Three senior legal practitioners including the Executive Director of the Centre for Socio- Legal Studies, Prof. Yemi Akinseye George, SAN, and a Law scholar, Dr. Wahab Shittu, SAN, have dismissed as illegal and unconstitutional last Wednesday?s sack of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Yakubu Danladi Umar.

The lawyers contended that the upper chamber of the National Assembly has no powers under the law to sack a judicial officer just as they expressed worry that a Senate populated by senior and knowledgeable lawyers could go that route. They have consequently advised the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to call the attention of President Bola Tinubu to the anomaly, saying the senate cannot remove a judicial officer from office in a democratic setting, as it did in the case of the CCT chairman. The other lawyer who condemned the senate on its stance while speaking with Vanguard on the matter, is a former leader of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, but who pleaded anonymity.

CCT Chairman can?t be removed without input of the House of Reps ?Shittu

According to Shittu, SAN, ?Section 17 (3) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution 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 two- thirds 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 powers of removal of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal under the above provision is vested in the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who is to act based on a two-thirds majority decision of each House of the National Assembly supporting the move. In other words, the power of removal is vested in the President subject to the recommendation of both the House of Representatives and the Senate exercisable by a two-thirds majority of their votes. ?The question that arises is whether in the present circumstances, the Senate is entitled to act to finality without carrying along its counterpart?the House of Representatives and without reference to the President? In my view, it will amount to putting the cart before the horse or acting in defiance of presidential powers.

?The Senate is entitled to take that decision but it can only be finalized by carrying along its counterpart?House of Representatives together with reference to the President. The removal authority is actually the president while the two chambers of the National Assembly is the recommender.

?The implication is that no removal can be constitutional without the input of both chambers of the National Assembly and the President. In other words, while it will appear that the Senate acted within constitutional limit of 157(1) of the Constitution to the extent that the incumbent was removed for misconduct, it is important to stress that section 157 (1) of the 1999 Constitution relied upon by the Senate to sack the Code of Conduct Tribunal is inapplicable. He cannot be sacked without the input of the House of Representatives and the President as contained in Section 17(3) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution,? he added.

Another lawyer who is a member of the inner bar from the South-South but who pleaded anonymity told Vanguard: ?Is it the senate that removes a judge? The Senate president knows he can?t remove a judge, he can only make recommendations. He cannot remove anybody. If the Senate has anything, it knows what to do. The senate has petitioned judges before. They can petition,? he rang off.

CCT not among offices Senate can exercise its powers on ?Prof George

But Prof. Akinseye George, SAN who spoke extensively on the matter, specifically said: ?I have just read section 157(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution relied upon by the Senate to sack the CCT chairman. Section 157 (1) of the 1999 Constitution does not give powers to the Senate to remove the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. For emphasis, Section 157 (1) provides that a person holding the offices to which this section applies may only be removed from that office by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct.

?Under Section 157 (2), a list of the offices that the senate can exercise its powers under Section 157(1) include that of the Code of Conduct Bureau, the Federal Civil Service Commission, the Independent National Electoral Commission, the National Judicial Council, the Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Federal Character Commission, the Nigeria Police Council, the National Population Commission, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission and the Police Service Commission.

?The Code of Conduct Tribunal is missing from the list. And I know that while the Code of Conduct Bureau is an executive body, the Code of Conduct Tribunal is a judicial body. The Senate can?t remove the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. For the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal to be removed, there must be compliance with the provision of section 17 of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. Specifically, Section 17(3) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides:

?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 a two-thirds 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.

?We have to follow the constitution. This is democracy. You may not like the face of the person there but you will need to follow the process. Otherwise, we will all be endangered. So, in my view, the Attorney General of the Federation should advise Mr President to follow the constitution. And the man who has been appointed will also need to follow the constitution. What goes round comes round. They must follow the constitution. It will be on record that Mr President who is a known democrat is disregarding the constitution. And I don?t think he will do that. They should call his attention to that.

?And if the President goes ahead and it is challenged in court, the process will be reversed. Unless there is something they know that we don?t know. But as far as the letter of the constitution that I can read and interpret is concerned, you cannot remove the chairman of the code of conduct tribunal without two third from each house. We must follow the constitution,? he added.

