The Federal Government has argued that the acquittal granted Senate President, Bukola Saraki, in his trial for false assets declaration before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) cannot stand because the tribunal erred in law in reaching its decision. The FG, therefore, urged the Court of Appeal in Abuja to remedy the error committed by the CCT headed by Danladi Umar, by reversing its decision and ordering the continuation of the trial.
The FG’s position is contained in a brief of argument filed yesterday at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, for the office of the Attorney General of the Federation by a team of lawyers led by Rotimi Jacobs (SAN).
The CCT, in its judgment on June 14, 2017, upheld the no-case submission by Saraki and acquitted him of the 13 counts of false assets declaration brought against him by the FG.
In the FG’s brief of argument filed yesterday, the FG argued in detail, the 11 grounds contained in the notice of appeal it filed earlier this year.
The FG described the CCT judgment as “unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.” It added that the CCT erred in law by upholding Saraki’s no-case submission “when the onus of proof” was on him to show “that there was no infraction in the Code of Conduct Forms.
“By the provisions of paragraphs 11 (2), (3) and (13) of Part 1, 5th Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), once the Code of Conduct form filled by the public officer is investigated and found to be false or that some assets are beyond the legitimate income of the public officer or that the assets were acquired by means of corrupt practices, the public officer concerned is deemed to have breached the Code of Conduct and it is for him to show to the tribunal that there is no infraction in the form.
The appellant is praying the appellate court for “an order setting aside the ruling of the Code of Conduct Tribunal delivered on June 14, 2017 upholding the no-case submission raised by the respondent at the close of the prosecution’s case and an order calling on the respondent to enter his defence.”
