Tinubu Acquitted On Technicality For Operating 16 Foreign Accounts (Throwback)

Former Lagos Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s integrity remained intact yesterday, with the Code of Conduct Tribunal liberating him of the three-count cost introduced by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

The Nationwide Chief of the Motion Congress of Nigeria (ACN) was charged with allegedly working overseas accounts whereas in workplace.
Tribunal Chairman Justice Danladi Umar stated the cost constituted an abuse of courtroom course of, judging by the style the prosecution withdrew it and filed an amended cost. This, he stated, robbed the tribunal of jurisdiction.

The three-man panel additionally quashed the amended cost for not disclosing any prima facie case in opposition to Tinubu.

Justice Umar stated the CCB failed to satisfy the situation precedent laid down within the Act establishing the tribunal.
He stated the prosecution couldn’t show that they duly invited Tinubu to both deny or admit in writing the allegations in opposition to him.
Moreover, he identified that no affidavit or exhibit was hooked up to the cost to determine prima facie.
The Tribunal arrived on the determination after upholding Tinubu’s preliminary objection as argued by his staff of legal professionals, led Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).

Additionally for Tinubu are former NBA President Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), Charles Edosomwan (SAN), Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), Dele Belgore (SAN), Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), Kabiru Turaki (SAN), Emeka Ngige (SAN), Deji Sasegbon (SAN), Dele Adesina (SAN), Mrs. Jumoke Anifowoshe and Dr. Tunji Abayomi.

Others are: Mr. Femi Falana, Alh. Lai Mohammed,Tunde Braimoh, Muiz Banire, Oye Akintola, Funso Olukoga, E. Okara, Dapo Akin Osun, M. I Komolafe, Toke Benson Awoyinka, Sola Iji, Onuora,Yakubu Gana Haruna,Lanre Obadina, Bimpe Awogbomogun, R.O Oloyede, T.C Okafor, Aisha Ali, Abdulmajid Oniyangi, Samuel Abba, Gbenga Adeyemi, Soli Olowalafe, Joshua Alogbu and Uche Onyeagocha.

Governors Raji Fashola (SAN), Rauf Aregbesola (Osun) and Ibikunle Amosu (Ogun) have been on the session. So additionally have been Senators John Akpanudoedehe and Olorunnimbe Mamora in addition to many ACN chieftains.
Justice Umar stated: “I’ve painstakingly thought of the argument of the counsel.

The prosecution claimed it invited the applicant. The invitation prolonged to the applicant presupposes the significance of the invitation. The allegation by the accused/applicant counsel was made overtly on this courtroom. It’s my opinion that it’s a situation precedent to ask an accused to make a written admission or deny it.

“The accused must have been invited. That is lacking on this case and the prosecution has no proof that it did. The intention of the legislator in inserting the situation in Part 3d can’t be overemphasised. I hereby resolve the difficulty in favour of the accused.”

Announcing your entire proceedings an abuse of courtroom course of, Justice Umar referred to the applicant’s submission that there’s a pending attraction on comparable points on the Court docket of Enchantment, which isn’t pursued by the complainant.

Mentioned Justice Umar: “It was on this courtroom that we truly obtained the amended cost. To me the complainant didn’t comply with the due process. In case you wished to amend your cost, it is best to have submitted a replica of these cost you wished so as to add for analyses, after which if we go give a go-ahead, you file the cost. Then the accused will now know he’s dealing with a three-count cost, not one depend cost. I strongly consider you can’t do justice by ambushing …

“In view of my determination on subject two, I’m of the opinion that the cost herein is an abuse of courtroom course of. When a courtroom discovers that its course of has been abused, the right order to make is to dismiss similar and it’s hereby dismissed.”

