Pay Back Time; PDP To Drop Support For Saraki Over Amaechi's Ministerial Confirmation As Court Of Appeal Upheld CC Tribunal Trial

Wow! Is this how sweet revenge is? Barely 24 hours after the Peoples Democratic Party walked out on the senate chambers, haven warned the Senate President Dr Bukola Saraki, that if he goes ahead to confirm former Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi as a minister designate, the party would be forced to hands-off their support for his positions as Senate President which his political enemies within his own party wants off him. Now the tide seems to have turned. Where will Sarakis support now come from, as Tinubu continue to call for his head?

Today, Justice Moore Adumen of the Court of Appeal upheld the trial of Senate President, Bukola Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Adumen, reading the unanimous verdict of the three man panel, said the tribunal, which docked the Senate President on 22 September and 21 October was properly constituted.

He said the tribunal led by Danladi Umar could sit with the chairman and one other member. He relied on section 28 of the Interpretation Act to reach the decision. He said the CCT and CCB Act and the constitution did not talk about a quorum. Adumen said the judgment could not be delivered on 19 October as earlier planned because the justices have to struggle to reach a consensus.

Saraki wanted the appellate court stop his trial at the CCT, where he has been charged on 13-counts with false asset declaration. Judgment was initially fixed for 19 October, but was postponed at the 11th hour, with the court promising to communicate a new date to parties. Notices were sent to parties informing them about today’s date.

Arguing the appeal on October 16, Saraki’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), urged the appellate court to set aside the entire proceedings before the CCT, including the charge before it. He argued that the CCT was not properly constituted on when it assumed jurisdiction to entertain the charges because it was made up of two members as against three, which is provided for in Paragraph 15(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.

Daudu contended that the provision of Section 28 of the Interpretation Act relied upon by the respondents to argue that the tribunal could validly sit with its Chairman and one other member, was a contradiction of the three-member provision in the Constitution. He also argued that the tribunal not being a superior court recognized by the Constitution could not exercise criminal jurisdiction.