Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2664797

1

IS THE CODE OF CONDUCT TRIBUNAL REALLY INFERIOR TO

THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT?1

Introduction

1. There have been arguments in severa l quarter s as to whether the Code of

Conduct Tr ibuna l (CCT) is actual ly infer ior to the Federa l High Court (FHC).2

This paper examines , in succinct deta i l , the jur isdict ion of the CCT v is -à-v is the

inherent jur isd ict ion of the FHC. This paper a lso proceeds to cons ider in what

instances, i f any, the CCT wi l l be bound by an Order of the FHC and whether

the CCT is indeed a court of super ior record.

Trajectory of Facts

2. Before de lv ing into the lega l cons iderat ion, i t i s quite he lpfu l to give a t ra jectory

of facts that bir thed thi s ar t ic le. Charges were f i led against the Senate

President,3

Dr. Bukola Sarak i at the CCT over a l leged fa l se dec lara t ion of

1 Jo seph Onele , a f i r s t c l a s s g radua te o f t he Un i ve r s i t y o f Ibadan , i s a n Assoc ia t e i n t he

Di sput e Reso l ut ion Pr ac t i c e, Olan iwun Ajay i LP; jone l e@olan iwuna jay i . net

+2348137442133. Th i s pub l i ca t i on i s p rov ided to h ig h l ig ht i s sue s a nd fo r gene ra l

in f o rma t ion pu rpo se s on ly , and does no t cons t i t u t e l eg a l adv i ce. Whi l s t r ea sonab l e s t ep s were

t aken to ensu r e t he accura cy o f i n fo rma t ion conta i ned in t h i s pub l i ca t ion, Olan iwun A jay i LP

accept s no r e spons ib i l i t y f o r a ny lo ss o r damage t ha t may a r i se f rom r e l i a nce on i n fo rma t ion

conta i ned i n t h i s pub l i ca t ion. Shou ld you have a ny ques t ion s on the i s s ue s add re ssed he r e i n

o r on o t her a r ea s o f l aw, p l ea se contac t t he a ut ho r o r any counse l i n t he f i rm .

2 See fo r i ns t a nce Ch ie f Mike Ozekhome, SAN, OFR, The St reet Journa l , “The Law, The

Myth, The L imi t s o f the Code o f Cond uct T r ibuna l (Pa r t 1)”, ava i l ab l e a t

ht tp : / / the s t r eet jou rna l .o r g /2015/09/t he - law - t he -myt h - the - l im i t s -o f - t he- code -o f - conduct -

t r ibuna l -pa r t -1 / a nd a cce s sed on Sept ember 21, 2015 a t 11:05pm; see a l so Dan i e l

E lombah, “Sa rak i T r i a l , t he in t r i g ues : Fede ra l High Cou r t -v s - Code o f Conduc t T r ibuna l ” ,

ava i l ab l e a t ht tp : / /www.e lombah.com/ index.php/ spec i a l - r epo r t s /924- sa rak i - t r i a l - t he- i n t r i g ue s -

f ede ra l - h ig h -cou r t - v s -code-o f -conduct - t r i buna l a nd a cce s sed on Sept embe r 21, 2015 a t

11:08pm; see Chi ka Ebuzo r , “Agba koba f a u l t s Code o f Conduct T r ibuna l” , ava i l ab l e a t

ht tp : / /pu l s e .ng /po l i t i c s / sa ra k i -agbakoba - f a u l t s -code-o f - conduct - t r ibuna l - id4186191.html a nd

acce s sed on Sept embe r 21, 2015 a t 11:09pm.

3 See f u r t he r Dan ie l E lombah, “Sa rak i T r i a l , t he i n t r i g ue s : Federa l High Cour t - v s - Code o f

Conduct T r ibuna l ” , ava i l ab l e a t ht tp: / /www.e lombah.com/ i ndex.php/ spec ia l - r epo r t s /924-

sa ra k i - t r i a l - t he- i n t r i g ue s - f ede ra l -h ig h- cou r t -v s -code -o f - conduct - t r i buna l , whe re i t was s t a t ed

t hu s : “The Code o f Conduct Bureau had f i l ed a 13 -count cha rg e a ga i n s t the Sena t e

Pre s ident , Buko la Sa rak i , a t the Code o f Conduct T r ibuna l . Sa rak i i s sa id to have made f a l s e

dec la ra t ion o f h i s a s s et s . The Deputy D i rec to r i n t he o f f i c e o f t he At to rney -Gene ra l o f t he

Fede ra t ion, M.S.Ha ssan , f i l ed t he cha rg e s aga i n s t Sa rak i on Sept ember 11. The cha rg e s

aga i ns t Sa rak i i n c l ude f a l s e dec la ra t ion o f a s s et s , a l l eg ed acqu i s i t io n o f a s s et s beyond h i s

l eg i t ima t e ea r n i ng s a nd keep ing fo r e ig n a ccount s wh i l e ho ld i ng pub l i c o f f i c e f i r s t a s Kwa ra

Sta t e governo r i n 2003 and la t e r a s a s ena to r . ”

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2664797

2

assets.4

Dr. Sarak i, in a bid to protect h i s „ r ights ‟, f i led an appl ica t ion at the

