UPDATED: Appeal Court reverses ex-CJN Onnoghen’s CCT conviction for assets declaration breaches

The CCT had convicted Mr Onnoghen at the end of a sensational trial that lasted between January and April in 2019.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja, on Monday, reversed the conviction of former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on charges of asset declaration breaches five years ago.

A three-member panel of the court led by Mohammed Bello acquitted Mr Onnoghen of the charges, following the joint filing of a settlement agreement by the federal government and Mr Onnoghen.

Adopting the terms of settlement submitted by the parties as its judgement on Monday, the court also ordered the unfreezing of Mr Onnoghen’s account with Standard Chartered Bank Nigeria Limited, which was frozen as part of the sentence for the CCT conviction.

It also overturned the penalty imposed on Mr Onnoghen barring him from holding public office for 10 years.

The CCT had convicted Mr Onnoghen after a sensational trial that lasted between January and April in 2019.

The trial, which many described as political, started with the suspension of CJN Onnoghen by then-President Muhammadu Buhari in the middle of the preparation for the 2019 general election, in which Mr Buhari was seeking re-election for second term.

The trial, although generally believed to be politically motivated, revealed hidden bank accounts and transactions of the former CJN not declared to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) as provided by law, and raised ethical questions, which the NJC also probed.

To date, the NJC never made the report of its probe public but confirmed that Mr Onnoghen resigned voluntarily. It also confirmed that President Buhari accepted Mr Onnoghen’s voluntary resignation. Mr Onnoghen’s resignation came ahead of the CCT judgement that ended up convicting him.

Lead-up to settlement

The former CJN appealed against the conviction in 2019, but the case did not come up for hearing until August, more than five years later.

In August, the legal teams of both the CJN and the federal government first openly indicated that there was an ongoing out-of-court settlement talk between them.

Again on 19 September, Ogwu Onoja, a lawyer to Mr Onnoghen, informed the three-member panel of the Court of Appeal that both parties had met as recently as 18 September, in hopes of reaching an agreement on the terms of settlement.

That day the Court of Appeal approved the parties’ moves towards settlement and adjourned until today (Monday, 4 November) for a report of the settlement talk between the two parties.

The court fixed 4 November in anticipation that the parties would filed their terms of settlement before then.

‘No jurisdiction’

The parties jointly filed the settlement agreement (dated 24 October) on 1 November.

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice Lateef Fagbemi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), signed it on behalf of the federal government.

Mr Onnoghen, along with his lawyers, Adegboyega Awomolo and Ogwu Onoja, who are both SANs.

At Monday’s proceedings, Mr Onnoghen’s lead counsel, Mr Awomolo, announced the filing of the terms of settlement.

Tijani Gazali (SAN), representing the federal government, confirmed the agreement on behalf of the federal government.

In their joint filing adopted as the court’s judgement, the parties agreed that the CCT erred in conducting the trial and convicting Mr Onnoghen without allowing the NJC to first discipline him as a serving judicial officer, since the council is the only constitutionally mandated body to discipline judges.

Rare settlement

The legal process which played out Monday is rare in criminal proceedings.

The process is different from the better-known plea agreement that usually occurs at the trial court.

This appears like an import of the type of settlement process often deployed in civil cases.

Monday’s development is likely to stir debates among legal pundits.

Onnoghen’s lawyer reacts

Speaking after Monday’s decision, Mr Awomolo thanked President Bola Tinubu and the AGF for resolving the case amicably.

He stressed that the ruling restored Mr Onnoghen’s dignity and reinforcds the judiciary’s independence.

He also expressed hopes that such executive interference would not recur, noting that both the 2016 raid on judges’ homes and Mr Onnoghen’s suspension had damaged public trust in the judiciary.

“The decision of the Court of Appeal delivered this morning is historic and very significant. It is significant in that it restored the dignity, honour, and integrity of Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, past Chief Justice of Nigeria,” he said.

He added that the judiciary’s role in upholding democracy depends on maintaining public confidence, which had been shaken by the executive’s actions in recent years.

Backstory

On 11 January 2019, the federal government charged Mr Onnoghen with breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers by allegedly failing to declare his assets between 2005 and 2016. He was also charged with making a false declaration by omitting to declare five domiciliary bank accounts as part of his assets in 2016.

Before Mr Onnoghen’s arraignment on 23 January 2019, the CCT issued a controversial order for his suspension from office. The Court of Appeal would later call to question the integrity of the CCT’s ex-parte order.

Acting on the order, on 25 January 2019, then-President Buhari suspended Mr Onnoghen from office to face the trial.

While being prosecuted by the CCT, Mr Onnoghen was also undergoing disciplinary proceedings at the National Judicial Council (NJC).

Before the CCT trial ended, Mr Onnoghen tendered his letter of voluntary retirement.

On 18 April 2019, the tribunal convicted him and, as punishment, ordered his removal from office, barred him from holding public office for 10 years and ordered the forfeiture of the undeclared assets.

The NJC did not make its report public, but on 6 October 2019, it issued a statement announcing that the President had accepted Mr Onnoghen’s voluntary retirement.

In March 2021, Mr Onnoghen spoke publicly about the circumstances leading to his exit from office. He denied some allegations and speculations which he believed motivated President Buhari’s administration to move against him.

For instance, he denied ever meeting former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who was Mr Buhari’s main rival in the 2019 presidential election.

He also faulted the allegation that he was setting corruption suspects free as the head of the Supreme Court.

“Prior to my suspension, I was confronted with no allegation. There were rumours that I met with Atiku in Dubai.

“As I am talking here today, I have never met Atiku one-on-one in my life,” Mr Onnoghen said.

Appeal against conviction

In his appeal challenging his conviction, Mr Onnoghen challenged the CCT’s jurisdiction to try him. He also accused the tribunal’s chairman, Danladi Umar, of bias.

He argued that the CCT chair Danladi Umar’s refusal to recuse himself from the case compromised the fairness of the proceedings.

Mr Onnoghen challenged the legality of the asset seizure, asserting that the assets were acquired legally.

He contended that the tribunal failed to provide a fair hearing and dismissed evidence that could have exonerated him.

The appeal highlights an unevenness in the tribunal’s handling of similar cases.

For instance, in the case of another Supreme Court judge, Sylvester Ngwuta, the tribunal had previously suspended proceedings based on a Court of Appeal decision that only the National Judicial Council (NJC) could indict a serving judicial officer.

He said despite this, Mr Umar’s tribunal overruled this precedent in his case.

Mr Onnoghen argued that the tribunal’s decision to convict him and order the forfeiture of his assets was legally flawed and a breach of justice.

He urged the court to rule that the charges against him were academic.

The former CJN also urged the appeal court to overturn his conviction and the consequential orders, including barring him from holding public office for 10 years and order of forfeiture of his assets.