Law

CCT Chairman: The Missteps of lawmakers and lawyers on Constitutional Matters

By Haroon Aremu

As a concerned young Nigerian, it’s disheartening to witness lawmakers and esteemed legal practitioners grapple with fundamental constitutional principles—especially regarding the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

It is astonishing that those tasked with crafting laws and interpreting them could exhibit such a glaring misunderstanding of the legal framework that governs their actions. The recent attempts by the Nigerian Senate to remove Mr. Danladi Umar, Chairman of the CCT, serves as a case in point.

In their misguided effort, the Senate invoked Section 157 of the 1999 Constitution, mistakenly applying it to the CCT. This section is pertinent to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and other executive bodies, but it has no bearing on the CCT, which operates under a different constitutional framework. As noted by PRNigeria’s fact-checking team, the remedial actions regarding judicial bodies such as the CCT require broader legislative consensus than the Senate alone can muster – specifically, a two-thirds majority from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, a detail curiously overlooked by the lawmakers.

Further complicating matters, the Senate suggested Mr. Abdullahi Usman Bello as Umar’s potential successor. However, it must be emphasized that Mr. Bello was appointed to lead the CCB, not the CCT. Moreover, constitutional stipulations require that the CCT Chairman possess qualifications akin to those of a judge of a superior court—qualifications which Mr. Bello notably lacks. This misstep reflects either a profound ignorance or a blatant disregard for the constitution.

It’s also alarming to observe the Senators conflating the roles of the CCB and the CCT, erroneously linking Umar’s situation to that of Bello. Their claims regarding the 9th Assembly’s investigations into Umar also deserve scrutiny, especially given that they appear to stem from a petition filed by a security guard concerning an unrelated incident —ironically, even after an anti-corruption agency had already cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Adding a layer of complexity to the situation is the media’s role in disseminating information. While there was widespread coverage of the Senate’s resolutions, many outlets failed to substantiate or fact-check their claims against the Constitution. This lapse in journalistic vigilance contributes to the propagation of misinformation, thereby undermining public trust in our governance systems.

The situation becomes even more troubling when senior lawmakers defend their misguided actions. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) clearly delineates that the appointment of the CCT Chairman and its members must follow the National Judicial Council’s recommendations, which should be informed by the Federal Judicial Service Commission. Thus, any motion to remove the CCT Chairman necessitates formal attention from both legislative chambers, not simply the Senate.

To complicate an already delicate situation, the newly elected President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Afam Osigwe (SAN), boldly claimed that the Senate adhered to constitutional protocols. Such statements from a figurehead of the legal profession raise questions about the level of legal literacy within our ranks.

Even more alarming was the endorsement from renowned human rights lawyer Femi Falana, also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. By supporting the Senate’s push for Umar’s removal, Falana and others reveal a troubling trend where senior legal practitioners sidestep constitutional requirements, jeopardizing the sanctity of Nigeria’s judicial and legislative systems.

In light of these developments, distinguished legal scholars such as
Professor Mamman Lawan Yusufari, a former Dean of the Faculty of Law at Bayero University Kano (BUK), Professor Yemi Akinseye-George, the Executive Director of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, and Dr. Wahab Shittu have denounced the government’s handling of the CCT issue. They described these actions as blatant violations of constitutional mandates, calling on the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to provide guidance to President Bola Tinubu on adhering to constitutional pathways for such significant personnel decisions.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria Yunus AbdulSalam further criticized the misinterpretation of the Constitution, labeling it alarming and indicative of a dangerous lack of diligence within both the executive and legislative branches. He remarked, “Their unconstitutional and desperate attempt to remove the CCT Chairman undermines the spirit of the Constitution and poses a serious threat to democratic integrity.”

It takes a whole week before the Senate admitted and corrected the procedural error by invoking the correct constitutional provisions, including Paragraph 17(3) of the Fifth Schedule and Section 22(3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

This entire debacle serves as a clarion call for lawmakers to strictly observe constitutional provisions. Legal protocols should never be compromised for political convenience. Moreover, the media must enhance its accountability in fact-checking claims that significantly influence national governance.

The independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the legislative process are cornerstones of Nigeria’s democracy; they must be protected from missteps and oversights, both from lawmakers and in media coverage. This incident reinforces that constitutional provisions are not mere guidelines; they are the foundation of a functioning democracy. The Senate’s actions reflect a troubling ignorance that could jeopardize the integrity of Nigeria’s legal system. As a nation, we must recommit ourselves to upholding the rule of law and rigorously adhering to constitutional procedures to safeguard judicial independence and the health of our democratic framework.

Haroon Aremu Abiodun is a co-author of ‘Youth Service for National Stability: A Corpers’ Chronicle.’ He can be reached at exponentumera@gmail.com

Law and the evil of lawyers

By Tijani  Hassan Abdulkarim

This may sound a bit controversial, but I’ve not seen a profession that promotes evil in the open like the legal profession. With the wig on, lawyers stand before the judge in defence of evildoers and plotters with a mandate of seeking their acquittal, using superior cunning arguments by looking for loopholes in the legal system and twisting the law for the sole purpose of earning monetary reward from their clients.

Doing the above is, of course, attributed to their training. I presume the training lawyers receive in the law school before being called to bar involves teaching them how to play down on their inherent personal conscience directly or otherwise. This leaves me pondering over the degree of good conscience left in the legal practitioners. Don’t get it twisted; many morally sound lawyers are equally in the profession across different chambers within the country.

