Onnoghen’s A’Court verdict fails to tackle key points –Lawyers

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision that cleared former Chief Justice of Nigeria Justice  Walter Onnoghen of all charges, legal experts debate on whether he should be compensated for the damage done to his reputation, writes Onozure Dania

On Monday, November 4, 2024, the Court of Appeal in Abuja overturned the conviction of former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, by the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

The ruling came after the resolution of the issues that had led to his trial and conviction.

Former President Muhammadu Buhari had on January 25, 2019, about 29 days before the presidential election, suspended Onnoghen from office as the CJN and swore in the next most senior justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Tanko Muhammad, to take over the leadership of the judiciary.

“With the directive of the CCT (Code of Conduct Tribunal) in a letter dated 23rd January 2019, accordingly, I hereby suspend Hon Justice Walter Nkanu Samuel Onnoghen as the Chief Justice of Nigeria until the final determination of the case against him,” Buhari said.

Onnoghen’s suspension followed his announcement to inaugurate judges who would preside over election petition tribunals.

President Buhari’s action sparked widespread reactions both within and outside judicial circles, with the Nigerian Bar Association describing it as a coup against the judiciary.

Justice Onnoghen was later convicted by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on six counts of corruption charges brought against him by the Federal Government. He was accused of making a false declaration to the Code of Conduct Bureau.

On April 18, 2019, the CCT, chaired by Umar Danladi, found Justice Onnoghen guilty of false asset declaration. However, the appellate court later discharged and acquitted him of the conviction by the CCT.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Abba Mohammed adopted the terms of settlement between the Federal Government and Justice Onnoghen.

Justice Mohammed ruled that the Code of Conduct Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to try and convict the former Chief Justice of Nigeria without first referring the matter to the National Judicial Council.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling, which closed the case based on a settlement rather than a full examination of the evidence, left the legal practitioners with mixed feelings.

While some lawyers commended the resolution, others feel that a thorough legal examination of the CCT’s jurisdiction would have provided needed clarity for future cases.

Also, the Court of Appeal’s decision nullified the CCT’s proceedings, it did so based on an out-of-court settlement rather than an outright exoneration based on the merits of the case.

However, Nigeria’s Constitution specified that only the National Judicial Council was empowered to address allegations of misconduct involving serving judicial officers.

Legal experts widely interpreted this to mean that the CCT’s intervention in Justice Onnoghen’s case was a procedural breach and that the Court of Appeal didn’t dismiss the case on merit but on terms of settlement.

Speaking on the decision of the Court of Appeal, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mrs Titilola Akinlawon, stressed the significance of the Appeal Court’s decision to dismiss the charges on the basis of settlement rather than a merit-based ruling.

Akinlawon challenged the foundation of the original proceedings, saying, “Of course, the CCT did not, and still does not, have the jurisdiction to try a sitting judicial officer,” she asserted.

She argued that from the outset, the trial against Justice Onnoghen was a legal overreach by the CCT.

“The whole proceedings before the CCT were devoid of jurisdiction and therefore a nullity,” she said, highlighting the tribunal’s misstep.

Mrs Akinlawon expressed doubt that Justice Onnoghen could now seek compensation for the proceedings he endured, given the case’s unusual conclusion.

“Whether Justice Onnoghen can claim compensation, I don’t think that would be feasible,” she said, pointing out the unique nature of the appeal’s resolution.

“The Court of Appeal decision was not on the merit of the case but in terms of settlement filed in a criminal case. That is quite novel.”

“Anyway, a precedent has been set which will apply to subsequent cases,” she said.

On his part, Prof. Mike Ozekhome (SAN), believed that the idea of compensation was valid but complicated by the terms of the recent judgment.

“Sure, he deserves compensation. We call it restitution,” Ozekhome stated. “But don’t forget that the judgment was arrived at amicably through mutual resolution. So, it’s too late in the day to go outside the terms of settlement and ask for compensation.”

Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Prof Damilola Olawuyi, said, it was a fundamental aspect of Nigerian law that if a court decided that a person had been unfairly dismissed, such a person was entitled to seek compensation.

“It is a fundamental aspect of our law that if a court decides that a person has been unfairly dismissed, then such an individual would be entitled to seek compensation, both for the wrongful dismissal and for the lost income and opportunities.

“In this case, there is also significant reputational damage caused by the public humiliation and disgrace of a sitting Chief Justice of Nigeria and the associated emotional impacts,” he said.

Olawuyi said that the Court of Appeal decision was therefore an indication that the last might not have been heard of this matter.

