Yesterday, the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) adjourned till Thursday, April 18, when it will be give a final judgment in the trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.
Onnoghen is under trial at the CCT after he was indicted by the Code of Code Bureau (CCB) over non-declaration and false declaration of asset as a public officer.
During the investigation and trial into Onnoghen’s indictment, it was revealed that the embattled CJN while declaring his asset failed to declare some of his assets, most especially his bank accounts which contained outrageous sums of money.
The suspended CJN, who has reportedly submitted his resignation to President Muhammadu Buhari, has denied confessing that he hid some of his bank accounts during the declaration of his assets.
Efut argued that contrary to the prosecution’s claim that his client confessed to the offence, in his written statement, Onnoghen said he forgot to declare some of his assets, especially some bank accounts.
He urged the tribunal to dismiss the charge, acquit and discharge his client because not only was the charge incompetent but the prosecution failed to establish the Onnoghen’s guilt.
According to Efut: “It is true in ordinary parlance that once a person says he did something, that is admittance. But, confession in law is different from confession in general parlance. When the defendant said he forgot, he did not mean he confessed. We are submitting that there has been no confession at all. There is no admission of guilt. Confession, in law, means admission of guilt.”
The defence counsel contended that the charge was incompetent because it was brought under Section 15 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal (CCB/T) Act, which has been found to be in conflict with Paragraph 11 of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution.
He added: “The charge ought to have been brought under Parapgraph 11 to the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. The section under which the charge is prepared is unconstitutional and null and void.
“The elements of the offence, which the prosecution attempted to prove are as it relate to the Act (CCB/T Act). They failed to prove the elements or ingredients as contained in the 5th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution.
“If they do not know the ingredients of the offence, they could not have proved it. They acted in ignorance. We urge that the charge be dismissed, because the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients or elements of the offence.”
Feel free to leave your comment on the story