Justice Umar confused that there was the necessity to make a pronouncement on different points raised earlier than the Tribunal to set the document straight.
Dismissing the argument by the applicant’s counsel that the right place for the Tribunal to take a seat is Lagos and never Abuja, Justice Umar stated: “There is no such thing as a geographical boundary for the tribunal. It’s one tribunal with no division just like the Federal Excessive Court docket. Its jurisdiction is nationwide.”
On the allegation that Tinubu operated overseas accounts, the Tribunal stated there was no prima facie case established in opposition to the previous governor.

It noticed that there have been different names totally different from Tinubu’s which are on the overseas accounts allegedly operated by him.
Faulting the prosecution, Justice Umar stated “the amended cost in opposition to the applicant doesn’t embody operation of overseas accounts by proxy”.

He puzzled why Tinubu must be made to reply instances on accounts which aren’t bearing his title, with the prosecution failing to determine the hyperlink between the particular person(s) talked about with Tinubu.
Moreover, he stated the amended cost didn’t obtain the tribunal’s blessing earlier than it was introduced, including that it has no exhibit or affidavit in assist.

“It’s the legislation that an amended cost constitutes a brand new matter altogether, totally different from the one the tribunal initially summoned the accused/applicant to come back and defend. The impact is that an amended cost has successfully worn out the sooner order to come back and defend the one depend cost, which is now substituted by a three-count cost.

“How on earth can it’s stated {that a} prima facie case has been made when there is no such thing as a proof of proof earlier than this tribunal. In truth, the discovered Senior Advocate for the complainant isn’t courageous sufficient to say that there’s a new affidavit and abstract of proof hooked up. How on earth will we count on the accused/applicant to be tried on this faulty cost. The truth that it was this tribunal that originally ordered the accused/applicant particular person to look earlier than it, pursuant to the preliminary cost, can’t represent the precipe on which the tribunal ought to proceed to listen to the case with out proof of proof.

“The correct of the accused particular person to honest listening to is inseparably tied to the proof of proof required to show the allegations in opposition to him. On this case, the abstract proof of Salisu Garba hooked up to the preliminary cost can’t resurrect the brand new cost, having been buried below the rubble of the modification searched for by the complainant and duly granted by the honourable courtroom.

“I take closing liberty to check out the amended cost itself. I say emphatically that there is no such thing as a adequate foundation to proceed in opposition to the accused/applicant. The amended expenses declare that the applicant engaged himself within the operation of a number of overseas financial institution accounts.
“The brand new cost didn’t say that the accused/applicant operated overseas accounts by trustees or by proxy.”

The decide held that the complainant failed to produce proof of proof to allow the accused/applicant put together for the cost.
“It’s the legislation that the argument of counsel, irrespective of how stunning, can’t represent an proof. Argument of counsel, nonetheless offered can’t substitute proof not pleaded.

“Within the circumstance, no prima facie case has been made in opposition to the accused. The submitting of the amended cost with none affidavit …
“It’s only when that is proven with the assertion of the account {that a} prima facie could be stated to have been made in opposition to the accused/applicant. The non-filing of an affidavit pursuant to the amended cost there is no such thing as a foundation to consider that the accused/applicant truly misinformed the Code of Conduct Bureau about his monetary dealings.

“Within the circumstance and based mostly on all of the findings, I’ve made out earlier, I maintain that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed to attempt the accused/applicant and the amended cost is hereby quashed. The accused applicant is hereby discharged.”
On the final sitting, Olanipekun had argued that the CCT lacks the jurisdiction to attempt Tinubu.
He contended that the applicant was not invited for questioning by the CCB as was within the case of different former governors who had been excluded from trial.

The CCB Chairman, Mr. Sam Saba, had on September 27 advised reporters in Abuja that a few of the former governors earlier accused of breaching the oath of public workplace had made some refund, therefore their exclusion from trial.

The Prosecution had on September 21 withdrew the one-count cost and filed an amended cost of three-count cost with the identical particulars.
Within the movement introduced pursuant to Sections 36(6) (a) (b), 36 (12) and paragraph 15 of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Structure; Part 3 and

paragraph 1 of the third Schedule of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, Olanipekun argued that the amended cost constitutes an abuse of courtroom course of.

