Police set to arrest Bukola Saraki.

•Judge rejects lawyer’s assurance to produce Senate President later 
•Adjourns to Monday for his arraignment

The police yesterday declared that they were awaiting orders to effect the arrest of the Senate President, Senator Bukola Saraki.

The Senate President was billed to be arraigned before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) sitting in Abuja yesterday, but he failed to turn up, relying on an injunction he purportedly secured from a federal high court.

The development angered the Justice Danladi Umar-led tribunal, which promptly ordered that the police or other relevant security agencies should produce the Senate President before it on Monday.

The Senate President is being accused for false and improper declaration of the assets he allegedly acquired during his tenure as governor of Kwara State between 2003 and 2011.

Reacting to The Nation’s enquiry yesterday, Force Public Relations Officer, Mrs. Olabisi Kolawole, said the police would arrest Saraki as soon as they got the necessary directive from the tribunal.

“We are going to promptly arrest the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, and produce him before the Code of Conduct Tribunal on Monday.

“Since it is a bench warrant issued by a competent court, the order will be carried out without delay. But we don’t want to pre-empt anything,” Kolawole said.

The tribunal gave the orders while ruling on arguments by prosecution lawyer, Muslim Hassan (of the Federal Ministry of Justice) and defence lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN).

The tribunal refused an assurance by one of Saraki’s lawyers, Joseph Daudu (SAN) that he will produce Saraki before the tribunal on the next adjourned date, insisting that it was inappropriate for the tribunal to reverse itself, having ordered Saraki’s arrest.

Hassan had, at the commencement of proceedings yesterday, noted that Saraki was absent in court despite being served with summons in relation to the 13-count charge filed against him for allegedly violating the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal (CCB/T) Act.

Hassan consequently urged the tribunal to direct the issuance of a bench warrant to allow the production of Saraki before the tribunal. In the alternative, he urged the tribunal to stand the case down for some time to allow Saraki’s lawyer prevail on him to appear.

Magaji countered Hassan’s position and urged the court to discountenance his (Hassan’s) application on the ground that he lacked the locus standi to file the charge and that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Citing Section 24(2) of the CCB/T Act, Magaji argued that it was only the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) or any official of his office he authorised that could legitimately initiate such criminal proceedings.

He contended that since there was no AGF yet, no official of the office of the AGF could legitimately initiate proceedings against anyone.

Magaji also argued that his client’s presence was unnecessary at this stage because he was currently challenging the competence of the charge and the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

He equally drew the tribunal’s attention to the case his client filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja and the order it made asking the respondents, including the CCT, to show why they should not be restrained from proceeding with the case.

Responding, Hassan argued that the powers granted the IGP under Section 174 of the Constitution was not absolute. He cited several decided cases by the Supreme Court to support his position that without a substantive AGF, officials of the office and the Solicitor General of the Federation (SGF) could legitimately initiate proceedings against any accused person.

He also cited the provisions of Sections 2 and 4 of the Law Officers Act, Cap L8 Laws of the Federation to support his argument that in the absence of the AGF, the SGF could act on his behalf.

On the implication of the order made by the Federal High Court, Hassan argued that since the tribunal was not an inferior one but a tribunal of record created by the Constitution with coordinate jurisdiction with the High Court, it cannot be given directive by any High Court.

“The Federal High Court has no supervisory justification over this tribunal. Appeal from this tribunal goes to the Court of Appeal. This tribunal and the Federal High Court are courts of coordinate jurisdiction,” Hassan said.

He argued that even where a court has granted a restraining order, the tribunal is not obligated to stay proceedings.

He urged the tribunal to compel Saraki’s attendance to answer to the charge pending against him.

Daudu, who later took over from Magaji, appealed to the tribunal to be cautious about the way it handles the case in view of its political implication.

Ruling later, the tribunal upheld Hassan’s arguments, holding that the absence of a substantive AGF did not render the charge incompetent.

The tribunal also held that the Federal High Court, which has coordinate jurisdiction with it, cannot direct the way its proceedings are conducted.

The tribunal noted that Saraki, being a high ranking public officer, ought to conduct himself in civilised manner by respecting the court.

Justice Umar said: “With regard to the issue of the non-appearance of the respondent, it should be noted that the charge in this proceedings was filed on the 14th of September 2015 and was served and received by the Special Adviser on Legal matters to the Senate President, who signed the processes on the 16th of September 2015.

“It is also noted that the respondent, in response to the summons of this tribunal, filed a memorandum of conditional appearance dated and filed on the 17th of September 2015. With its response, the respondent/defendant cannot deny knowledge of these proceedings.

“On the issue of the court order concerning the sitting of this tribunal, it is our opinion that this tribunal is established as a constitutional body under Section 1(1) of the First Schedule, Part 1 of the Constitution.

“The tribunal is vested with specific powers with regard to the enforcement of probity and accountability in public service.”

He noted that the tribunal ranks equal with the Federal High Court and that appeal lies from it to the Court of Appeal.

“Courts of equal jurisdiction are not bound by the decisions of each other. Therefore, a superior court of record cannot issue an order prohibiting or restraining the proceedings of another court of record.

The court cannot grant injunction restraining proceedings of a court of equal jurisdiction

“This tribunal has called on the defendant to appear before it and stand trial. The defendant cannot claim ignorance of these proceedings, having been duly notified.

“The defendant, as a top ranking public officer of this country, is expected to respect the constitutional provisions, which he has sworn to defend, and at the same time, knowing the obvious implication of breaking the law in this country.

“In view of this, this tribunal shall continue with these proceedings, and accordingly, in view of the non-appearance of the defendant, this tribunal orders that Inspector General of Police or the relevant security agencies to produce the defendant before this tribunal.

“In view of this order, the tribunal orders that bench warrant be issued against the defendant,” Justice Umar said.

The tribunal consequently adjourned to Monday (September 21) for Saraki’s arraignment
.