IN PICTURES: Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, lawyers walk out dramatically

Senate President , Bukola Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in Abuja on Thursday.

Senate President , Bukola Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in Abuja on Thursday.

Lawyer to the Senate President , Abubakar Magaji addressing journalists on his decision to walk out of the court on Thursday

Lawyer to the Senate President , Abubakar Magaji addressing journalists on his decision to walk out of the court on Thursday

Proceedings in the trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) ended abruptly yesterday. Reason: A team of 26 lawyers who represented him walked out on the tribunal when it refused their application to suspend proceedings.

The defence team, which included three Senior Advocates of Nigeria – Saka Issau (SAN), Mahmud Magaji (SAN) and Ahmed Raji (SAN) –applied to the tribunal to suspend the hearing, pending the Supreme Court’s determination of an appeal filed on November 2.

But the tribunal rejected the defence’s application on the grounds that no date was fixed yet for the hearing of the appeal and that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 in Section 306 prohibits the granting of a stay of proceedings in a criminal trial.

Saraki is standing trial before the CCT on a 13-count charge of false assets declaration. Unlike the case at the last proceedings, where it took the intervention of his lawyer before Saraki could enter the accused box, he went straight into the box, without being prompted, when the case was called yesterday.

Earlier at the commencement of the proceedings, prosecution lawyer Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) told the court that the business of the day was the report of the October 30, 2015 judgment by the Court of Appeal in Saraki’s appeal.

Jacobs said since the appellate court had affirmed the tribunal’s jurisdiction to try the charge against Saraki, it was incumbent on the tribunal to proceed with the trial. He said his witnesses were ready to testify.

Magaji told the court that his client had appealed the Appeal Court’s decision at the Supreme Court, besides applying to the apex court for a stay of the proceedings before the tribunal.

He said although no date had been given for the hearing of his client’s appeal and application, it was ideal for the tribunal to suspend proceedings pending when the Supreme Court will determine the appeal.

He argued that it would amount to judicial impertinence if the tribunal failed to defer to the apex court by suspending its proceedings.

Jacobs opposed Magaji’s submission and urged the tribunal to proceed with the business of the day, more so when there was no order from the apex court directing a stay of proceedings in the trial. He said a stay of proceedings will defeat the intention of the ACJA 2015, which is to ensure effective management of criminal cases.

The tribunal held that all the authorities and cases cited by the defence in support of its application that the tribunal stays proceedings in the trial were no longer relevant, with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

The tribunal chairman, Danladi Umar, who read the ruling, faulted the argument by Ahmed Raji (SAN) that the provision of Section 306 of the ACJA, which frowns at stay of proceedings, cannot apply because the defendant’s application for a stay of proceedings was before the Supreme Court and not the tribunal.

He held that the intention of Section 306 of the ACJA was that irrespective of where a defendant filed an application for stay of proceedings, the court/tribunal should not entertain any application for a stay of proceedings in a criminal trial.

“It is an obvious fact that where a counsel wants to stay proceedings pending before a lower court, he/she promptly rushes to a higher court to stay the proceedings before the lower court. That is the same with what has happened in this case,” he said.

Shortly after the tribunal chairman ended his ruling, Magaji, who spoke for the defence team (26 lawyers in all, including three Senior Advocates of Nigeria), said in view of the court’s position, “I wish to withdraw from this case in view of what I will call judicial rascality”.

On ending his speech, Magaji reached for his items on the table and walked out of the courtroom. He was followed by other members of his team after Raji expressed similar view. As Saraki’s lawyers took their exit, Senators and the Senate President’s lawyers who were in the tribunal’s sitting hailed them.

Jacobs later noted that since Saraki’s lawyers had deserted him, it was within his right for the tribunal to ascertain from him whether he wished to engage other lawyers or defend himself. As Jacobs spoke, Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu (also a lawyer) walked towards Saraki (who sat in the accused box) and whispered to him.

When asked by the tribunal how he wished to proceed with the case, Saraki said: “I have found myself in a strange terrain. My lawyers have walked out on me without telling me why. I will need time to meet with them and either convince them to come back or decide whether to get other hands to defend me. It took me time to get these ones. I will need time to look for another set. I have submitted myself to the process and I am ready to go through it. “

Jacobs opposed Saraki’s request for the case to be suspended for one month to enable him get new lawyers. He said if the tribunal allowed such a long adjournment, it would have given the defence the stay of proceedings they had failed to get.

He suggested the Saraki be given a week to engage new lawyers. As Jacobs spoke, Senators and Saraki’s supporters, who formed the bulk of the audience, intermittently interrupted his submissions, by the shouting: “No! No!”

At a point, Jacobs reminded the Senators that they were not in their chamber where the arguing and resolve issues with voice votes. He admonished them to respect the tribunal, an admonition they ignored.

Some of the senators in court were Dino Melaye, former Abia State Governor Theodore Orji, Samuel Anyawu and Ekweremadu.

Shortly before adjourning, the tribunal chairman regretted the conduct of the defence team, noting that the lawyers disrespected the court. “They know what they did and have their reasons,” he said.

Umar said in view of the decision of the defence lawyers not to further appear in the case, without giving any reason and the defendant’s decision to engage another set of lawyers to defend him, further hearing in the case shall be adjourned till November 19.