blaksmith:


You clearly don't understand the basis of my analysis. I am not addressing the charges, neither am I addressing discrepancies in the asset declaration process. I am addressing an abuse of procedure by the Bureau in the bringing the case to the Tribunal; before a case can be forwarded to the Tribunal, irrespective of what the charges are, certain conditions precedent must be met. I explained what these conditions are in my original post. If that due process is not followed, then whatever cases are brought before the Tribunal will easily be thrown out by a superior court of record or on appeal of to the Court of Appeal. (The issue of whether the Federal High Court is superior to the Tribunal is another discussion but based on the explicit provisions of the Constitution in S.6, my views are in favour of the Federal High Court)

Also, the question of whether the charges against him are true or false is another matter entirely. I am addressing procedural law. However, this week will see a detailed response by Saraki's team of lawyers to the charges...of that I am pretty certain.

seunmsg:



Oga, I asked you earlier and I will ask you again, don't you think the best thing for Saraki to do is to appear first before the CCT, argue his case that there was a procedural error in the process leading to his arraignment and ask the CCT chairman to dismiss the case? Why is he trying to use the FHC to stop the CCT from hearing the case when he can easily appeal the decision of the CCT at the FCA if it refused to dismiss the case?

I want to believe you are a lawyer, if you want to challenge the competency of a suit, are you not supposed to go and argue your case before the same court that you have been sued? Once he appears before the CCT, let him make all this argument that you are making and let the tribunal decide. If he's not satisfied with the decision, let him appeal to the FCA. That's the simple procedure. What Saraki is trying to do at the FHC is a clear abuse of court process and am very sure FHC judge hearing the matter will not allow himself to be used to disrupt a valid legal process.

blaksmith:
Without jumping into the toxic and predominantly misguided debate on Senator Saraki's asset declaration case, the analysis below shows why Saraki really shouldn't be summoned at the Code of Conduct Tribunal at this pioint.

I will begin with a few facts so that unnecessary attacks and comments do not come my way.

1. The CCB has the power and authority to verify assets.
2. The CCT has the power to investigate complaints based on evidence provided to it and conduct a trial of the public officer accused.
3. The CCT has the power to cause/summon an accused person to be brought before it, subject to certain condition precedents being met
4. There is a laid down process to be followed by the CCB before the Tribunal can come into effect

Now I begin:

Before any complaint is forwarded to the Tribunal, the Bureau must fulfill/follow the procedure as stipulated in S.3d of the Act, read in conjunction with the proviso below it.

S3. Functions of the Bureau  
The functions of the Bureau shall be to‐  
(a) receive assets declarations by public officers in accordance with the provisions of this Act;  
(b) examine the assets declarations and ensure that they comply with the requirements of this Act and  of any law for the time being in force;  
(c) take and retain custody of such assets declarations; and  
(d) receive complaints about non‐compliance with or breach of this Act and where the Bureau considers  it necessary to do so, refer such complaints to the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by section 20 of  this Act in accordance with the provisions of sections 20 to 25 of this Act:  

Provided that where the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or noncompliance, no reference to the 
Tribunal shall be necessary

Little explanation: where a proviso is included in a section, whatever is stated in that section is subject to the proviso. In other words, the proviso becomes a condition precedent which must be performed before effect can be given to the actual provision of the section.

This process is that the public officer against whom a complaint is made regarding a breach of the Act must b given the opportunity to either deny or admit the wrongdoing under Act. It is only in the event that the public officer denies the complaint that the complaint can be referred to the the Tribunal. Thus, where there is an admission of the complaint, there is no need to involve the Tribunal. Without fulfillment of this procedure, which is a condition precedent, the powers of the Tribunal to carry out its duties cannot come into effect. The implication is that every action of the Tribunal so far is based on a serious abuse of procedure and is thus null and void ab initio. Senator Saraki should not be facing the Tribunal because he was never given the opportunity to deny or admit the alleged wrongdoing. This is also a breach of his constitutional right to fair hearing and as envisaged in that section of the Act.

Based on the above, the Bureau and Tribunal have committed a gross act of procedural error which will destroy their entire case. You cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand. The courts do not take lighting on breaches of right to fair hearing especially by administrative tribunals, and where such a right to fair hearing is in itself a condition precedent, the courts will not hesitate to grant an order voiding all actions made subsequent to the illegal act.