FHC, seeking to stop the scheduled t r ia l at the CCT.5

The sa id appl icat ion,

f i led ex-parte was granted as prayed. Not minding the exi stence of the sa id ex-

parte order, Dr. Bukola Sarak i, was expected to appear before the CCT on

Fr iday, September 18, 2015 and upon h is fa i lure to show up at the sa id

proceedings, the CCT, on the appl ica t ion of the prosecutor, i ssued a bench

war rant for h i s ar rest . However, the Court of Appea l refused to grant the ex-

parte appl icat ion f i led by Dr. Sarak i, seeking to set as ide the order made on

Fr iday, 18.09.15 by the CCT, hold ing that i t would be inte rest of just ice for

the respondents to be put on not ice and has set down same for hear ing on

29.09.15.6

Demysti fying the Concept of ‘Court of Record’ and ‘Superior Court of Record’

3. For a bet te r understanding of thi s topic, i t i s pert inent to def ine what a „court of

record‟ i s and the meaning of a „ super ior court of record‟. As def ined by the

Black‟s Law Dict ionary ,7

„court of record‟ is “[A] court that is required to keep

4 Vangua rd, Sept embe r 22, 2015, “Al l eged f a l s e dec la ra t ion o f a s s et s : Buko la Sa ra k i mus t

f a ce t r i a l – Appea l Cour t ”, ava i l ab l e a t ht tp : / /www.vangua rdng r .com/2015/09/a l l eg ed - f a l se -

dec la ra t ion -o f -a s set s -buko la - sa rak i -mus t - f a ce- t r i a l - appea l - cour t / a nd a cce s sed on Sept embe r

23, 3015 a t 1:09pm.

5 Sa rak i had ra i s ed ob j ec t ion s to h i s t r i a l by the t r i buna l c i t i ng t he n on-appo intment o f a

sub s ta nt i v e Ju s t i c e Min i s t e r and At to rney Gene ra l o f the Fede ra t ion (AGF) a s we l l a s a

pend ing r u l i ng o f t he Feder a l High Cour t , whi ch had summoned both cha i rmen o f the Code o f

Conduct Bu reau, CCT and a Deputy D i rec to r i n t he Fede ra l Mi n i s t ry o f Ju s t i ce , Mus i l i u

Ha s sa n, who f i l ed the ca se a t the t r ibuna l on beha l f o f the Fede ra l Gove rnment . I n h i s r u l i ng

on Sa ra k i ‟ s ob j ec t ion s , t he p re s id i ng j udge, Ju s t i c e Dan l ad i Umar , sa id t ha t t he t r ibuna l took

not ic e o f the f ac t t ha t the r e wa s no AGF a t the moment . He fu r t he r he ld tha t t he absence o f

the AGF does no t s top the f i l i ng o f a c r im i na l cha rg e add ing t ha t i n t he ab sence o f the AGF,

the So l i c i to r Genera l ca n i n s t i t u t e such cha rg e. On t he i s s ue o f a pend ing ru l i ng , the t r ibuna l

he ld t ha t t he F ede ra l High Cour t ha s t he same j u r i sd ic t ion w i t h i t , a nd hence , i t wa s no t

b i nd ing by i t s r u l i ng . See fu r t he r ht tp: / /www. in fo rma t ionng. com/2015/09/ sa ra k i - t r i a l - code-

o f -conduct - t r i buna l - e r r ed -by-d i sobey i ng -o rder -o f - super io r -cou r t -agbakoba -adegboruwa .html ,

ava i l ab l e a t ht tp : / /www. in fo rma t ionng .com/2015/09/ sa ra k i - t r i a l - code-o f -conduct - t r i buna l -

e r r ed -by -d i sobey i ng -o rder -o f - supe r io r -cou r t -agbakoba - adegboruwa.html .

6 See E r i c Ikh i l ae , The Nat ion Onl i ne, “Cour t o f Appea l , Fede ra l High Cou r t r e fu se Sa rak i ‟ s

Pra ye r s to s top T r ibuna l ” , ava i l ab l e a t ht tp: / / t hena t ionon l i neng .net /cou r t -o f -appea l - f ede ra l -

h i gh -cou r t - r e f u se- sa ra k i s -p ra ye r s - to - s top - t r ibuna l / a nd acce s sed o n September 21, 2015 a t

11:46pm; see f u r t he r Vangua rd, Sept embe r 22, 2015, “Al l eged f a l s e dec la ra t i on o f a s s et s :

Buko la Sa rak i mus t f ace t r i a l – Appea l Cou r t ”, ava i l ab l e a t

ht tp : / /www.vangua rdng r . com/2015/09/a l l eg ed - f a l s e -dec la ra t ion -o f -a s set s -buko la - sa ra k i -mus t -

f ace - t r i a l - appea l -cou r t / a nd acces sed on Sept embe r 23, 3015 a t 1 :09pm.

7

Nint h Ed i t io n , Thoma s Reut e r s , t he Un i t ed Sta t e s o f Amer i ca , p. 407.