Meanwhile, another respected member of the inner bar and former Attorney-General of Abia State, Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN, who also shared his perspective with Vanguard spoke in parable.

His words: ?I will just ask you a question: Is it not the same Code of Conduct Tribunal that removed a sitting Chief Justice? Abi, no be so? As they say abroad, illegality begets another (laughed).? When he was asked to confirm if the decision of the Senate was constitutional or not, he simply answered: ?I?m not going to go that far. I?m not going that far. If we go into the history and legal development, you will see that the Code of Conduct Bureau is interchanged with Code of Conduct Tribunal. It is like the story of the egg and the hen. Which one came first? That?s where we are.

?Nigeria will be moving in such a way that one day, we will all wake up and be doing what is right. Because one day, you will wake up and see somebody who will remove himself thinking that he is removing another person. Nigeria go better (laughed). The Senate President is a senior lawyer. He understands all these. There is no need to make a categorical statement about this. The hen and the egg, which one came first?? he asked rhetorically.

Presidency also goofed

Another source from the Code of Conduct Tribunal who also preferred anonymity told Vanguard that the CCT Chairman heard the news of his removal by the senate on TV while going home on Wednesday. ?The government can remove or sack any civil servant. But it must be done following procedure.?

In July this year, President Tinubu by a press statement announced one Dr. Mainasara Umar Kogo as the new Code of Conduct Tribunal chairman without following procedure. The Federal Judicial Service Commission and the National Judicial Council did not screen Dr. Kogo. They were not aware of the appointment.

Whereas, the chairman of the CCT is a judicial officer who is appointed into office the same way other judicial officers are appointed. A press statement from the Presidency stated that Dr. Kogo would take over from Danladi Umar

?The Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Fagbemi, SAN, was embarrassed as he was not carried along.

The attention of the Presidency was drawn to this and the error has been corrected by changing the office of Dr. Kogo to the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau. He has since been sworn into office about two months ago. So, which appointee of the President is the senate talking about on Wednesday that will replace Justice Umar when it purportedly sacked the tribunal chairman? The Senate has senior lawyers in its fold. They should know that the Senate can only exercise the power of removal from office over officials of executive bodies listed under section 157(2) of the 1999 Constitution and not judicial bodies like the Code of Conduct Tribunal

?I personally have no problem with the decision of the government to remove any civil servant from office if there is a reason to do so. But in all things, the procedure should be followed,? he added.

It would be recalled that the Senate on Wednesday sacked the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT, Yakubu Danladi Umar, from office with immediate effect. That was more than five months after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had removed him and named a replacement, Dr. Mainasara Umar Kogo, without following procedure.

Kogo is a seasoned lawyer and analyst in the fields of law, security, economy, politics, and international diplomacy. He was expected to replace Justice Danladi Umar whose tenure of office was still running at the time Kogo?s appointment was announced in July this year. Tinubu who did not give any reason for the purported sack of Justice Danladi, said that he expected the new chairman, Dr. Kogo, to discharge the functions of his office with professionalism, integrity, and fidelity to the nation.

However, soon after Dr. Mainassara Kogo was named the new chairman of the CCT, top lawyers in private and public service including a former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Bayero University Kano, Prof. Mamman Lawan Yusufari, SAN, Mr Ikoro N. Ikoro, among others, faulted the appointment for more reasons than one.

Specifically, the lawyers, by their combined submissions, cited Paragraphs 15 (3), 17 (1),(3),(4) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) for standing against Justice Umar?s removal. Indeed, Paragraph 15(3) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) provides that the Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal shall be appointed by the President in accordance with the recommendation of the National Judicial Council while Paragraph 17(3) provides that they shall not be removed from their office except upon an address supported by two-thirds majority of each House of the National Assembly only for inability to discharge the functions of the office in question (whether arising from infirmity of the mind or body) or for misconduct or for contravention of this code

Similarly Paragraph 17(1) says the Chairman or member of the Code of Conduct Tribunal shall vacate his office when he attains the age of seventy (70) years while Paragraph 17(4) says the chairman or members of the tribunal shall not be removed from office before retiring age save in accordance with the provisions of the code of conduct for public officers.