This is my simple piece. I have intentionally ignored every other thing such as the summons for him to appear, the warrant of arrest, the issue of superior and inferior courts or less polite terms, whose penile extension is bigger...They are irrelevant against the backdrop of procedural error of this magnitude based on the condition precedent that gives the Tribunal its teeth to bite. For now, both the Bureau and Tribunal are barking dogs that have lost their teeth in this case. Like empty barrels, they make the loudest noise.

This is my submission and closing address.

fulanimafia:
Section 3(d) which your entire argument is based on, says nothing about admittance or denial by the person declaring after complaints are received.

That part in red is not part of the provisions, the subsection only states that a function of the board is to receive complaints which can then be forwarded to the CCT, which has obviously been done. By the way, it's subsection (e) not (d).

You are interpreting the subsection to suit your argument by fraudulently adding to it. Saraki was appropriately summoned and charged, and he will be punished if he fails to defend the allegations of corruption among others.

blaksmith:
Without jumping into the toxic and predominantly misguided debate on Senator Saraki's asset declaration case, the analysis below shows why Saraki really shouldn't be summoned at the Code of Conduct Tribunal at this pioint.

I will begin with a few facts so that unnecessary attacks and comments do not come my way.

1. The CCB has the power and authority to verify assets.
2. The CCT has the power to investigate complaints based on evidence provided to it and conduct a trial of the public officer accused.
3. The CCT has the power to cause/summon an accused person to be brought before it, subject to certain condition precedents being met
4. There is a laid down process to be followed by the CCB before the Tribunal can come into effect

Now I begin:

Before any complaint is forwarded to the Tribunal, the Bureau must fulfill/follow the procedure as stipulated in S.3d of the Act, read in conjunction with the proviso below it.

S3. Functions of the Bureau  
The functions of the Bureau shall be to‐  
(a) receive assets declarations by public officers in accordance with the provisions of this Act;  
(b) examine the assets declarations and ensure that they comply with the requirements of this Act and  of any law for the time being in force;  
(c) take and retain custody of such assets declarations; and  
(d) receive complaints about non‐compliance with or breach of this Act and where the Bureau considers  it necessary to do so, refer such complaints to the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by section 20 of  this Act in accordance with the provisions of sections 20 to 25 of this Act:  

Provided that where the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or noncompliance, no reference to the 
Tribunal shall be necessary

Little explanation: where a proviso is included in a section, whatever is stated in that section is subject to the proviso. In other words, the proviso becomes a condition precedent which must be performed before effect can be given to the actual provision of the section.

This process is that the public officer against whom a complaint is made regarding a breach of the Act must b given the opportunity to either deny or admit the wrongdoing under Act. It is only in the event that the public officer denies the complaint that the complaint can be referred to the the Tribunal. Thus, where there is an admission of the complaint, there is no need to involve the Tribunal. Without fulfillment of this procedure, which is a condition precedent, the powers of the Tribunal to carry out its duties cannot come into effect. The implication is that every action of the Tribunal so far is based on a serious abuse of procedure and is thus null and void ab initio. Senator Saraki should not be facing the Tribunal because he was never given the opportunity to deny or admit the alleged wrongdoing. This is also a breach of his constitutional right to fair hearing and as envisaged in that section of the Act.

Based on the above, the Bureau and Tribunal have committed a gross act of procedural error which will destroy their entire case. You cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand. The courts do not take lighting on breaches of right to fair hearing especially by administrative tribunals, and where such a right to fair hearing is in itself a condition precedent, the courts will not hesitate to grant an order voiding all actions made subsequent to the illegal act.

This is my simple piece. I have intentionally ignored every other thing such as the summons for him to appear, the warrant of arrest, the issue of superior and inferior courts or less polite terms, whose penile extension is bigger...They are irrelevant against the backdrop of procedural error of this magnitude based on the condition precedent that gives the Tribunal its teeth to bite. For now, both the Bureau and Tribunal are barking dogs that have lost their teeth in this case. Like empty barrels, they make the loudest noise.

This is my submission and closing address.

TGM2015:
Please, do you even know the process of asset declaration by CCB. Because it was once on the news on Buhari/Osinbajo assets declaration that they need their presence to clarify some issues before admitting it to be final document.

Before, the Asset Declaration form is finally file and becomes legal documents the public officer and the CCB officials will have agreed on the worth and presence of the assets.

