There is confusion at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) as embattled chairman, Danladi Umar and the newly appointed chairman, Mainasara Kogo, are laying claim to its chairmanship.
Inquiries by our correspondent indicate that both persons have officially visited and held discussions with staff of the tribunal without any clear directive on who is in charge, reports Daily Trust.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had on July 13 appointed Kogo as the new chairman of CCT the same day he announced Omolola Oloworaran as the Director-General of the National Pension Commission (PenCom).
Although the staff complained about the lull in the work of the tribunal since the controversy over Umar’s removal began, it was observed that corruption cases involving public servants are still being taken with several charges listed on the course list either for trial or arraignment.
We are confused – Staff
However, senior staff of the tribunal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told our correspondent that they are confused about who to work with as both men have spoken with them and they are only civil servants who obey instructions.
“We are civil servants and we believe we can work with anyone that comes,” a staff said.
“We have not seen any letter to the effect of these changes. We believe there is a procedure for the removal and appointment of a new chairman of the CCT.
“We know that the president and the two arms of government have made pronouncements but we don’t know if invisible hands are working on these but we know there is a process,” he added.
One of the officials said the process is for the appointee to go through the screening by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), who recommends to the National Judicial Council (NJC) and then to the President, who approves and forwards to the Senate for confirmation.
The senior official said there has been a pile of unattended files arising from a lack of clarity on the chairmanship of the tribunal.
“He came today and left and the entire judiciary is now on holiday so we have taken the liberty to adjourn all the outstanding cases to January,” the witness said.
However, a former staff of the tribunal, who pleaded anonymity, criticised Umar for visiting the office after what he said his valid removal.
“Why is he still coming to work seeking to sign some documents and approve payments to contractors?”
He said Umar’s visits were illegal as he was no longer the chairman of the commission.
Umar’s removal endorsed by Senate, Reps
After the presidential announcement removing Umar, both the Senate and the House of Representatives in separate plenaries on November 20 and 26, also endorsed his removal as CCT chairman on allegations of misconduct and corruption.
Both resolutions were hinged on Section 17 (3) Part 1, Fifth Schedule of the Nigerian Constitution and Section 22 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act 2004 for the decision.
The section 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 2/3rd 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 legal dispute over Umar’s tenure is being tested in a suit before a Federal High Court in Abuja by the Community Rescue Initiative, Toro Concerned Citizens and Relief Foundation, who are contending that by 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 (3)(a) (vii) and (b) of the Third—Schedule thereof, the purported concurrence of both Senate and the House of Representatives was null, void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever.
Umar has not been validly removed – Lawyers
Lawyers have picked holes in the process that has created the situation in the CCT with both Umar and Kogo claiming leadership of the tribunal.
Reacting, Sunusi Musa (SAN) said the president did not announce Umar’s removal as provided by the constitution, which states that he can only do so after a resolution of two-thirds of the two houses of the National Assembly.
He explained that at the same time, there have been no further announcements about Kogo’s appointment by the NJC after Umar’s purported removal.
“Where is he getting the powers to visit the tribunal if he has not been appointed by the NJC and has not been inaugurated as the chairman of the tribunal?,” he asked.
Similarly, Dayo Akinlaja (SAN) said if the newly announced chairman has not been issued any letter, which ought to be an instrument of appointment, his appointment is not binding.
He said a letter of appointment would imply that removal has been done which the person affected could then challenge “Not by taking the laws into his hands but through the judicial process.”
In his submission, Haroun Eze, Esq said there are some irregularities in the purported removal of the CCT chairman, Umar.
“The removal did not accord with the procedure for the removal of the CCT chairman and that is why the National Assembly provided that aspect by their resolutions for the removal,” he said.
“Even the resolution, to what extent does it conform to the provision of the Code of Conduct Tribunal Act, particularly Section 22?”
He said the Attorney General of the Federation ought to have commenced an action to establish a case of misconduct against the CCT chairman, which would have given the National Assembly the leeway to pass the resolution they did.
