Lawyers for the Cause of Bauchi (LAWBA) said the removal of Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Chairman, Hon. Justice Danladi Umar has been generating interest, debate, and attention across the national space since it was introduced in July this year.
IIt could be recalled that the federal government issued notice in July this year of the removal of the Chairman and appointment of his successor, apparently without recourse to the constitutional processes and procedures laid down.
LAWBA said that it has aligned itself with the popular and correct position as argued by such leading lights in the legal profession in Nigeria like Professor Yemi Akinseye-George SAN, Wahab Shittu, SAN, in advising the government to be guided strictly by the provision of the law in all its actions.
The association in a press conference in Bauchi yesterday stated, “We believe the office of the Honorable Attorney General of the Federation has a great role in ensuring that the government and its actors observe, respect and adhere to the provisions of the law in the discharge of the functions of their offices.”
The press conference led by LAWBA Public & Media Relations Officer, Nasiru H. Bala Esq explained that the need and duty to be properly guided on these matters becomes more burden, sacred and crucial.
“When the office or the person involved is a judicial officer, as shown by the application of the doctrine of separation of powers and his role in deepening democratic governance in the country, he deserves all the benefits that the law has afforded him,” Bala said.
He further stated, “From a careful examination of the quoted provisions of the Constitution, it is our considered view as a Set-up that the purported removal of the CCT Chairman by the Senate cannot stand legally speaking.
“The first ground or reason for this view is that it is clear from the letter and spirit of Section 17 (3) of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution that the removal or appointment of either the Chairman or member of the Code of Conduct Tribunal is a function or responsibility vested in the President in discharging which the two-third majority of both the Senate and the House of Representatives is of necessity required”.
According to the association, until there is a concurrence by both Houses of the National Assembly on the matter, the Chairman of the Tribunal remain in office as his purported removal was not done in the manner contemplated by the Constitution and therefore void ab initio.
“Another reason for faulting the decision of the Distinguished Senate on this matter is that it is clear from the wordings of Section 157 (1&2) that the same does not apply to the Code of Conduct Tribunal. This is so because it is a well-established principle of law that the express mention of one thing in a statute excludes all other things not therein mentioned.
“The version of this position in latin maxim is expressio unius est exclusio alterius. That is to say in mentioning the list of offices that the Senate can exercise its powers under Section 157 (1), the Constitution in 157 (2) did not include the Code of Conduct Tribunal”.
“Putting it simply, therefore, it is clear that in passing the resolution for the removal of the CCT Chairman, the Senate acted in breach of the Constitution by purporting to base its decision on section 157 (1) which is inapplicable in the circumstances”.
Barrister Nasiru Bala explained that on the allegation of gross misconduct against the tribunal chairman, “By law perspectives, there is no any other court that found him wanting or guilty of what is alleged against him as to the issue of gross misconduct”.
We’ve got the edge. Get real-time reports, breaking scoops, and exclusive angles delivered straight to your phone. Don’t settle for stale news. Join LEADERSHIP NEWS on WhatsApp for 24/7 updates →
Join Our WhatsApp Channel
