Following our different activities and publications for the development and advancement of this country, the NYIF National Executive Council (NEC) held an Emergency meeting in Lagos on Thursday trebling on the country’s law which is already becoming National issues and our latest discoveries show that Nigeria is headed for breakup if care is not taken.
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court conferring quasi-criminal jurisdiction on the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), to try criminal offences before it, is raising several issues in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. The issues are the constitutionality of a court or tribunal not covered under Sections 6 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, can be validly said to exercise judicial powers to try criminal offences, if they are not derived from the Grundnum. A professor of Constitutional Law, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and a former Minister of Education, Ben Nwabueze, an Octogenarian, believes that the Supreme Court judgment granting the CCT quasi-criminal powers to try offenders will not stand the test of time as the judgment in question is at all times, at variance with the Constitution, adding that any attempt to enforce the judgment will spell doom for the county’s democracy.
Prof.; share this burning interest you have to interpret or criticize the recent Supreme Court’s judgment on Senate President, Bukola Saraki, which confers quasi-criminal jurisdiction on the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Is it a demonstration of personal interest or an urge to safeguard Nigeria’s constitutional democracy?
It is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on Nigeria’s Constitutional system that is in issue. Our constitutional system is based on legislative power, which is vested in the National Assembly under Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the executive power, vested in the President, under Section 5 of the Constitution and the judicial power, vested in the courts, under Section 6 of the same Constitution. These were the pillars of our constitutional system. Anything that will undermine this pillar (judicial power) will put us into trouble. This is my concern about the decision of the Supreme Court in the Saraki case. Here lies my interest.
Looking at the judgment so critically, to see whether it puts into jeopardy our constitutional system, we have to look at this judgment from the point of view of the Supreme Court, as the court of last resort. Therefore, the Supreme Court should realize its peculiar situation under the constitutional system and to try to make sure that its decisions and judgments are based on the Constitution. A violation of each of the three powers, the judicial power is the one in issue, will spell doom for the country.
What are judicial powers and their incidents? In whom is judicial power vested under the Constitution? This is an issue the Supreme Court did not consider in giving its decision to confer quasi criminal jurisdiction on the Code of Conduct Tribunal, arguing that the Constitution confers quasi criminal jurisdiction on the tribunal.
What is quasi-criminal jurisdiction? It means ‘as if’, ‘not really’. I was intrigued by that expression. The tribunal by the decision of the Supreme Court tries to derive that quasi jurisdiction both from the Constitution and the Act of the National Assembly. Can the tribunal derive its criminal jurisdiction quasi or not quasi from the Constitution that we know? It is impossible to derive it. The Supreme Court in its decision tried to suggest that CCT has quasi criminal jurisdiction by saying that there are various terms and expressions in the Constitution that suggest that the CCT has a quasi-criminal jurisdiction.
Quasi-criminal jurisdiction or criminal jurisdiction means that the CCT can try people for criminal offences and punish them.
Whereas Section 36(12) says clearly that you cannot try, convict and punish a person for a criminal offence unless that offence is defined in written law and the punishment therefore, is also prescribed by the written law. It goes on to say that the written law under this provision means an Act of the National Assembly, a Law of the State House of Assembly, Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument. It does not mention the Constitution. So, you cannot try anybody or punish anybody under the Constitution for a criminal offence unless there is a law defining the offence. Therefore, there is no way the CCT can derive its quasi-criminal jurisdiction from the Constitution. Where this court tries to derive its quasi-criminal jurisdiction from the Constitution, it will be contrary or at variance with this provision of the Constitution and therefore null and void.
Some stakeholders are asking why you are questioning the status of the CCT now instead of the time former governor of Lagos State, Ahmed Bola Tinubu appeared before the same tribunal over asset declaration offence.
I was not aware that Tinubu was tried at the CCT. I was only aware that the matter was before the CCB. I did not know the matter proceeded to trial.
What then informed this present questioning of the CCT’s status and jurisdiction requiring accurate prescription from the Constitution or Grundnum. Is it because it involves Saraki?
The issue was not raised in the case of Tinubu. Though it can be raised at any time. Because the issue was not raised during Tinubu’s time does not preclude it from being raised now. I have no special interest in Saraki’s case, I am only concerned about the Constitution. The issue of CCT’s status and its quasi-criminal jurisdiction remains a constitutional issue and must be resolved if this country must be in peace. I mean, this must be resolved now because if it is not resolved, so many people who may have the same experience, including the former governors are not free from this accusation of false declaration of assets. The issue is of such national importance, that it should be investigated, examined and final authoritative decision given. A decision that takes into account the constitutional provisions relevant to it.
The second point I want to make is that you cannot derive the quasi-criminal jurisdiction from the Constitution because of Section 36 (12) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. You can also not derive it because of Section 6 of the Constitution which is a more complex issue. Section 36(12) can be seen and understood that the argument based on Section 6 is a little too intricate for non-lawyers to understand, even for lawyers, not all lawyers will appreciate it. It is Section 6 that vests judicial powers in the courts, just like the legislative power is vested in the National Assembly under Section 4 and the executive power is vested in the President under Section 5.
Is the CCT one of the courts in whom judicial powers are vested? Section 6(5) lists the courts that judicial powers are vested with. The CCT is not one of them. Even in the Residual Clause, CCT is not also covered in the Clause. No one can contest that CCT is not one of the courts in which judicial powers is vested. What are the implications of vesting judicial powers in the courts? This has been established by an authority long time ago from the High Court of Australia, which is the highest court in that country, which is equivalent to our Supreme Court where it said that ‘an exclusive incident of judicial power is the power to try, convict and punish people for criminal offences. That criminal jurisdiction appertains exclusively to judicial power’. These were the words used by the high court by Sir Samuel Walker Griffiths Chief Justice and Premier of Australia, who delivered the judgment for the court.
Any court or tribunal in which judicial power is not vested cannot try, convict or punish people for criminal offence.
This decision of the High Court of Australia has been followed by our own courts, by our Supreme Court in Shofekun v. Adewumi, a judgment of Justice Fatai Williams, CJN, as he then was, in a unanimous judgment that included the best of the judges we had had at the Supreme Court. They ruled that once you have accused a person of a criminal offence he must be tried before a court of law in which judicial power is vested.
This is so laid down as part of our constitutional system.
What is in issue here is not whether Saraki is guilty or not guilty. Nobody is trying to shelter Saraki. He should be tried for offences alleged against him. But he has a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with Section 6 of our Constitution. To go against that is to put into jeopardy our constitutional system. The Supreme Court should not be allowed to put all of us into this kind of jeopardy.
This country belongs to all of us, not to the Justices of the Supreme Court alone.
Since CCT is not vested with the power to try criminal offences, will you prefer if Saraki is tried at the Federal High Court?
Nigeria youth are so sensitive to the happenings in our country presently, and we cannot sit and let the democracy labored for being jeopardized. NIGERIA YOUTH INITIATIVE FORUM is calling our president attention to rule of law to make Nigeria law to be effective in his own time.
On this issue we take our stand and our stand must be looked into, we are young professionals- lawyers, doctors, accountants e.t.c
DON’T ALLOW NIGERIANS EXPECTATIONS. TURN TO FRUSTRATION. Nigeria youth initiatives forum calls on president Muhammadu Buhari to hit the ground running. Organization cautions that if care is not taken the huge EXPECTATIONS of NIGERIANS youth during the last general elections might soon turn to FRUSTRATIONS.
Signed
Wahab Ayinde Sikiru Alabi Samuel Olumide
NATIONAL PRESIDENT NATIONAL SECRETARY
08033589431, 08177568439 07030288496, 08088066757
