It has been reported that Nnamdi Kanu is insisting that the court must first give a ruling on his motions challenging jurisdiction before delivering the final judgment. That is not the law. The judge has discretion and can wait till his final judgment before answering that question. Indeed, the judge had indicated that he will take that question along with his judgment on Thursday.
The relevant provision in the “Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015” that allows the court to defer its ruling on a jurisdictional challenge until the final judgment can be found in Section 269. This section states that a court may, in certain circumstances, decide to hear the evidence and reserve its ruling on any objection relating to jurisdiction until after the conclusion of the trial.
This provision aims to ensure that cases can proceed without unnecessary delays and that justice is not obstructed by preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction. It reflects an effort to balance the rights of the accused with the need for efficient court proceedings. This provision of the law was tested in the case of Justice Walter Onoghen.
The case involving Justice Walter Onoghen, the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, centers around allegations of non-declaration of assets and other ethical breaches related to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
ONOGHEN CASE: BACKGROUND:
1. Appointment: Walter Onoghen was appointed the Chief Justice of Nigeria in 2016.
2. Allegations: He faced accusations of not declaring his assets, specifically regarding bank accounts that were allegedly not disclosed in his asset declaration forms. These claims were made public in late 2018.
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS:
1. Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT): In January 2019, the CCT commenced proceedings against Onoghen. He was charged with six counts of failing to declare his assets as required by the Code of Conduct Bureau.
2. Objections to Jurisdiction: During the trial, Onoghen’s legal team raised objections to the jurisdiction of the CCT to hear the case. They argued that the tribunal lacked the authority to prosecute him, particularly because he had not been properly removed from office.
3. Ruling on Jurisdiction: The CCT declined to rule on the jurisdictional objections immediately, opting instead to reserve its ruling until after the conclusion of the trial. This decision was significant as it allowed the prosecution to proceed with its case without addressing the validity of the objections upfront.
4. Final Judgment: In April 2019, the CCT found Onoghen guilty on some of the charges and subsequently removed him from office. He was sentenced to suspension and fined, although the conviction faced backlash and calls for review from various legal and civil rights groups in Nigeria.
IMPLICATIONS:
The refusal of the tribunal to rule on the objections to jurisdiction until the final judgment was controversial and has been viewed by some as undermining fair trial rights. The capacity of the CCT to exercise discretion in such matters was a point of contention, raising questions about judicial independence and the rule of law in Nigeria.
In May 2020, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ultimately dismissed the case against Onoghen, stating that he had been denied a fair trial. This case has had ongoing implications for discussions around judicial accountability and the integrity of Nigeria’s legal system. There is a difference between Onoghen case and Nnamdi Kanu case. Onoghen was tried by tribunal, while Nnamdi Kanu is being being tried by the Federal High Court.
Also, Kanu is bringing this application in a manner that shows it to be a calculated delay tactics. Assuming the application was brought earlier in the case, I would have supported him. The aim of such application is to avoid wasting time going through trial. But in this case, the prosecution has completed its trial and kanu had exhausted his motion right as regards no case submission. For him to fire his lawyer and start making these applications can be reasonably interpreted as a delay tactics. Besides, the time the court would spend on such application is longer than the date set for judgment. So, Kanu will not suffer any prejudice is he gets the ruling on his application along with the final judgment.
CONCLUSION:
Walter Onoghen’s case illustrates critical issues surrounding judicial proceedings in Nigeria, particularly pertaining to jurisdiction, due process, and the accountability of public officials. The decision to postpone rulings on jurisdictional challenges until the end of trials continues to spark debate about legal principles and practices within the Nigerian judiciary.
