CJN Onnoghen’s trial: Tribunal Adjourns Onnoghen’s Case

CJN Onnoghen’s trial:  The Code of Conduct Tribunal adjourns Onnoghen’s case involving the charges of non-declaration of assets preferred against the Chief Justice of Nigeria till January 22. 

The CCT Charirman Umar Danladi ruled that the tribunal would hear Onnoghen’s motion challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal at the next proceedings, The Punch reports.

The tribunal adjourned the case after the lead prosecuting counsel, Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN), conceded that Onnoghen was improperly served with the charges and the summons.

Umar conceded that the CJN was not personally served with the charges and the court’s summons, as required by the law.

He, therefore, requested the three-man tribunal led by Danladi Umar to direct a fresh service on the CJN.

Upon an inquiry by the tribunal chairman about Onnoghen’s absence from court, the defence team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), said the CJN needed not to be present, having filed a motion to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Olanipekun said he and other defence lawyers only appeared in court in protest against the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

He also said that, from the account given by the court official earlier in the proceedings, the CJN was not served with the charges and and summons personally, but through his aide.

Olanipekun insisted that the law requires that the defendant be served personally.

But the prosecuting lawyer said the law only requires the defendant to be aware of the pending charges, and that it was the CJN’s choice to ask his aide to receive the charges and summons on his behalf.

But after a back-and-forth argument that went on for about 45 minutes, the prosecuting counsel conceded that the service of the charges and the summons ought to have been personally served on Onnoghen.

“By what the registrar has said, although the defendant was the one who directed his personal assistant to accept service on his behalf and what the law says is that he must be personally served.

“We agree that the service should be properly done. The processes should be served personally on him.

“If, after the service is done, and the defendant is not present, we can then argue whether or not he needs to be present on the grounds that he has filed a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court.”