8 B ryan Ga rner , B lack ' s Law Dic t iona ry , Nint h Ed i t io n, Thoma s Reut e r s , t he Un i t ed Sta t e s o f

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2664797

3

a record of i t s proceedings”.8

On the other hand, Black‟s Law Dict ionary9

def ines „ super ior court ‟ as „a t r ia l cour t of genera l ju r i sd ict ion‟.10

4. In wr it ing on the clas s i f i cat ion of cour ts into „super ior ‟ and „ in fer ior ‟ court s, John

Asein, in hi s book, Int roduct ion to the Niger ian Legal System has opined that

super ior court s of record have wider powers than the in fer ior cour ts and fu rther

re fer red to super ior court s of record as “courts of unl imited ju r i sd ict ion”. He

fu rther asser ted that the ju r i sd ict ions of the super ior court s of record are not

l imi ted by the va lue of the subject mat te r of a case but are usua l ly competent to

award the max imum remedy or penal ty prescr ib ed by law though they may be

sub ject to ju r i sd ict iona l l im it s with respect to the type or cla ss of cases they may

enter ta in.11

More important ly, Asein noted that super ior court s exerci se

superv isory jur isd ict ions over the in fe r ior ones by means of the prero gat ive orders

of cert iora r i , mandamus and prohibi t ion.12

The CCT: Establ ishment, Composit ion , Funct ion, Jurisdic t ion and Right of Appeal

5. Essent ia l ly, a cursory look at paragraph 15(1) of the F i f th Schedule to the

Const itut ion shows the const i tut ional bas is for the CCT.13

Paragraph 15(1) of

Fi f th Schedule to the Const itut ion prov ides for the establ i shment of the CCT as

fo l lows:

8 B ryan Ga rner , B lack ' s Law Dic t iona ry , Nint h Ed i t io n, Thoma s Reut e r s , t he Un i t ed Sta t e s o f

Amer ica , p. 407. See a l so F r ed r i ck Po l l ock & F r ede r i c Wi l l i am Ma i t l a nd, Hi s to r y o f Eng l i s h

Law Befo re t he T ime o f Edward I 669 (2d ed. 1899) c i t ed i n B ryan Ga rner , B lack ' s Law

Dic t iona ry , N int h Ed i t io n, Thoma s Reute r s , t he Un i ted Sta t es o f Amer i ca , p . 407 whe re i t

was s t a t ed thu s : “The d i s t in c t ion tha t we s t i l l draw between „cou r t s o f r eco rd ‟ and cou r t s

tha t „ no t o f r eco rd ‟ t a ke s u s ba ck to ea r ly t imes when the k i ng s a s se r t s t ha t h i s own word a s

a l l t ha t ha s t a ken p lace i n h i s p r esence i s i ncont e s t ab l e”.

9 Nint h Ed i t io n , Thoma s Reut e r s , t he Un i t ed Sta t e s o f Ame r i ca , p. 407

10 B ryan Ga rne r , B lack ' s Law Dic t iona ry , N inth Ed i t i on , Thoma s Reut e r s , Un i t ed Sta te s , p.407.

11 See J.O. Ase i n, I n t roduct ion to Nige r i a n Lega l Sy s t em, Ababa P re ss Ltd, Su re le r e, Lagos ,

Nige r i a , p. 173. I t mus t be not ed t ha t g ene ra l r u l e i s t h a t no t h i ng sha l l be i n t ended to be

wi t h i n the j u r i sd ic t ion o f an i n f e r io r cou r t ex cept tha t whi ch i s so exp re ss ly s t a t ed .

Conve r se ly , fo r a supe r io r cour t , no t h i ng sha l l be i n t ended to be out s ide o f i t s ju r i sd i c t ion

ex cept t ha t wh ich spec ia l l y appea r s to b e so .

12 J.O. Ase i n , I n t roduct ion to Nige r i a n Lega l Sy s tem, Ababa P re ss Ltd, Sure le r e, Lago s,

Nige r i a , p. 173.

13 Meanwh i l e , i t s hou ld be noted t ha t the Code o f Conduct Bu reau i s e s t ab l i s hed ma in ly to

ma i nta i n a h ig h s t a nda rd o f mo ra l i t y i n t he conduct o f government o f bus i nes s a nd to en su r e

tha t t he ac t ion s a nd behav io r o f pub l i c o f f i c e r s confo rm to t he h ig he s t s t a nda rds o f pub l i c

mo ra l i t y and a ccountab i l i t y . See Sect ion s 3 and 4 o f the Code o f Conduct Bu reau a nd

T r ibuna l Act

4

“There shal l be establ i shed a tr ibunal to be known as Code of Conduct

Tribunal which shal l consist of a Chai rman and two other per sons”.14

I t

is qu ite inst ruct ive to note the provis ion of Paragraph 15(2) which

clear ly prov ides that “The Chairman shal l be a person who has held or is

qual i f ied to hold of f ice as a Judge of a superior court of record in

Niger ia and shal l rece ive such remunerat ion as may be presc ribed by

law”.15

6. There appears to be unusual confus ion in certa in quar te rs , as some have

misconstrued the fact that the Cha i rman of the CCT must be a person who has

he ld off ice as a Judge of a super ior court of record in Niger ia or qua l i f ied to

hold of f ice as a Judge of a super ior court of record in Niger ia to mean that the

CCT Cha irman qua l i f ies as a jud icia l off icer,16

even when there is express

const i tut ional prov i s ion to the cont rary. Some have a rgued that that the intent ion

of the draf ter s of the Const itut ion is enact ing paragraph 15(2) of the F i fth

