Sacked CCT Chairman refuses to quit, lawyers say he was not legally removed
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
Officials of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) have expressed confusion over who is charge of the tribunal as sacked Chairman Danladi Umar and new appointee Mainasara Kogo both lay claim to the post.
The two men have officially visited the CCT and held discussions with staff without clear directive on whose instructions to follow.
President Bola Tinubu on July 13 appointed Kogo as the new CCT Chairman, the day he also picked Omolola Oloworaran as National Pension Commission (PenCom) Director General.
According to reporting by Daily Trust, although CCT officials complain about the lull in the work of the tribunal since the controversy over Umar’s removal began, corruption cases involving public servants are still being taken with several charges listed on the course list for trial or arraignment.
CCT staff express confusion
Some senior officials of the CCT who do not want their names published said they are confused about who to work with as both Umar and Kogo have recently addressed them, making it difficult to function as civil servants meant to obey instructions.
“We are civil servants and we believe we can work with anyone that comes,” one reiterated.
“We have not seen any letter to the effect of these changes. We believe there is a procedure for the removal and appointment of a new Chairman of the CCT.
“We know that the President and the two arms of government have made pronouncements but we don’t know if invisible hands are working on these but we know there is a process.”
One of the officials said the process is for an appointee is to be screened by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) which recommends the appointee to the National Judicial Council (NJC) and then to the President, who approves and forwards the name of the appointee to the Senate for confirmation.
The official disclosed that there is a pile of unattended files arising from the lack of clarity on the chairmanship of the CCT.
“He [Umar] came today and left and the entire judiciary is now on holiday so we have taken the liberty to adjourn all the outstanding cases to January,” the man said.
A former official who pleaded anonymity criticised Umar for visiting the office after what he described as his valid removal.
“Why is he still coming to work seeking to sign some documents and approve payments to contractors?” he wondered.
In his view, Umar’s visits to the CCT are illegal as he is no longer the Chairman.
Lawmakers endorsed Umar’s removal
After Aso Rock announced the removal of Umar, the Senate on November 20 and the House of Representatives on November 26 endorsed his sack as CCT Chairman on allegations of misconduct and corruption.
Both resolutions were based on Section 17 (3) Part 1, Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and Section 22 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act 2004.
The Section states 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 2/3rd 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.”
Umar’s terminated tenure is being contested in a lawsuit filed at the Abuja Federal High Court by the Community Rescue Initiative, Toro Concerned Citizens, and Relief Foundation.
The plaintiffs contend that by Sections 1(1) and (3), 6(6), 153 (1) (e) & (i) of the Constitution and Paragraph (3)(a) (vii) and (b) of the Third Schedule thereof, the purported concurrence of the National Assembly (NASS) is null, void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever.
Lawyers argue Umar not legally removed
Some lawyers faulted the process that created the situation in which both Umar and Kogo are claiming leadership of the CCT.
Sunusi Musa SAN, said Tinubu did not announce Umar’s removal as provided by the Constitution, which states that the President can only do so after a resolution of two-thirds of the two houses of the NASS.
He also noted that there has been no further announcement about Kogo’s appointment by the NJC after Umar’s purported removal.
“Where is [Kogo] getting the powers to visit the tribunal if he has not been appointed by the NJC and has not been inaugurated as the Chairman of the tribunal?” Musa asked.
Dayo Akinlaja SAN, argued that if Kogo has not been issued a letter of appointment, which is the instrument of appointment, his appointment is not binding.
He insisted that a letter of appointment would imply that removal has been done which the person affected could then challenge, “not by taking the law into his hands but through the judicial process.”
Another legal practitioner, Haroun Eze, cited irregularities in the purported removal of Umar.
In his view, “the removal did not accord with the procedure for the removal of the CCT Chairman and that is why the National Assembly provided that aspect by their resolutions for the removal.
“Even the resolution, to what extent does it conform to the provision of the Code of Conduct Tribunal Act, particularly Section 22?”
Eze said the federal Attorney General ought to have commenced an action to establish a case of misconduct against Umar which would have given the NASS the leeway to pass the concurring resolution.
Read also:
Hikes in food prices propel inflation to 34.6%
EFCC and ICPC recover N277.69b, $106m loot, secure 3,468 convictions