He added that considering the international backlash and reputational damage that this matter had brought to the justice system and country as a whole, the Court of Appeal decision should indeed trigger a comprehensive review of the manner in which the entire trial was handled.

“Appropriate disciplinary action should be taken by the National Judicial Council for any act of misconduct found against erring members of the Tribunal. This will be a crucial step in restoring public confidence and trust.

“The Court of Appeal decision is also a salient reminder of the need for fair, timely and efficient trials when addressing corruption allegations.

“Our law enforcement process must move beyond sensationalism and media trials aimed at settling political scores, which can unduly undermine justice delivery.

“All hands must be on deck to build an independent and more effective justice administration system that can maintain integrity and public trust,” Olawuyi said.

Speaking on the implications of the settlement agreement that had now returned both parties to their pre-dispute status,  Mr Mofesomo Oyetibo, (SAN), explained that the Court of Appeal’s decision meant that Justice Onnoghen was set to have his benefits restored, but a fresh claim for reputational damages may be out of reach.

“It was reported that the Court of Appeal decision was pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties.

“If this is true, then it is likely that parties have fully and finally settled the dispute, and Justice Onnoghen may not have any grounds to pursue a fresh claim for reputational damage,” Oyetibo said.

He said that the settlement had provided a sense of closure, but it also limited any further legal actions Justice Onnoghen might take against the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

According to Oyetibo, “The further effect is that it confirms what we all knew at the time, which is that the CCT was wrong to have made the orders against him. It had no jurisdiction to do so.”

This settlement has broad implications, both for Justice Onnoghen and the judiciary as a whole.

“The implication of the Court of Appeal decision,” Oyetibo explained, “is that parties are back to pre-dispute status quo, such that the former CJN will now be entitled to restoration of his full benefits.”

On his part, Abiodun  Olatunji,(SAN), argued that in light of the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn Justice Walter Onnoghen’s conviction, he firmly believed that he was entitled to compensation for the damages done to his reputation, career and the unwarranted public disgrace he endured.

“I firmly believe he is entitled to compensation for the damage done to his reputation, career, and the unwarranted public disgrace he endured”, he said.

Olatunji explained that the legal implications of the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the case revealed significant flaws in the procedural conduct of the Code of Conduct Tribunal and the encroachment on judicial independence, which should concern every Nigerian.

He said, “My initial reaction to the Court of Appeal’s judgment was one of rude shock. This was a landmark case involving the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, the highest judicial office in our country, and the way the appeal was resolved through terms of settlement instead of a judgment on the merits has set, in my view, an unfortunate precedent.

“The terms of settlement as the basis for a judgment in a criminal conviction appeal, particularly one involving allegations of ethical breaches in the nature of false asset declarations against a judicial officer, does not offer the transparency or legal precedent that a judgment on merit would provide.

“This case presented the Court of Appeal with an opportunity to clarify and authoritatively address the provisions and principles within the Code of Conduct Law as applied to judicial officers, yet it was concluded without the benefit of such a decision.”

According to him, one critical concession in the terms of settlement is the Federal Government’s acknowledgement that the CCT lacks jurisdiction to try Justice Onnoghen without first referring the allegations to the National Judicial Council.

He said that this was a crucial point that Justice Onnoghen had previously argued when the charges were initially brought before the CCT.

At the time, the tribunal rejected this argument, proceeded to assume jurisdiction, and ultimately convicted him.

Olatunji explained that the apparent disregard for this procedural safeguard — designed to protect judicial independence and ensure due process — was disturbing, as it made clear that political motivations could, and did, prevail over constitutional principles.

“The impact was immediate. Justice Onnoghen was forced out of office, achieving the tribunal’s intended goal.

“The terms of the settlement struck me as a face-saving approach by the Federal Government, aimed at softening the blow of what was clearly a politically motivated series of events.

“Justice Onnoghen’s ordeal was both disgraceful and dehumanising, and it extended beyond personal harm; it tarnished the sanctity of the Chief Justice’s office itself.

“The events demonstrated the susceptibility of our judicial officers to political manipulation, especially when they are perceived as independent or unyielding to political influence.

“The absence of institutional protections for judges under such circumstances shows a critical vulnerability in our judiciary, leaving even the highest-ranking judicial officers unshielded from political interference,” he said.

Olatunji noted that, as part of the terms of the settlement, the government conceded to unfreeze Justice Onnoghen’s accounts and return the funds within them.

“However, I contend that this gesture is insufficient compensation for the trauma and indignity he endured.

“Justice Onnoghen was not only removed from his position but was subjected to a humiliating public ordeal that will leave a lasting mark on his legacy.