Schedule of the Const itut ion was for intent and purposes to appoint an

individua l to head the CCT who is at par with a Judge of the High Court or

Federa l High Court.1718

14

See a l so Sect ion 20 o f t h e Code o f Conduct Bureau and T r ibuna l Act , Cap . C15, Laws o f

t he Fede ra t ion o f Nige r i a , 2004 wh ich p rov ide s t ha t “[T]he re i s he r eby es t ab l i s hed a

t r ibuna l to be known a s t he Code o f Conduct T r ibuna l…”

15 See f u r t he r Sect ion 20(2) & (3) o f t he Code o f Condu ct Bu reau a nd T r ibuna l Act , Cap.

C15, Laws o f t he Fede ra t ion o f N iger i a , 2004 whi ch p rov ide t ha t “The T r ibuna l sha l l

cons i s t o f a cha i rman and two othe r membe r s . The Cha i rman sha l l be a per son who ha s he ld o r

i s qua l i f i ed to ho ld o f f i c e a s a Judge o f a sup er io r cour t o f r eco rd i n Nige r i a and sha l l

r ece iv e such r emune ra t i on a s may be p re s c r ibed by law.”

16 See sec t ion 318 o f t he Const i t u t ion fo r def i n i t io n o f a „ j ud ic ia l o f f i c e r ‟ . Ment ion must a l so

be made t ha t the Ch ie f o f Ju s t i c e o f N ige r i a , Ju s t i c e Muhamm ed Mahmud ha s , i n a l e t t e r

da ted 18.05.2015 addre s sed to the CCT Cha i rman, Hon. Dan l ad i Y. Umar wa rned h im and

other CCT member s to “des i s t fo r t hw i t h f rom add re s s i ng (t hemse l v e s) o r be i ng a l lowed to be

addre s sed a s „Ju s t i c e ‟ , sa ve where t he Membe r i s a r e t i r ed Jud i c ia l Of f i c e r s e r v i ng on t he

Code o f Conduct T r ibuna l”

17 ht tp s: / /www.facebook .com/UDEMSYL/po st s /973572359352983

18 I t i s on t h i s no t e t ha t t he a ut ho r ag ree s w i t h Mike Ozekhome SAN, OFR when he subm i t t ed,

upon cons t r uc t ion on a comb ined r ead ing o f Pa rag r aph 15(2) o f t he F i f t h Schedul e a nd

Sect ion 318(1) o f t he Const i t u t ion t ha t “no membe r , i nc l ud ing t he Cha i rman o f the CCT, on

appo intment , i s a „ j ud i c ia l o f f i c e r ‟ , a s def i ned i n S ect ion 318(1) o f t he 1999 Const i t u t ion ,

un l e s s he o r she ha s he ld t he o f f i c e a s a Judge o f Supe r io r Cour t o f r eco rd i n Nige r i a ” . See

Ch ie f Mike Ozekhome, SAN, OFR, The St r eet Jou rna l , “The Law, The Myth, The L im i t s o f

the Code o f Conduct T r ibuna l (Pa r t 1)” , ava i l ab le a t

ht tp : / / the s t r eet jou rna l .o r g /2015/09/t he - law - t he -myt h - the - l im i t s -o f - t he- code -o f - conduct -

t r ibuna l -pa r t -1 / a nd acce ssed on S ept embe r 21, 2015 a t 11:05pm.

5

7. At thi s juncture, i t is qui te apt to note the scope of the r ight of an appea l f rom

the CCT to the Court of Appea l. An appea l l ies of r ight on ly f rom a dec is ion of

the CCT in only two instances, to wit: (x) as to whether or not a person i s

gu i l ty of a contravent ion of any of the prov is ions of the Code of Conduct Bureau

and Tr ibunal Act (CCBTA);19

and (y) as to the punishment imposed on a publ ic

of f icer found gu i l ty of cont ravent ion of the Code of Conduct Bureau and

Tr ibunal Act.20

The impl icat ion of the foregoing i s that exc ept in those two

instances ment ioned under the CCBTA and the Schedule to the Const itut ion, an

appea l sha l l not l ie as of r ight to the Court of Appeal.21

Meanwhi le, neither the

Fi fth Schedule to the Const itut ion nor the CCBTA prov ides for instances when

an appea l can l ie with leave to the Court of Appea l.22

8. A care ful look at Paragraph 18(4) and (5) of Part 1 of the Fi fth Schedule to

the Const itut ion and Sect ion 23 (4) & (5) of the CCBTA wil l reveal two

th ings, to wit: (x) Where the CCT gives a dec is ion as to whether or not a

person is gui l ty of a cont ravent ion of any of the prov is ions of the Code of

Conduct, an appea l sha l l l ie as of r ight f rom such dec is ion or f rom any

19

Code and Bu reau a nd T r ibuna l Act Cap . C15, Laws o f the Fede ra t ion o f N iger i a (CCBTA) .

