Onnoghen stays away from CCT, as South South Governors, PDP ask him to ignore summons

*I was not properly served summons – CJN

*He asked me to serve his Personal Secretary on his behalf – Registrar

*Case adjourned to January 22 to properly serve Onnoghen

*Don’t take contrary directive, ensure personal service on CJN – CCB Counsel

Following the submission, the Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Danladi Umar asked the court registrar for the report of service of summons on the CJN.  The registrar informed the court that the CJN, on Friday, directed him to serve his personal secretary with the summons on his behalf.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mr. Walter Samuel Onnoghen, stayed away from Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Monday.

His absence followed the calls on him by Governors of South South and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) not to answer the summons of the court, which many Nigerians home and abroad have now viewed as clear efforts by opposition politicians in Nigeria to weaken institutions in the country even, according to them, when they are not the ones in power.

CJN Onnoghen, however, claimed he stayed away from the Tribunal because he was not properly served the summons requiring him to appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to face trial over alleged false asset declaration and corruption charges.

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) filed a six-count charge against the CJN over alleged failure to declare his asset upon assumption of office as provided in Section 15 (1) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act C15, punishable under Section 23 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the same Act.

At the hearing on Monday, Justice Onnoghen, who is being represented by about 25 Senior Advocates of Nigeria and over 50 other lawyers, said he was not served in person as provided by law.

Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who is leading the defence team, argued that Section 123 (a) and 124 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) mandated personal service of the defendant in criminal matters.

Olanipekun also challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter, adding that the defendant was not served with leave of court containing the date for the arraignment.

“Our appearance here is on protest. We are not yet at the stage of trial,” he said.

Following the submission, the Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Danladi Umar asked the court registrar for the report of service of summons on the CJN.

The registrar informed the court that the CJN, on Friday, directed him to serve his personal secretary with the summons on his behalf.

A mild drama ensued when the chairman of the tribunal said the rule allows service on the defendant’s next door neighbour.

But Olanipekun expressed surprise that service in a criminal matter can be served on a neighbour without an order of court for substituted service to that effect.

Prosecution counsel, Aliyu Umar asked the court to order the trial of the defendant before any objection can be raised.

“We concede that personal service is mandatory in criminal matters under Section 123 of the ACJA, however arraignment has to be made before any objection,” he said.

He however, suggested an adjournment to allow for fresh service to be personally served on the CJN.

Tribunal adjourns till January 22

In the meantime, the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has adjourned to January 22, the proceedings in the non-declaration of assets and money laundering charges against the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Samuel Onnoghen.

The adjournment came following the agreement of all parties that the charge and summons was not properly served on the CJN.

The CJN’s lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) had argued that Section 123(a) of ACJA directs that, in a criminal case, the summons must be personally served on the defendant.

The prosecution counsel, Umar Aliyu had asked the tribunal to direct that the bailiff must ensure that he does not take any contrary directive but must ensure personal service on the CJN.

Following back and forth of over 40 minutes, the CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar adjourned the proceedings to January 22.

He directed that the summons must be served on the defendant before the date.

He also directed that all the interlocutory applications would be heard on the next adjourned date.

The CJN was absent throughout Monday’s proceedings.