The President, the Chief Justice and the Law, By Eze Onyekpere

It is clear from the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) that there are two pathways for the removal of the CJN from office. By section 292 (1), it is to be done by the president, acting upon an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of his office, whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or for misconduct or for contravention of the Code of Conduct. The second is under the Third Schedule Part 1, section 21 (b), where the National Judicial Council is vested with the power to recommend to the president the removal from office of the chief justice of Nigeria. The president did not follow any of these procedures in the removal of the CJN.
The president purports to have suspended the CJN from office but in no section of the Constitution is the term ‘suspension’ of the CJN mentioned. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and its provisions bind all authorities in the land, and any law, policy, action or omission inconsistent with its provisions is void to the extent of its inconsistency. Thus, the president’s action was void from the beginning and is therefore not voidable. So, there is nothing to save or rescue from his action in its entirety.
It will be recalled that charges have been laid against the CJN, Justice Onnoghen before the CCT for the breach of the Code of Conduct for public officers. However, the CJN has not been arraigned as he is yet to have the charge read to him and a plea entered before the Tribunal. Justice Onnoghen followed due process by responding to the charge with a challenge to the jurisdiction of the CCT. The challenge was based on recent decisions of the superior courts on the process and procedure for bringing judicial officers to answer for criminal charges. It is imperative to state that jurisdiction is the life blood and basis for any court to enter the hearing of any charge or dispute. Where there is no jurisdiction, all proceedings are in vain and go to no issue. Thus, once the jurisdiction of the CCT is challenged, it must first take a decision on the question before it goes ahead with the proceedings. A decision that it has no jurisdiction terminates the proceedings, whilst a decision that the CCT has jurisdiction will allow the case to proceed. But the CCT adjourned inter alia to hear arguments of the defence on jurisdiction. Thus, the decision on jurisdiction has not been made. The implication of the foregoing order of the CCT is that the CCT has already taken a position on the challenge to its jurisdiction without hearing the parties to the suit. In essence, the CCT heard only one side to the dispute, being the prosecution and gave the defence no opportunity to present its case before arriving at the decision on jurisdiction.

It appears that the chairman of the CCT is a legally and morally challenged person. He has very founded corruption allegations hanging on his neck. The facts are in the public domain from the days of Adoke, the attorney general of the federation, to the Senate president, Bukola Saraki’s case, and now.

The foregoing brings us to a fundamental poser. Can a Tribunal issue a far-reaching order ex-parte in a suit where the parties are already before it and, so to speak, have entered appearance? Alternatively, can a Tribunal entertain an ex-parte request, being exactly the same prayer in a motion on notice which the party filed, served the defence and has a date fixed for the argument of the motion? It is submitted that if such a far-reaching order such as the suspension from office can be reached on the basis of an ex-parte application, there would have been no need for the defendant to be put on notice of the motion. It is clearly an abuse of process for a Tribunal to entertain a prayer ex-parte that has already been fixed for argument on the merits and on notice. There can be no greater judicial mischief and rascality than the decision of the Danladi Umar-led CCT.

Indeed, the CCT had adjourned the matter on January 22, 2019 for the pending motions to be entertained at the next date being January 28, 2019, and on January 24, 2019, the Court of Appeal stayed proceedings in the CCT pending the determination of a motion on notice before the Court. In a barbaric and brutal fashion, the CCT made a decision on Friday the 25th and backdated it to Wednesday January 23, so as to circumvent the order of the Court of Appeal. There can be no greater definition of judicial anarchy than an inferior Tribunal, whose members are not even listed as judicial officers, subverting the decision of the Court of Appeal.

It is important that President Muhammadu Buhari understands that his actions may precipitate a crisis that no one can predict its full course. Therefore, it is time for Nigerians to stand up as men, women and youth to be counted on the side of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with preambular paragraph four of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – to resist tyranny now that human rights, due process and fundamental freedoms have been denied by the authorities.

May God save Nigeria from anarchy, internal strife and illegality.