20 See Sect ion 23(4) o f t he Code o f Conduct a nd Bureau a nd T r ibuna l Act Cap . C15, Laws

o f the Fede ra t ion o f Nige r i a a nd Pa r ag raph 18(4), Pa r t 1 o f the F i f t h Schedu l e to the

Const i t u t ion o f t he Fede ra l Repub l i c o f Nige r i a , 1999 (a s amended)

21 See fo r i n s t a nce , s ec t ion 241(1) o f t he Const i t u t ion p rov ide s fo r ca ses when an appea l s ha l l

l i e f rom dec i s ions o f t he FHC to the Cou r t o f Appea l a s o f r i g ht : “An appea l s ha l l l i e f rom

dec i s ions o f t he Fede ra l High Cou r t o r a High Cour t to the Cou r t o f Appea l a s o f r i g ht i n

the fo l low ing ca se s - (a ) f i na l dec i s io n s i n a ny c i v i l o r c r im i na l p roceed ing s befo r e t he Feder a l

High Cour t o r a High Cour t s i t t in g a t f i r s t i ns t a nce; (b) whe re the g round o f appea l i nvo lve s

ques t i on s o f l aw a lone, dec i s ions in a ny c i v i l o r c r im ina l p roceed ing s ; (c) dec i s ions i n any

c i v i l o r c r im ina l p ro ceed ings on ques t ion s a s to t he i n t e rp r eta t ion o r app l i ca t ion o f t h i s

Const i t u t io n ; (d) dec i s ion s in a ny c iv i l o r c r im i na l p roceed ing s on ques t ion s a s to whet her

any o f the p rov i s ion s o f Chapte r IV o f t h i s Const i t u t ion ha s been , i s be i ng o r i s l i ke ly to be,

cont ra vened i n r e la t ion to any per son ; (e) dec i s ion s i n any c r im i na l p roceed ing s in wh ich t he

Fede ra l High Cou r t o r a High Cour t ha s impo sed a sent ence o f dea t h; ( f ) dec i s i on s made o r

g iv en by t he Fede ra l High Cour t o r a High Cour t - ( i ) whe re t he l ibe r ty o f a pe r son o r t he

cu s tody o f an i n f a nt i s conce rned, ( i i ) whe re a n i n j unc t ion o r the appo intment o f a rece i v e r i s

g ra nt ed o r r e f u sed, ( i i i ) i n the ca se o f a dec i s ion de te rm in ing the ca se o f a c r ed i to r o r t he

l i ab i l i t y o f a cont r ibuto ry o r o ther o f f i c e r unde r any enactment r e la t i ng to compan i e s i n

r espect o f mi s f ea sance o r o t herw i se , ( i v ) i n t he ca se o f a dec r ee n i s i i n a ma t r imon ia l ca u se o r

a dec i s ion i n a n adm i ra l t y ac t ion det e rmin i ng l i ab i l i t y , and (v) i n such o t her ca se s a s may be

p re sc r ibed by any law i n fo rce i n Niger i a .

22 See fo r example sec t ion 242(1) o f t he Const i t u t ion wh i ch p rov ide s t ha t “an appea l s ha l l l i e

f rom dec i s i on s o f t he Fede ra l High Cour t o r a High Cour t to t he Cou r t o f Appea l w i t h t he

l eave o f t he Fede ra l High Cour t o r tha t High Cour t o r t he Cour t Appea l ” . There i s no s im i l a r

prov i s ion i n t he CCBTA.

6

punishment imposed on such person to the Court of Appea l at the instance of

any party to the proceedings; and (y) Any r ight of appeal to the Court of

Appeal f rom the dec is ions of the CCT sha l l be exerc ised in accordance with an

CCBTA and the ru les of cour t for the t ime be ing in force, regulat ing the powers,

pract ice and procedure of the Court of Appea l .

9. Fur thermore, Paragraph 17(4) of the Par t 1 of the F i fth Schedule of the

Const itut ion s t ipu lates that “[w]here the Code of Conduct Tr ibunal gives a

decis ion as to whether or not a person is gu i l ty of a contravent ion of any of the

prov is ions of the Code of Conduct, an appeal sha l l l ies as of r ight f rom such

dec is ion or f rom any punishment imposed on such person to the Court of Appea l

at the instance of any party to the proceedings.”

10. Rely ing on the foregoing, one may be tempted to conclude that a ca re fu l read

but purposive interpretat ion of the above sta ted prov is ion is that the r ight to

appea l only l ies to the Court of Appea l, where a decis ion as to whether a

person is gui l ty of a cont ravent ion of any the provis ions of the Code of

Conduct has been reached. In other words, one may r ight ly asse rt that an appea l

wi l l not l ie to the Court of Appea l f rom a bench rul ing or a dec is ion of the CCT

if such a dec is ion does not f ina l ly determine whether a publ ic off ice r is gui l ty of

a cont ravent ion of the any p rov is ions of the Code of Conduct.

11. In addi t ion, one may a l so be r ight to asser t that for an appeal to be competent

f rom the dec is ion of the CCT to the Court of Appea l, the CCT must have

actua l ly given a f ina l dec is ion on whether a Publ ic of f ice r cha rged be fore i t i s

gu i l ty of the Code of Conduct or not. Consequent ly, where a decis ion has not

been reached whether a publ ic of f ice r is gu i l ty or not as the case i s in Dr Bukola

Sarak i ‟ s case (taking into cons idera t ion that Dr. Sarak i has not even taken h is

plea), the a rgument may be put forward that such an appeal f i led at the Court of

Appeal i s suscept ib le to be ing decla red in competent.23

23

The fo r ego i ng notwi t h s t a nd ing , i t ca n be a rg ued, re ly i ng on Sect ion 36(1) o f the

