Friday, December 13, 2024 - President Bola Tinubu, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, and Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, have been sued.
Two civil society groups dragged them before a Federal High Court in
Abuja over the alleged unlawful removal of Justice Danladi Umar as Chairman of
the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
The two civil society groups, Community Rescue Initiative and Toro
Concerned Citizens Relief Foundation, as well as an Abuja based lawyer, Comrade
Nasir Bala initiated the suit against the president and others.
The three plaintiffs are praying the court to restrain the Clerk of the
National Assembly from transmitting to Tinubu, the concurrent resolution of the
Senate and House of Representatives which removed Umar as Chairman of the Code
of Conduct Tribunal.
They are also praying the court to stop the President from giving effect
to the resolution of the two chambers of the National Assembly, on the grounds
that clear provisions of the law, especially the 1999 Constitution, were not
followed in the purported removal of the CCT boss
Among others, the plaintiffs are seeking seven declarative reliefs
against the President and the other defendants.
The suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1796/2024, was instituted on behalf of the
plaintiffs by Mahmoud M. Maidoki Esq., A.G Salisu Esq., Jibrin S. Jibrin Baq.,
and Abubakar S. Idris Bag.
In faulting the action of the National Assembly, the plaintiffs asked
the Federal High Court to determine the following:
“Whether by virtue of the provisions of
Sections 1(1) and (3) , 6(5), 153 (1) (e) & (i) of the 1999 Constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as well as Paragraph 13 (a) (vii)
and (b) of the Third Schedule thereof, the purported removal of the chairman of
the Code of Conduct Tribunal by the 4th Defendant is illegal, void,
unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever same having been made pursuant to
the
provisions of section 157 (1) of the 1999 Constitution or any other law for
that matter.
“Whether by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1(1) and (3) , 6(5),
153 (1) (e) & (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (as amended) as well as Paragraph 13 (a) (vii) and (b) of the Third
Schedule thereof, the purported concurrence by the 6” Defendant with the
decision/resolution of the 4 Defendant purportedly removing the chairman of the
Code of Conduct Tribunal taken at 4th Defendant’s plenary of the 20th November
2024 or any other date for that matter which said concurrence was taken at the
6th Defendant’s Plenary of 26th November 2024 is illegal, void, unconstitutional
and of no effect whatsoever same having been founded on a faulty legal
foundation and in breach/violation of section 22 (3) of the Code of Conduct
Bureau & Tribunal Act and paragraph 17 (3) of the 5th Schedule of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
“Whether by virtue of the provisions of
Paragraph 17 (1) of the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 20 (1) and (4) of the Code of Conduct
Bureau & Tribunal Act and the subsistence of the occupation of the office
of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal by Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu
Umar, the purported appointment and subsequent confirmation of the 10th or 11th
Defendants into the same office by the 1st and 4th Defendants, respectively, is
illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect same having been done in clear
breach of the applicable provisions of the 1999 Constitution (Supra) and the
Code of Conduct and Tribunal Act (Supra).
“Whether the purported removal of the chairman of the Code of Conduct
Tribunal in the person of Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar as done by the 4th
Defendant based on the motion and submission founded by distinguished Senator
Opeyemi Bamidele during its plenary of 20th November 2024 and the subsequent
concurrence by the 6th Defendant on 26th November, 2024 at its plenary has
occasioned/amounted to a breach of Section 36(1) and Section 6 (5) of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as the allegations
of misconduct among others which formed the basis of the resolution/decision in
issue has not been proved/established in the manner prescribed by law.”
The plaintiffs noted that if the above questions are answered in the
affirmative, the court should declare
that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1(1) and (3), 6(6), 153 (1)
(e) & (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as
amended) as well as Paragraph 13 (a) (vii) and (b) of the Third Schedule
thereof, the purported removal of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal
by the 4th Defendant is illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect
whatsoever, same having been made pursuant to the provisions of section 157 (1)
of the 1999 Constitution or any other law for that matter.
Other declarations and orders sought by the plaintiffs are:
“A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1(1) and
(3), 6(6), 153 (1) (e) & (i) of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as well as
Paragraph 13 (a) (vii) and (b) of the Third – Schedule thereof, the purported
concurrence by the 6th Defendant with the decision/resolution of the 4th
Defendant purportedly removing the chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal
taken at 4tj Defendant’s plenary of the 20th November 2024 or any other date
for that matter which said concurrence was taken at the 6th Defendant’s Plenary
of 26th November 2024 is illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect
whatsoever same having been founded on a faulty legal foundation and in
breach/violation of section 22 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal
Act and paragraph 17 (3) of the 5® Schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
“A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of Paragraph 17 (1) of
the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
(as amended), Section 20 (1) and (4) of the Code of Conduct Bureau &
Tribunal Act and the subsistence of the occupation of the office of the
Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal by Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar,
the purported appointment and subsequent confirmation of the 10th or 11th
Defendants into the same office by the 1st and 4th Defendants, respectively, is
illegal, void, unconstitutional and of no effect same having been done in clear
breach of the applicable provisions of the 1999 Constitution (Supra) and the
Code of Conduct and Tribunal Act (Supra).
“A DECLARATION that the purported removal of the chairman of the Code of
Conduct Tribunal in the person of Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar as done by
the 4’th Defendant based on the motion and submission founded by distinguished
Senator Opeyemi Bamidele during its plenary of 20th November 2024 and the
subsequent concurrence by the 6th Defendant on 26th November, 2024 at its
plenary has occasioned/amounted to a breach of Section 36(1) and Section 6 (6)
of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) as the
allegations of misconduct among others which formed the basis of the
resolution/decision in issue has not been proved/established in the manner
prescribed by law.
“AN ORDER restraining the 7th Defendant from communicating the
resolution’ of the 4th and 6th Defendants removing the chairman of the Code of
Conduct Tribunal in person of Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar to the 1st
Defendant the removal having been done without following the due process of
law.
“AN ORDER restraining the 8th and 9th Defendants from considering any
person including the 10th or 11th Defendant for appointment by the 1st
Defendant and subsequent confirmation by the 4th and 6th Defendants during, the
subsistence of term of office of Hon. Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar.”
Meanwhile Justice James Omotosho, who is to adjudicate in the matter,
has ordered that the process in respect be served by substituted means through
pasting at the notice board of the court, the APC secretariat and Office of
Secretary to the Government of the Federation.
The court further adjourned the suit to January 14, 2025, for hearing.
0 Comments