He urged the panel of three Justices to quash and/or strike out the three depend amended cost filed on September 20 in opposition to Tinubu by the Complainant/Respondent.

He additionally prayed for *An order discharging the Applicant (Tinubu), and for such additional order or orders because the Tribunal might deem match to make within the circumstances.

Within the software, which was accompanied by an 11-paragraph affidavit and predicated on 10 grounds, Olanipekun stated that the criticism acknowledged within the cost by the Complanant isn’t identified to the 1999 Structure.

Moreover, he argued that the situation precedent earlier than an individual may very well be charged earlier than a Tribunal had not been met.
Olanipekun referred to Part 3 of the CCB and Tribunal Act, which states that “the place the particular person involved makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance no reference to the Tribunal shall be needed”.

“What the prosecution is doing is to place one thing on nothing; they need it to face, it is not going to stand; it would collapse like a pack of playing cards,” he stated, including:
“The place an individual could make a written admission, there can be no want for trial, the applicant should be invited; there is no such thing as a short-cut about this, it’s paramount, it’s elementary. The CCB stated it invited these different governors. Whether it is good for the goose of these governors, it should be good for his or her gander’.
“Your lordship should make findings; was he invited? The CCB doesn’t have a coercive energy; what it has is interactive energy. Was he invited? On what day and who was the courier?
“Please, be aware of the phrase a number of occasions’ acknowledged within the counter-affidavit of the Complainant. They haven’t made any infraction of time.

“Of their counter-affidavit, the deponent stated ‘I used to be knowledgeable by the Complainant via one other particular person’, however the Complainant, which is the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is a jurisdiction entity and never a pure particular person. It’s only a pure particular person that may inform. Federal Republic of Nigeria is you and I; it is just a pure particular person that may inform and also you consider. Nigeria can’t be an informant; the informant should bear his father’s title.”
Arguing additional, Olanipekun stated “as on the time the Applicant got here to the courtroom, there have been two expenses in opposition to him”.
He described the amended cost as an abuse of courtroom course of.

Criticising the style the Complainant withdrew the primary cost when the amended cost had already been filed, Olanipekun stated: “One doesn’t sit throughout the confine of his workplace or dwelling to say ‘I withdraw’. Withdrawal must be formal; there must be pronouncements; then there can be a proper order both putting out or dismissing it. They can not withdraw in our absence. This discover of withdrawal constitutes an abuse of courtroom course of; they filed it after receiving our movement.”
The applicant’s counsel additionally challenged the venue of the trial-Abuja. In accordance with him, trial must be in Lagos, the place the place the alleged offence was dedicated.

Olanipekun additionally argued that the cost disclosed no nexus between the folks talked about on the cost sheet and disclosed no data on the standing of the overseas accounts referred to.

“It’s amorphous, nebulous; it’s at massive. There’s nothing in it. When was the account opened, when was it operated. Trying on the cost, they talked about some names, ‘we don’t know them’. Legal trials isn’t a disguise and search recreation, there can’t be trial by ambush. There’s nothing within the cost earlier than you exhibiting the connection between these talked about within the cost.”
However the Prosecution counsel, Alex Iziyon (SAN), urged the courtroom to dismiss the applying.
He argued that jurisidcition is an administrative matter, including that it’s untimely to say now we have not disclosed the nexus of the names on the cost.

In accordance with him, the CCB has the discretion on whether or not to cost an accused to Tribunal after making a written admission, including that the Bureau isn’t below compulsion.
On the amended cost, Iziyon stated what the Applicant via his counsel must have achieved is to problem the go away granted to choose the amended cost.

However the Tribunal Chairman, who overruled him, stated the Complainant couldn’t have been conscious because it was achieved within the chamber.
Replying on level of legislation, Olanipekun urged the tribunal to discountenance the submission of the Complainant.