The lawyers who cited the provisions said that though it is not in dispute that Dr. Kogo may be qualified for appointment as chairman of CCT, yet, the record showed that he was not recommended by either the Federal Judicial Service Commission or the National Judicial Council to President Tinubu, a condition precedent, before his appointment was announced.

It was also their argument that though Justice Umar had had a running battle with the authorities in the past, yet, at no time was he indicted of misconduct nor were the two chambers of the National Assembly, by an address, supported by two-third majority, asked for his removal from office. Besides, the lawyers said Justice Danladi is less than 70 years and therefore cannot be removed except according to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

Following the opposition to Danladi?s removal by press statement, President Tinubu went back to the drawing board to strategize on how to actually boot him out of office. Although Danladi Umar himself wrote a letter to the Presidency to protest his removal, not a word was said in response. Danladi consequently remained in office and had started sitting as CCT chairman while Dr. Kogo was shut out of office.

But on Wednesday, the upper chamber of the National Assembly revisited the issue. Relying on the provisions of Section 157 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the senate said that Danladi was no longer fit to remain in the office by virtue of what it called his unacceptable misconduct.

Justice Danladi?s sins

Going down memory lane, Justice Danladi has actually had issues with the authorities lately. For instance, in 2018, Mr. Festus Keyamo, as an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, prosecutor, had filed a bribery and judicial racketeering case against Justice Danladi Umar, Chairman, Code of Conduct Tribunal. He was accused of receiving N1.8 million out of alleged N10 million he demanded from one Rasheed Taiwo in 2012. But the then Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, withdrew Keyamo?s case against Umar for ?lack of merit?.

The case was subsequently struck out by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the Abuja High Court. His role in the code of conduct cases against former Senate President, Bukola Saraki and a former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen had caused him to step on toes.

The name of Danladi Umar resurfaced once again on March 29, 2021for the wrong reasons. He was seen in a viral video assaulting a 22-year-old security guard, Clement Sargwak, whose only offence was that he tried to do his job ? ensure that Umar?s car was properly parked at the Banex Plaza parking lot, Wuse 2, in Abuja.

The Tribunal was later to issue a statement accusing Sargwak of threatening Umar and being ?rude?. The statement described the people who tried to save Sargwak from his highly-placed physical assailant as ?Biafra boys?. Contrary to expectations, those who hoped that the incident would, as usual, die down after the initial fuss, were mistaken. Several steps were taken by concerned rights groups to bring him to justice.

One, Sargwak?s legal counsel, Samuel Ihensekhien, Esq, petitioned the National Human Rights Commission, NHRC, seeking an indictment of Umar for aggravated physical assault, cybercrime, racism and distribution of xenophobic material.

Two, the lawyer also filed a petition against Mr Umar to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petition to investigate him and determine whether he remains a fit and proper person to continue to sit as chairman of the CCT. The Senate panel headed by Ayo Akinyelure summoned Justice Danladi to appear before the Senate.

But instead of him to appear, the judicial officer had approached a Federal high court with an originating summons dated July 13, 2021, seeking an order to bar the senate from probing him while the panel suspended its sitting until the conclusion of the case.

Three, the first Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, John Aikpokpo Martins, petitioned Umar at the Legal Practitioners? Privileges Council, LPPC, for violating professional conduct and putting the legal profession into public ridicule. Also, a number of civil society groups called for action against Umar to save the sanctity of the office he occupies.

Also in June 2022, some workers in the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Abuja, accused Justice Danladi Umar, of fraud, corruption, nepotism and marginalization. The chairman was also accused of awarding fraudulent contracts to friends without recourse to procedure and due process while he was also said to have blocked annual training for staff, among other allegations including that he had bed in his office.

But in all of these allegations, no indictment has been successfully established against him neither had the National Assembly, to the public knowledge, prayed President Tinubu to remove Justice Danladi upon an address by the two chambers of the national legislature as required by the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) until Wednesday when the senate took the bull by its horn. (Saturday Vanguard)

Update news