Unfortunately, close discerning will reveal how the profession thrives best in deceit and feasting on the miscalculations of the appellant seeking justice before a competent court of jurisdiction.

Please permit me to cite two recent instances: one of a criminal offence and the other of a Shariah case, all in Kano State, Nigeria. We will need to pay close ear to discern how lawyers in the defence team are attempting to remodel the course of justice by dragging the cases to secure the release of the accused on all grounds.

It is no longer news that  Sheikh Abdul-Jabbar Nasiru Kabara, the controversial Kano preacher, has been charged to court by the state government for offence bordering on blasphemy according to Islamic law. However, knowing full well the gravity of the (expected) outcome of the judgement, lawyers got in to ensure the acquittal of the accused despite the volume of evidence against him.

Upon discovering the hidden antics of the lawyers who have promised to defend and clear him of all charges, Abdul-Jabbar rescinded their counsel, protesting that they were insincere to their pledge of seeking justice on his behalf. His vituperation was that the lawyers were capitalising on his ordeal to enrich their chambers through the series of legal bottlenecks they’re cracking. The infamous Sheikh opted to stand in self-defence. All this drama unfolded after his defence team’s complete assurance of being victorious at the commencement of the hearing. Though, the possibility is highly impossible.

The second scenario from the same Kano is connected to the late five-year-old Haneefa, whose teacher Abdulmalik Tanko kidnapped and murdered in cold blood. Again, the details are everywhere on the web. Therefore, it is no longer news that the culprit openly confessed on camera and before the whole public of conniving with his accomplices to commit the crime and even went further to seek the forgiveness of the mourning parents.

Fortunately unfortunate, when the case came up for mention before the court, the same accused pleaded not guilty to the charges of kidnapping, culpable homicide, and murder read against him. Guess who advised him to claim innocence after the entire nation and the international community condemned his evil action? The lawyers – his defence counsel.

I am sure it is now visible to you to connect the obvious dots between the law profession, self-centeredness, injustice, deceit and outright evil against society. It is further appalling to see that most of these legal minds who wore the mask of innocence always go with the slogan of protecting the accused from being deprived of their human rights. This beg the question of what now happens to the fundamental human rights of the victims who have been deprived of their right to life by these evildoers?

Moreover, what is the fate of the society and its members who have been thrown into a theatre of evil because evildoers have the guarantee of going free by the antics of lawyers who are trained in using the constitution for the good of themselves; nay the society.

My submission is not an over-generalisation. There are good lawyers, and the opposite ones are also in abundance. However, the current reality will require the good to rise to the defence of the common good to save the society from the evil of their colleagues. To do that, our justice system needs to be remodelled to guarantee quick justice delivery. Remember, justice delayed is justice denied.

Post Scriptum: Without prejudice, this is my sincere sentiment on the practices of lawyers who are bent on defiling the legal profession in Nigeria and the world over. This will not interrupt the fact that I admire the job and aspire to study and practice as a legal luminary, but it has to be for good.

Tijani  Hassan Abdulkarim is a graduate of Mass Communication from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

Sympathising with a criminal is a crime itself

By Usama Abdullahi

Nothing could be scarier than seeing some people sympathising with the ruthless murderer of little Haneefa Abubakar. Anyone who does that does it out of unflinching apathy toward human’s life. Liu Jan, a Chinese billionaire businessman, was convicted of murder and executed in February 2015 simply because he ran a mafia-style gang. Likewise, one of his siblings and some other three associates were executed. 

If this could happen in a well-evolved, progressive and most populous country on earth, I wonder why it wouldn’t happen here in Nigeria. Does it mean Nigerians are the most softhearted people in the whole wide world? Of course, no. If issues of sympathy arise, I bet many Nigerians would bury themselves in shame because they are wont of barbarism.

Our hypocrisy knows no boundary and is second to none. It’s deep-rooted, and we seem not ready to change for the better. Innocent poor people are cruelly barbecued as chickens and kidnapped daily, yet the (un)repentant criminals are warmly received and mollycoddled. Their barbaric actions are overlooked. Unfortunately, those wounded and displaced to new unfavourable suburbs are left unaided.

It’s a grave sin to glorify or pardon criminals whenever they fake repentance. This is why our country breeds a generation of stubborn criminals and why insecurity thrives. Actually, we do no justice by neglecting the fact that those criminals are worthless and deserve to be tortured to death just as they did to our brothers and sisters.

We escalate the precarious situations of our dear nation by being soft on criminals. No doubt that laws in this country are imposed upon the labouring classes or less privileged ones. If the needy steal to feed their bereaved or starved families, they are burned to ashes when caught by mobs who are thieves themselves. Those disadvantaged are primarily refugees and victims of bad governance. I’m not trying to justify their crimes either. No, I am not. 

But who do you think should be burned to ashes unhesitatingly? Yes, the real unsparing and often politically sponsored criminals, I suppose. It’s true that the so-called sympathisers neither mourn the slain nor denounce the slayers. On the contrary, they are quick to condone and gloat over innocent people’s death. One who sympathises with a criminal is either crueller or no different than the criminal himself.

By excusing barbarism, we are trying to eliminate these two words, “deterrence” and “justice”, from our constitution. If criminals are not punished accordingly, there’s no “deterrence”; many people will probably carry out their unlawful activities without fear. And if justice can’t be done too, then this society is lawless. Until Haneefa’s murderer, Abdulmalik, faces the death penalty, I will never forgive our judicial system.

Usama Abdullahi wrote from Abuja, Nigeria. He can be reached at usamagayyi@gmail.com.