Const i t u t ion t ha t i t i s we l l w i t h i n t he cont empl a t ion o f the law and t ha t o f t he law make r s

tha t a ny pub l i c o f f i c e r , ( i nc l ud i ng t he Sena t e P re s ident ), des i r ou s o f s eek i ng j ud ic ia l r ev i ew

o f any a c t ion o f a t r ibuna l o r en fo r cement o f h i s r i gh t , tha t such a pub l i c o f f i c e r be a l lowed

acce s s to t he cour t . See f u r the r Sect ion 36(1) o f t he Const i t u t ion wh ich p rov ide s t ha t “[ I ]n

the det e rmina t ion o f h i s c i v i l r i g ht s a nd ob l iga t ion s , i nc l ud i ng a ny ques t ion o r det e rm ina t ion

by o r a ga i n s t a ny government o r a ut ho r i t y , a pe r son sha l l be ent i t l ed to a f a i r hea r i ng w i t h i n a

7

The Debate

12. Having examined the legal f ramework for the CCT, i t then becomes pert inent to

consider the debate, exempl i f ied by two schools of thought as to whether the

CCT is a super ior court of record. Proponents of the f i rs t school of thought ,

ably represented by Chief Oli sa Agbakoba SAN, a former Pres ident of the

Niger ian Bar Assoc iat ion have argued that the recent conduct of th e CCT in the

Sarak i Case and it s fa i lure to comply with the order of the FHC is condemnable

and could resu lt in a tota l d is rega rd for the ru le of law cum establ i shed hiera rchy

of court s. In a rgu ing that the CCT is not a super ior cour t of record, but an

in fe r ior cour t, proponents of th is school of thought have postu lated that the

CCCT “is not a super ior cour t; i t i s an infer ior cour t and because it i s an infer ior

cour t, i t is amenable to the jud ic ia l rev iew jur isdict ion of a super ior court of

record l ike the Federa l High Court”. Di f ferent opin ions and views have been

expressed by proponents of th is school of thought who have fur ther contended

that what the CCT did, in i ssu ing a bench war rant to the Senate Pres ident,

Senator Bukola Sarak i, in the face of an e xi st ing Order of the FHC amounts to

se r ious jud ic ia l abuse of the due process of the ru le of law and amounts to

judicia l ra sca l i ty on the part of the CCT.24

13. On the other hand, proponents of the second school of thought have a rgued that

the CCT is a l so a Super ior Court of Record with spec i f ic ju r i sd ict ion in certa in

matter s, v iz, v iola t ions of the Conduct of Conduct prescr ibed for publ ic off ice rs

out l ined in the Fi fth Schedule to the Const itut ion. It has been fu rther argued

that the CCT qua l i f ies as a Super i or Court of Record and i s a court of

coordinate ju r i sd ict ion with the FHC; given the fact the prov is ion of Paragraph

18(4) of the F i fth Schedule of the Const itut ion which prov ides that appeals

f rom the CCT l ie on ly to the Court of Appea l. A l ie has however g iven by some

of the proponents of th is school of thought who have argued, rather e r roneous ly

r ea sonab l e t ime by a cou r t o r o the r t r i buna l es t ab l i s hed by law and cons t i t u t ed i n such manne r

a s to secur e i t s i ndependence and impa r t i a l i t y . ” I t i s t r i t e t ha t the p r i nc ip l e o f f a i r hea r ing i s

f undamenta l to a l l cou r t p rocedure a nd even t r ibuna l p ro ceed ing s , a nd l i k e j u r i sd ic t ion, t he

absence o f i t v i t i a t es t he p roceed ing s no ma t t e r how we l l conduct ed. See a l so Atano V A.G

Bende l Sta t e 1988) 2 NWLR (PART 75) 132.

24 Chika Ebuzo r , Pu l s e. ng “Agbakoba f a u l t s Code o f Conduct T r ibuna l” , a va i l ab le a t

ht tp : / /pu l s e .ng /po l i t i c s / sa ra k i -agbakoba - f a u l t s -code-o f - conduct - t r ibuna l - id4186191.html a nd

acce s sed on Sept embe r 21, 2015 a t 11:09pm.

8

that , “any d issat i s fact ion ar is ing f rom a dec is ion or a ru l ing of the CCT can only

be enterta ined by the Court of Appea l ”. Nothing, I be l ieve, can be far ther f rom

the t ruth than thi s fau lty assert ion which, when tested and scrut in ized wi l l fa i l to

see the l ight of day g iven the analys i s ea r l ie r done on the scope of the r ight of

appea l f rom a decis ion of the CCT to the Court of Appea l . I t can be r ight ly

argued that to say that „any dissat is fact ion‟ can only be enterta ined by the Court

of Appeal i s st re tch ing what is prov ided for in the Const itut ion. The fa l lacy

conta ined in the sa id argument i s best d iscovered by hav ing recourse to the

canon of statutory inte rpretat ion. Having cons idered the a rguments ra i sed by

both schools of thought, e f for ts wi l l now be made to cons ider whether the CCT

actua l ly a super ior court of record .

