OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT: EX-CJN, ONNOGHEN, MAY REGAIN ACCESS TO FROZEN ACCOUNT
Former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Samuel Walter Onnoghen, may soon regain access to his frozen accounts and have the order barring him from holding public office for 10 years lifted.
This follows a decision by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday, where a three-member panel granted the Federal Government’s request to settle out of court with him after he approached the court to challenge his removal from office.
Onnoghen had filed an appeal challenging the 2019 judgment of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), which ordered his removal from office.
In his appeal, marked CA/ABJ/375, 376, and 377/2019, and filed through his counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), Onnoghen sought to quash his conviction on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, bias, and the absence of a fair hearing.
In April 2019, the CCT had convicted Onnoghen on all six counts of breaching the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, brought against him by the Federal Government during his tenure as head of the judiciary.
The tribunal not only ordered his removal but also banned him from holding public office for 10 years and directed the forfeiture of five bank accounts he allegedly failed to declare between 2009 and 2015.
The accounts in question, all held at Standard Chartered Bank (Nig.) Ltd., are as follows:
Domiciliary US Dollar account (No. 870001062650) – $56,878.
The move towards an out-of-court settlement may see former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter COnnoghen regain access to the frozen accounts, while the 10-year ban could also be nullified.
Onnoghen’s removal from office was a controversial episode.
On January 25, 2019, just 29 days before the presidential election, former President Muhammadu Buhari suspended him and appointed Justice Tanko Muhammad, the next most senior jurist at the Supreme Court, as the acting CJN.
The suspension came less than eight hours after Onnoghen had announced his plan to inaugurate judges for the election petition tribunals, sparking accusations of political interference.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) described the suspension as a coup against the judiciary.
Two years later, Onnoghen revealed the alleged real reason behind his removal. He claimed it was linked to a rumour that circulated in January 2019, suggesting he had met with the then-presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, in Dubai, the UAE.
Onnoghen had dismissed the rumours, stating he had never been to Dubai and had never met Atiku in person.
He expressed disappointment with the Federal Government for acting on unverified allegations and using an ex-parte order to suspend him from office, even though the matter was still pending before the tribunal.
“Prior to my suspension, I was confronted with no allegation.
“There were rumours that I met with Atiku in Dubai. But as I am talking here today, I have never met Atiku one on one in my life.
“As if that was not enough, I was also accused of setting free, some high-profile criminals, whereas I ceased to be a High Court Judge as far back as 1978.” he had said.
Onnoghen lamented that he was not given opportunity to defend himself and charged the judiciary to resist attempts to politicise the sector.
On Thursday, the Federal Government’s lawyer in the Onnoghen’s appeal, Tijani Gazali, confirmed that the call for out-of-court settlement was at the instance of the government.
“My Lords, I wish to humbly confirm the information. It is our position to settle the matter out of court,” said Gazali.
WHY THE NORTH OPPOSES TOTAL RESTRUCTURING OF NIGERIA
WHY THE MORTH OPPOSES TOTAL RESTRUCTURING OF NIGERIARecently, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) issued a communiqué after its high-level meeting that highlighted national interest issues and focused on the incessant insecurity in the north and the entire Nigeria. ACF Board of Trustees Chairman, Alhaji Bashir Muhammad Dalhatu, went the extra mile to apologize to the northerners for the “collective failure of leaders”. Beyond that, ACF partly blamed the Federal Government for not doing enough and called for scaling up the community-driven defence models used in the North-East. This simple nation-building engagement by ACF was seized by the Nigerian Tribune Editorial and pivoted to something else. The editorial questioned the legitimacy of the meeting due to “the absence of attendance of leaders from the minority states in the North” and wondered why “throughout President Muhammadu Buhari’s eight years in office, a period that marked the deterioration of insecurity in the region, the ACF never issued this kind of statement”. Then the editorial offers the ultimate panacea to all Nigeria’s problems by insisting that the northern leaders should “embrace total restructuring of Nigeria”. The editorial is replete with misinformation and half-truths. Today, I will leave these matters for another opportunity and focus on the restructuring.Restructuring is natural in any organic entity such as Nigeria. However, there are optimum approaches to minimize costs towards desired benefits. Calls for restructuring Nigeria have been persistent, driven by dissatisfaction with the country’s political, economic, and social structures. Advocates for restructuring often argue that Nigeria’s current system is inefficient, unequal, and prone to ethnic tensions. The Nigerian Tribune editorial associated the “insecurity in Northern Nigeria” with “the fact that in the absence of restructuring, governments will only be presiding over mass bloodletting”. While there are merits to the restructuring debate, the idea of completely overhauling the nation’s structure comes with significant risks. As a history student, I would like to share lessons from other countries that have restructured. We can find cautionary tales that highlight the complexities and unintended consequences of such moves.Countries that undergo total restructuring often face challenges in maintaining national unity. A key argument for restructuring in Nigeria is the decentralization of power from the federal to state or local governments. While decentralization may allow more autonomy for regions, it can also deepen existing ethnic and religious divides. Nigeria is home to over 250 ethnic groups, and further restructuring could inflame separatist tendencies, as has happened in other countries. For instance, in Yugoslavia, the push for more autonomy and the eventual restructuring of the federation contributed to its violent disintegration in the 1990s. It broke up, at first into five countries. The ethnic and nationalist tensions that arose from the restructuring process led to civil wars, mass atrocities, and the eventual breakup of the country into smaller, ethnically defined states. Nigeria, with its own history of a civil war, must be cautious of any move that could reignite separatist movements or further fragment the country. The editorial seems to divisively highlight the issue of minority states in the North. It ignores the fact that every one of the six regions in Nigeria has minorities and each has its mistrust toward the dominant groups.One of the promises of restructuring is that it would allow regions or states to control their resources, enabling them to manage their development more effectively. However, this could also worsen economic disparities between regions. The north is generally less economically developed than the oil-rich southern regions or the Lagos State as the commercial hub of the region. A total restructuring that gives regions or states full control over their resources might lead to increased wealth for the south while leaving the north behind. The potential tension is obvious. This is similar to what happened…