant is illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever same having been made pursuant to the provisions of section 157 (1) of the 1999 Constitution or any other law for that matter.

“Whether by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1(1) and (3) , 6(5), 153 (1) (e) & (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as well as Paragraph 13 (a) (vii) and (b) of the Third Schedule thereof, the purported concurrence by the 6” Defendant with the decision/resolution of the 4 Defendant purportedly removing the chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal taken at 4th Defendant’s plenary of the 20th November 2024 or any other date for that matter which said concurrence was taken at the 6th Defendant’s Plenary of 26th November 2024 is illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever same having been founded on a faulty legal foundation and in breach/violation of section 22 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal Act and paragraph 17 (3) of the 5th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

“Whether by virtue of the provisions of Paragraph 17 (1) of the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 20 (1) and (4) of the Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal Act and the subsistence of the occupation of the office of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal by Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar, the purported appointment and subsequent confirmation of the 10th or 11th Defendants into the same office by the 1st and 4th Defendants, respectively, is illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect same having been done in clear breach of the applicable provisions of the 1999 Constitution (Supra) and the Code of Conduct and Tribunal Act (Supra).

“Whether the purported removal of the chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal in the person of Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar as done by the 4th Defendant based on the motion and submission founded by distinguished Senator Opeyemi Bamidele during its plenary of 20th November 2024 and the subsequent concurrence by the 6th Defendant on 26th November, 2024 at its plenary has occasioned/amounted to a breach of Section 36(1) and Section 6 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as the allegations of misconduct among others which formed the basis of the resolution/decision in issue has not been proved/established in the manner prescribed by law.”

The plaintiffs noted that if the above questions are answered in the affirmative, the court should declare
that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1(1) and (3), 6(6), 153 (1) (e) & (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as well as Paragraph 13 (a) (vii) and (b) of the Third Schedule thereof, the purported removal of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal by the 4th Defendant is illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever, same having been made pursuant to the provisions of section 157 (1) of the 1999 Constitution or any other law for that matter.

Other declarations and orders sought by the plaintiffs are:

“A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1(1) and (3), 6(6), 153 (1) (e) & (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as well as Paragraph 13 (a) (vii) and (b) of the Third – Schedule thereof, the purported concurrence by the 6th Defendant with the decision/resolution of the 4th Defendant purportedly removing the chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal taken at 4tj Defendant’s plenary of the 20th November 2024 or any other date for that matter which said concurrence was taken at the 6th Defendant’s Plenary of 26th November 2024 is illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever same having been founded on a faulty legal foundation and in breach/violation of section 22 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal Act and paragraph 17 (3) of the 5® Schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

“A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of Paragraph 17 (1) of the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 20 (1) and (4) of the Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal Act and the subsistence of the occupation of the office of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal by Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar, the purported appointment and subsequent confirmation of the 10th or 11th Defendants into the same office by the 1st and 4th Defendants, respectively, is illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect same having been done in clear breach of the applicable provisions of the 1999 Constitution (Supra) and the Code of Conduct and Tribunal Act (Supra).

“A DECLARATION that the purported removal of the chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal in the person of Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar as done by the 4’th Defendant based on the motion and submission founded by distinguished Senator Opeyemi Bamidele during its plenary of 20th November 2024 and the subsequent concurrence by the 6th Defendant on 26th November, 2024 at its plenary has occasioned/amounted to a breach of Section 36(1) and Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as the allegations of misconduct among others which formed the basis of the resolution/decision in issue has not been proved/established in the manner prescribed by law.

“AN ORDER restraining the 7th Defendant from communicating the resolution’ of the 4th and 6th Defendants removing the chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal in person of Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar to the 1st Defendant the removal having been done without following the due process of law.

“AN ORDER restraining the 8th and 9th Defendants from considering any person including the 10th or 11th Defendant for appointment by the 1st Defendant and subsequent confirmation by the 4th and 6th Defendants during, the subsistence of term of office of Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar.”

Meanwhile Justice James Omotosho, who is to adjudicate in the matter, has ordered that the process in respect be served by substituted means through pasting at the notice board of the court, the APC secretariat and Office of Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

The court further adjourned the suit to January 14, 2025, for hearing.

The daughter of former Delta State governor, James Ibori, and representative of Ethiope Federal Constituency at the National Assembly, Erhiatake Ibori-Suenu, has described her defection from the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to the All Progressives Congress, APC, as the best decision of her political career.

This is as Ibori-Suenu accused the PDP of attempting to stifle her political aspirations.

She also expressed gratitude to her supporters and APC leaders for their encouragement.

“We will bury PDP in Ologbo River, the bridge between Delta and Edo states. I am already at home – APC is supreme.

“The people in PDP wanted to kill my political aspirations, but thank God, I have finally left,” she said.

Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Ikeja Special Offences Court has January 7, 2025, to rule on an application filed by Godwin Emefiele, former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), challenging the court’s jurisdiction over his case.

Emefiele, facing a 26-count charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), is accused of misusing his office, resulting in a loss of $4.5 billion and N2.8 billion.

His co-defendant, Henry Omoile, is also on trial for related charges, including the unlawful acceptance of gifts.

During yesterday’s proceedings, Emefiele’s counsel, Olalekan Ojo SAN, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in Lagos.

He contended that the alleged offences, including abuse of office, fell outside the territorial reach of the Ikeja Special Offences Court.

Ojo further argued that the charges violated Section 36(12) of the Constitution, asserting that the actions Emefiele is accused of were not legally recognized offences.

Ojo emphasized that since the Lagos State House of Assembly does not have legislative authority over matters on the Exclusive Legislative List, Section 73 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011 under which Counts 1 to 4 were filed, cannot apply extraterritorially to any alleged abuse of office by Emefiele.

He argued that a court’s territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographical area within which its authority can be exercised, and outside of this area, the court cannot act.

Ojo also urged the court to strike out Counts 1 to 4 of the 18 amended information filed on April 4, 2024, on the grounds that the offences occurred outside the court’s jurisdiction.

In response, EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo SAN maintained that the court had the authority to hear the case.

He argued that the alleged crimes were economic and financial in nature, within the EFCC’s jurisdiction, and that evidence supported Lagos as the appropriate venue for the trial.

Oyedepo further asserted that the subject matter of the charges fell squarely within the court’s jurisdiction, as the offences were committed within the court’s territorial reach.

He argued that the evidence and witness testimonies pointed to Lagos as the proper location for the trial and that the objections raised by Emefiele’s legal team were not substantiated by the facts or evidence.

After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Oshodi adjourned the matter and fixed January 7, 2025, for ruling.

Daily Sun