Judicial Powers and Superior Courts of Record

14. Sect ion 6(1) of the Const itut ion prov ides that “[t]he jud ic ia l powers of

Federat ion sha l l be vested in the cour ts to which th i s sect ion re la tes, be ing

cour ts estab l ished for the Federat ion. More important ly, Sect ion 6(3) of the

Const itut ion express ly prov ides that the Courts25

to which Sect ion 6 rela te s

“shal l be the only superior courts of record in Nigeria…and shal l have al l the

powers of a superior court of record ”. Re lying on the foregoing provis ion, one

may be tempted to conc lude that a l i te ra l construct ion of Sect ion 6 of the

Const itut ion without more revea ls that the CCT is not a Court of Super ior

Record contemplated under the Niger ian Const itut ion. This argument may fur ther

be but t ressed by the sett led pr inc ip le of law which i s that the express ment ion of

one or more th ing of a part icular c la ss e xcludes others.26

Notab ly, one of the

card ina l ru les of judic ia l interpretat ion of statute, includ ing the Const itut ion, i s

to exc lude what i s not stated in sta tute or Const i tut ion; th i s rule i s encapsu lated

25

As p rov ided i n Sect ion 6(5) o f the Const i t u t ion, t he Cou r t s to wh ich Sect ion 6 re la t es a re :

( i) t he Supreme Cour t ( i i ) the Cou r t o f Appea l ( i i ) t he Federa l High Cour t ( iv ) The

Nat iona l I ndus t r i a l Cou r t (v) t he High Cou r t o f the Fede ra l Cap i t a l Te r r i to r y , Ab uja ; (v i )

the Sha r i a Cou r t o f Appea l o f the Fede ra l Cap i t a l Te r r i to ry Abuja (v i i ) t he Customa ry Cou r t

o f Appea l o f the Fede ra l Cap i t a l Ter r i to ry , Abu ja (v i i i ) a Customa ry Cour t o f Appea l o f a

Sta t e; ( i x ) such o t her cou r t s a s may be aut ho r i s ed by law to exe r c i s e j u r i sd ic t ion on ma t t e r s

w i t h r e spect to wh ich the Nat iona l As sembly may make laws; a nd (x) such o t he r cour t s a s

may be aut ho r i s ed by law to exe rc i s e j u r i sd i c t ion a t f i r s t i n s t a nce o r on appea l on ma t t e r s

w i t h r e spect to whi ch a House o f As sembly may make l aws .

26 See Oduyoye v . Lawa l [2003] 3 NWLR (Pt .807)432, Ona la ja , JCA; see a l so B lue -Ch ip

Commun i ca t ion s Company V. Niger i a n Communi ca t ion s Commi s s ion

9

in the Lat in maxim „express io uni rous exc lus io a lt er ius ‟ , which means that what i s

not s tated is deemed excluded.27

15. However, one must note, as r ight ly warned by a learned jur is t, Hon. Just ice

Onala ja, JCA that the Lat in maxim – „express io un ius est exc lus io a l ter ius ‟ must

be appl ied with great care and cau t ion.28

Again, i t has been sage ly noted by

Wil l s J., in Colquhoun v. Brooks that:29

“express io unius exc lus io a lter ius is one

that cer ta in ly requi res to be watched. Perhaps few so -ca l led rules of

interpretat ion have been more f requent ly misappl ied and st retc hed beyond thei r

due l im it s. The fa i lure to make the express io complete very often ar ise f rom

acc ident very often f rom the fact that i t never st ruck the draf tsman that the thing

supposed to be exc luded needed spec i f ic ment ion of any kind and the

appl icat ion of thi s and every other techn ica l rule of const ruct ion var ies so much

under di f fer ing ci rcumstances and i t i s open to so many qua l i f ica t ions and

except ions, that i t i s ra re ly that such ru les he lp one to a rr ive at what is meant.”30

27

Amgba re v . Sy lva (2007) 18 (Pt . 1065) 1 a t 26, pa ra s . B - C (CA); see Nawa v. At t . ,

Gen. C ro s s R i ve r s Sta t e (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt . 401) 807 a t 843, pa ra s . F - H (CA)

whe re the Cour t o f Appea l , Pe r Ngwuta , JCA he ld thu s : "A pr i nc ip l e o f s t a tuto ry

in t e rp r eta t ion o f s t a t ut e s i s t ha t exp re s s ment ion o f one t h ing i n a s t a t uto r y p rov i s ion

automat ica l l y exc l ud es any o ther t h i ng whi ch o t herw i se wou ld have app l i ed by imp l i ca t ion

w i t h rega rd to t he same i s s ue - exp re s s i o un i u s ex c l u s io a l t e r i us " . Per . Ngwuta , JCA; see a l so

Odumegwu-Ojukwu V. Ya r ' adua & Ors. (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt . 1078) whe re t he Cour t he ld

tha t " ' exp re s s io un i u s es t exc l u s io a l t e r i u s ' r u l e…means tha t t he exp re s s ment ion o f one th i ng

i n a s t a t uto ry p rov i s i on au tomat ica l l y exc l udes any o ther wh i ch o t he rw i se wou ld have been

inc l uded by imp l i ca t ion. See PDP v. 1NEC (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt . 626) 200; Buha r i v .

Di kko Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt .841) 446; Ogbuny iya v . Okudo (1979) 6 -9 S.C.