Maybe you will need to check the allegations again. He declared an asset that he bought many years later, meaning he over declared his assets and the document tendered as evidence of ownership as at the time of declaration must have been forged. He also do not declare some assets and accounts running to billion of naira in both naira and hard currencies. I knew no matter how rich you are, you actually will not forget how many active accounts you are running.

It was in the beam light of current political power struggle of who has control of what that led to those who are against him to furnish the CCB with evidence against his past records. Also we should remember he must have submitted another asset declaration form recently, which must have been checked against the previous ones he declared. Thus, if there is discrepancies or grey areas in term of the total worth or backup evidence/documents, the CCB investigate and obtain independent evidence to support or against the claims.

Though the current case against Saraki left, right and center might have been influenced because of the political struggle but we should also remember that the current activities of these anti graft are a normal course of action because they feels that the current administration will give them free hands to perform their Constitutional duties without interference unlike PDP led government that tactical dismiss Ribadu from EFCC when he bend on prosecuting all government with evidence of corruption 100% of which are Ex PDP governors and Sanusi when he bend in exposing the level of no remittance of crude oil proceed to the national coffer. Imagine an agency that collect tax on crude oil remitting times three of what the crude oil seller(NNPC) is remitting.

It is only a witch that will think he is being hunted. If though doest good. ... ... (a word to Cain by God when killed his brother Abel)

blaksmith:


I don't quite understand what you mean by illusionary premise. What precedents are you expecting me to state? I have clearly stated the procedure as provided by the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act...I did not pull it out of my arse. Read through some of the subsequent responses to other posters. The procedure is clearly stated.

If there is an aspect of my analysis you do not understand, I will gladly break it down further as best as I can.

otr1:
Seni, Teni and the twins are living large and you're here defending rubbish?

Just forget the procedures, Saraki is finished.

spenca:


I logic and analysis, you asked us to go Check up "s3d" now that shouldn't be you ought to have stated it here to have a sufficient analysis based on what you stated above as precedents the CCB haven't erred unless you go ahead to state all the precedents included that which you only quote the section it is in the constitution rather than quote it out here . You haven't done a thorough analysis

aumeehn:
Kai....op i swear you are an example of a typical Nigerian fool....crying and smiling! Kai i feel like giving you a dirty slap, he siphoned public funds amouting to 2trillion Naira and you are here backing him! Op you are the retarded fowl i have ever seen!

fulanimafia:
Section 3(d) which your entire argument is based on, says nothing about admittance or denial by the person declaring after complaints are received.



That part in red is not part of the provisions, the subsection only states that a function of the board is to receive complaints which can then be forwarded to the CCT, which has obviously been done. By the way, it's subsection (e) not (d).

You are interpreting the subsection to suit your argument. Saraki was appropriately summoned and charged, and he will be severely punished if he fails to defend the allegations of corruption among others.

fulanimafia:
OP you have not responded to my allegation that you fraudulently forged the provisions you presented.

blaksmith:


Don't be lazy. Do your research before raising false accusations.

blaksmith:


Saraki does not have any child called Teni...

wirinet:


You still do not get it. What i am saying is being the procedure you outline is for verification process - ie before the asset declaration form is accepted by the CCB, it did not state the procedure to adopt after the verification process and the asset declaration form has been accepted and found to be false. That is why the CCT did not bring in the asset 2015 asset declaration form which is still in the process of verification but the process 2003 form which has been verified.

I favour the Code of Conduct Tribunal as a superior court because it is a creation of the constitution and not an act of the national assembly. Besides i do not see the chairman who must be qualified to be a high court judge answer to another high court judge to explain his judgments. He would feel insulted.

blaksmith:


No, I am not implying that...the statute of limitation is of no relevance here.

I am saying that from a logical perspective, it should be the 2015 declaration that should be used for his current position

And you conveniently ignored the procedure I detailed in response to your first comment and jumped to attacking what i would term as a side comment made at the end of my post. Also, I have not made mention of any of the charges so I wonder why you have the impression I said 4 charges. i know he has 13 charges levied against him. I have read them. Until proven they remain allegations and are not facts, hence why I steered clear of discussing them

blaksmith:
Without jumping into the toxic and predominantly misguided debate on Senator Saraki's asset declaration case, the analysis below shows why Saraki really shouldn't be summoned at the Code of Conduct Tribunal at this pioint.

I will begin with a few facts so that unnecessary attacks and comments do not come my way.

