There is growing confusion at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), with embattled Chairman Danladi Umar and newly appointed Chairman Mainasara Kogo both asserting leadership on the court.
Investigations revealed that both Mr. Umar and Mr. Kogo officially visited the court and engaged with officials, but no clear indication was left as to who was responsible.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu appointed Mr. Kogo as the new CCT chairman on July 13, the same day that Mr. Omolola Olowolaran was announced as the Executive Director of the National Pension Commission (Pencom). However, the controversy surrounding Umar’s removal has significantly slowed court activity.
Nevertheless, corruption cases involving public officials remain ongoing, with several charges listed for trial or arraignment.
Court leaders acknowledged anonymously that they were unsure who to follow. Both men have spoken to them and, as public servants, they are just waiting for clear instructions.
“We are public servants and believe that we can work with whoever comes,” the official told Daily Trust.
“We have not yet seen a letter conveying the impact of these changes and we believe there is a process in place to remove the CCT chair and appoint a new chair.
“I know the president and the two branches of government have issued statements, but I don’t know if there’s an invisible hand at work here, but I do know there is a process,” he added.
The official explained the formal procedure. Appointees must be vetted by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), recommended by the National Judicial Council (NJC), and approved by the President before being confirmed by the Senate.
It has been reported that the lack of clarity has left files unprocessed.
“He came and left today, but since the entire judiciary is currently on vacation, we arbitrarily decided to postpone all outstanding cases until January,” said another official.
Meanwhile, a former court official criticized Umar’s continued visits to his office.
The staff member asked, “Why is he still showing up to work signing papers and approving payments to contractors?”
He said Mr Umar’s actions were illegal and claimed he was no longer the chairman of the court.
Following President Tinubu’s announcement of Umar’s dismissal, the House and Senate upheld the decision in plenary sessions held on November 20 and 26, citing allegations of misconduct and corruption.
The resolution was based on Section 17(3), Fifth Schedule, Part I of the Nigerian Constitution and Section 22(3) of the Code of Conduct Authority and Courts Act 2004.
These articles state: “A person holding the office of Speaker or a member of a Code of Conduct Tribunal shall not, unless there is a speech supported by a two-thirds majority of each house of the National Assembly, “No person may be removed from appointment.” I pray that he is removed as such for his failure to perform the duties of the office in question (whether due to infirmity of mind or body) or for his misconduct or violation of this Code. ”
The legal dispute surrounding Umar’s removal continues. The lawsuit filed by Community Relief Initiative, Toro Concerned Citizens and Relief Foundation in the Federal High Court in Abuja alleges that the resolutions of the Senate and House of Representatives are unconstitutional and invalid.
Meanwhile, legal experts have expressed concerns about the state of CCT.
Sunusi Musa (SAN) argued that the president did not validly announce Umar’s dismissal because the constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses. He also pointed out that Kogo’s appointment lacks NJC approval or formal appointment.
“Where does he get the authority to visit the court if he has not been appointed by the NJC and is not the chairman of the court?” he asked.
Dayo Akinraja (SAN) added that Kogo’s appointment was not binding without an official letter.
“The letter of appointment implies that the deletion has taken place, and those affected can challenge it through the judicial process rather than taking the law into their hands.”
Similarly, Haroon Ezz Esq. pointed out irregularities in the process of removing Umar.
“The dismissal was not consistent with the procedure for removing a CCT chairman. That is why the National Assembly established that point in the dismissal resolution,” he said.
He argued that the federal attorney general should have filed a formal misconduct case against Umar and provided the basis for parliament to pass the resolution.
