The Federal government yesterday insisted before the Code of
Conduct Tribunal (CCT), that Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki has a
case to answer in the false assets declaration charge it brought against him.
Prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), made the
submissions after the Senate president urged the tribunal to dismiss the charge
on the ground that no prima facie case has been established against him.
In adopting his written addresses before the tribunal
yesterday, lead defence counsel to Saraki, Kanu Agabi (SAN), said
the petition which gave rise to the charges had nothing to do with his client.
Specifically, Agabi said the charges, especially counts 1,
2, 6, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16, had disclosed no valid offences.
He said, “Our submission is that the prosecution has not made
out a case warranting an answer from the defendant is dated May 21, 2017, and
filed on May 26, 2017.
“Our reply on point of law is dated June 7, 2017.
“Let me elaborate very briefly as follows:
“We were told by the prosecution that the charges were precipitated
by petitions tendered as exhibits 10, 11, 12, and 13.
“My lord should read the petitions. We beg your lordship to
read them, they have nothing to do with the defendant.
Agabi continued: “Let us assume the petitions were
investigated, where is the report? Who are the writers? Why are they not here?
“The second point is that in counts 1, 2, 6, 9,10, 11, 12,
13, 14 and 16, the defendant was charged with ‘making false declaration by
making no declaration’.
“There is inconsistency in the charges.
“I urge your lordship to hold that is not an offence.”
The lead defence lawyer further argued that by the provision
of the status, only an authorised person could declare the statement of a
public officer to be false.
He further submitted that the failure of the prosecution to
disclose the name of the said authorised persons in the charges had rendered
the charges invalid.
He faulted the evidence by the prosecution witnesses, Mr.
Samuel Madojemu, an official of the Code of Conduct Bureau, and another
operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mr. Michael Wetkas,
saying they all amounted to hearsay evidence.
But responding to the no-case submission, the prosecution
counsel, Jacobs maintained that it has established a serious prima facie case
against the Senate President.
Jacobs said, “Our response to the no-case submission is
dated June 2, 2017 and filed the same day.
“One method your lordship should adopt to show that there is
serious prima facie case against the defendant is to look at Exhibits 6 and 26
which are assets declarations made by the defendant after the investigation of
this case.
“My Lordships will see that the defendant listed all the
annexed properties and stated that they were acquired in 92 and 99 and, now. If
my lord juxtaposes them with Exhibits 1 to 5, some of the properties he claimed
acquired in 1999, 2002, and 2003, were not declared.”
In urging the tribunal to dismiss the no-case submission, he
argued that the defendant had “misconstrued” Paragraph 1, Schedule 5 of the
Constitution, by claiming that a public officer was not under obligation to
declare properties bought in companies’ names.
“To construe the constitution like that will defeat the
essence of the CCT and the fight against corrupt in Nigeria,” Jacobs said.
The prosecution further attacked the arguments advanced by
Saraki’s lawyer that the charge were anchored on the contents of some petitions
which have nothing to do with him.
He told the tribunal that contrary to the position of the
defence counsel, Saraki’s name was mentioned in the petitions.
In any case, Jacobs submitted that even if the claim
was true, petitions had no role to play in prosecution.
“In his address, counsel to the defendant said the petitions
had nothing to do with the defendant, although his name is mentioned.
“Prosecution does not depend on petition. Without a
petition, a person can be prosecuted.”
On the issue of “failure to declare by not declaring does
not constitute an offence”, Jacobs said, “We have shown in paragraphs 4.25 to
4.27 that till now, they have not told the tribunal the ingredients of the
offence.
“Failure to disclose an asset amounts to false declaration which is an
offence. The learned counsel cannot be right on that.”
“They said we ought to call 200 witnesses and they listed
them. They brought it ought up as a new issue started re-adjusting their
argument. This cannot be done.”
Jacobs further submitted that the tribunal is not expected
to evaluate the evidence, or give an opinion on the witnesses at this
stage of the proceedings, as the tribunal was being invited to do by the
defence.
He said the 120-page address filed by the defence was also
an invitation to the tribunal to write a lengthy ruling against the admonition
of the Supreme Court to courts handling a no-case submission.
Jacobs said, “At this stage, care must be taken about what
my Lord can do at this stage. They were inviting your lordship to give an
opinion on the witnesses and evaluate their evidence.
“The Supreme Court has said your lordship cannot do that at
this stage.
“At the stage, your lordship cannot express opinion on the
evidence led until they defence give their own evidence.
“The Supreme Court warned that the ruling on a no-case
submission must be kept brief.
“It is permitted to just say there is case to answer.
“The Supreme Court said, where a lengthy ruling was
delivered an observation would be made on the facts and the prosecution would
be right to appeal on the grounds that the judge is biased.”
By Godwin Tsa