1. The CCB has the power and authority to verify assets.
2. The CCT has the power to investigate complaints based on evidence provided to it and conduct a trial of the public officer accused.
3. The CCT has the power to cause/summon an accused person to be brought before it, subject to certain condition precedents being met
4. There is a laid down process to be followed by the CCB before the Tribunal can come into effect

Now I begin:

Before any complaint is forwarded to the Tribunal, the Bureau must fulfill/follow the procedure as stipulated in S.3d of the Act, read in conjunction with the proviso below it.

S3. Functions of the Bureau  
The functions of the Bureau shall be to‐  
(a) receive assets declarations by public officers in accordance with the provisions of this Act;  
(b) examine the assets declarations and ensure that they comply with the requirements of this Act and  of any law for the time being in force;  
(c) take and retain custody of such assets declarations; and  
(d) receive complaints about non‐compliance with or breach of this Act and where the Bureau considers  it necessary to do so, refer such complaints to the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by section 20 of  this Act in accordance with the provisions of sections 20 to 25 of this Act:  

Provided that where the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or noncompliance, no reference to the 
Tribunal shall be necessary

Little explanation: where a proviso is included in a section, whatever is stated in that section is subject to the proviso. In other words, the proviso becomes a condition precedent which must be performed before effect can be given to the actual provision of the section.

This process is that the public officer against whom a complaint is made regarding a breach of the Act must b given the opportunity to either deny or admit the wrongdoing under Act. It is only in the event that the public officer denies the complaint that the complaint can be referred to the the Tribunal. Thus, where there is an admission of the complaint, there is no need to involve the Tribunal. Without fulfillment of this procedure, which is a condition precedent, the powers of the Tribunal to carry out its duties cannot come into effect. The implication is that every action of the Tribunal so far is based on a serious abuse of procedure and is thus null and void ab initio. Senator Saraki should not be facing the Tribunal because he was never given the opportunity to deny or admit the alleged wrongdoing. This is also a breach of his constitutional right to fair hearing and as envisaged in that section of the Act.

Based on the above, the Bureau and Tribunal have committed a gross act of procedural error which will destroy their entire case. You cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand. The courts do not take lighting on breaches of right to fair hearing especially by administrative tribunals, and where such a right to fair hearing is in itself a condition precedent, the courts will not hesitate to grant an order voiding all actions made subsequent to the illegal act.

This is my simple piece. I have intentionally ignored every other thing such as the summons for him to appear, the warrant of arrest, the issue of superior and inferior courts or less polite terms, whose penile extension is bigger...They are irrelevant against the backdrop of procedural error of this magnitude based on the condition precedent that gives the Tribunal its teeth to bite. For now, both the Bureau and Tribunal are barking dogs that have lost their teeth in this case. Like empty barrels, they make the loudest noise.

This is my submission and closing address.

fulanimafia:


Mate give us a link and not screenshots anyone can create. I'm waiting.

http://www.hipernetix.com/ccb/mandate.html

handsomeclouds:
was it that way during tinubu's time?

blaksmith:



https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.placng.org/new/laws/C15.pdf&ved=0CBkQFjAAahUKEwjl0pzGiYjIAhXFPBQKHTc9A-8&usg=AFQjCNELgYoEdZh50VrsByu5hbiVIX0PPg

fulanimafia:


Utter balderdash. Did Saraki make any written admission of breach? The onus is on him and not the commission to admit guilt in writing. If that was done, then the tribunal would be unnecessary.

“This belief stems from the fact that Section 3 (d) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act provides that If there is a breach or non-compliance with any section of the law, the person involved should be given the opportunity to either admit or deny and that in the case of a written admission, no reference to the Tribunal shall be necessary. So, If the CCB had followed the guidelines, procedure or the due process provided in its own law, we won’t be having this trial.

seunmsg:
So let's assume your submission is 100% correct, don't you think the best thing for Saraki to do is to appear first before the CCT, argue his case that there was a procedural error in the process leading to his arraignment and ask the CCT chairman to dismiss the case. Why is he trying to use the FHC to stop the CCT from hearing the case when he can easily appeal the decision of the CCT at the FCA if it refused to dismiss the case?

homesteady:
Finally found the thread!
the OP was right after all, Saraki just used the OP's point of argument

www.nairaland.com/2618713/being-prosecuted-because-senate-president

blaksmith so whats going to happen now?

otr1:

He does