32. See a l so Ha l sbu ry ' s Law o f Eng la nd , 4th Ed i t io n pa rag raph 876. "

28 Oduyoye v . Lawa l (sup ra ) , Ona la j a , JCA; see Ehuwa v. O.S. I .E .C. (2006) 10 NWLR

(Pt .1012) 544 where t he Sup reme Cour t he ld t ha t “[ I ] t i s now f i rm ly e s t ab l i s hed t ha t i n

t he cons t r uc t ion o f a Sta t uto ry p rov i s ion, whe re a s t a tut e ment ion s spec i f i c t h i ng s o r pe r sons ,

the i n t ent ion i s t ha t t hose not ment ioned a r e no t i n t ended to be inc l uded. The l a t in max im i s

"Exp re ss io un i u s e s t ex c l u s io a l t e r i u s " - i . e. t he exp re ss ion o f one t h i ng i s t he exc l u s ion o f

anot her . I t i s a l so t e rmed ' i nc l u s ion un i us e s t ex c l u s io a l t e r i us " o r " enume ra t io un i u s exc l u s ion

a l t e r i us " - See Lega l Max ims i n B la ck ' s Law D ic t iona ry Sevent h (7th) Ed i t i on page 1635.

See a l so …Udoh & 2 Ors . v . Ort hopaed ic Hosp i t a l Management Boa rd & Anor . (1993) 7

SCNJ (Pt .11) 436; (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt .304) 139 a t 148 and many o t her s . I n o the r

word s, t he exp re ss ment ion o f one th i ng i n a s t a t uto r y p rov i s ion a utomat ica l l y e xc l udes a ny

o ther wh ich o t herw i se would have app l i ed by imp l i ca t i on w i t h r ega rd to t he same i s s ue. "

29 (1887) 19 QBD 400 a t page 406

30 I n te r e s t i ng ly , on appea l , a s r epo r t ed in Co lquhoun v . B rooks (1889) 21 QBD 52 a t page

65 Lo rd Lopes , L.J. t he Cou r t o f Appea l s t a t ed t hu s: “[T]he max im exp re s s io un iu s ex c l us io

a l t e r i us ha s been p re ssed upon u s . I ag r ee w i t h wha t i s sa id i n t he cou r t be low by Wi l l s J.

about t h i s max im. I t i s o f ten a va l uab l e s e r va nt but a dange rous ma s t e r to fo l low i n th e

cons t r uc t ion o f s t a t ute s o r document s . The exc l u s io i s o f t en t he r e su l t o f i nadve r t ence o r

acc ident and the max im ought no t to be app l i ed were i t s app l i ca t ion hav i ng r ega rd to the

sub jec t ma t te r to wh ich i t i s to be app l i ed leads to i ncons i s t ency o r i n j u s t i c e . "

10

16. Nonethe less, one may a ls o a rgue that in addit ion to the 9 (n ine) cour ts l i s ted in

sect ion 6(5) of the Const itut ion, the Const itut ion only recognises: (x) a

super ior court of record as may be prescr ibed in an act of Nat iona l Assembly;

and (y) a super ior cour t of record as may be p rescr ibed in a law of the House of

Assembly of a State. To th is end, i t may be r ight ly a rgued that for any court

created by e ither the National Assembly or the State House of Assembly to

qua l i fy as a super ior cour t of record, such must be express ly stated in the

enab l ing Act or law.

17. Upon a care ful perusa l of the re levant prov i s ions of the CCBTA, the proposi t ion

can be made that the CCBTA has fa i led to qua l i fy the CCT as a court of

super ior record. The wordings of Sect ion 6(3) of the Const i tut ion are as

fo l lows: “[T]he Courts to which thi s sect ion relates, estab l i shed by th i s

Const itut ion… specif ied in subsect ion 5(a) to (i) of this sect ion shal l be the

only superior courts of record in Nigeria; and save as otherwise prescribed by

the National Assembly or by the House of Assembly of a State…”

18. In addit ion, adopting the l i te ra l meaning of “prescr ibe” as provided Black‟s Law

Dict ionary which means “ to d ictate, orda in, or direct; to estab l ish author i tat ive ly

(as a ru le or guide l ine) ”, i t may be r ight ly asserted that the Nat iona l Assembly,

hav ing fa i led to express ly s tate that the CCT shal l be a super ior cour t of record,

the CCT does not qua l i fy to be ca l led “a super ior court of record” in Niger ia.

For ins tance, thi s a rgument may be fort i f ied that the National Indus tr ia l Court

(NIC), before i ts inc lus ion in the l i st of super ior cour t s of record in the

Const itut ion, had an express sta tutory back ing, which spec i f ica l ly s tated that the

NIC sha l l be a super ior cour t of record. Whi le Sect ion 1(3) (a) of the

National Indust r ia l Court Act 2006 express ly prov ides that the NIC sha l l “be a

super ior court of record”, Sect ion 1(3) (b) of the NIC Act prov ides that the

NIC sha l l have the powers of a High Court, except as otherwise provided by

any enactment.31

19. Rely ing on the foregoing, i t may be r ight to make recourse to the set t led

pr incip le of law that the cour t is bound to give the words of s tatutes/const i tut ion

31

See f u r t he r J.O. Ase i n, I n t roduct ion to Niger i a n Lega l Sy s tem, Ababa P res s Ltd, Sure l e r e ,

Lago s, Nige r i a , p.231.

11

the i r l i tera l, grammatica l and natura l meanings32

un less doing so it wi l l resu lt in

absurd ity. Consequent ly, i t can then be submitted that the Const itut ion and the

CCBTA, hav ing not s ta ted that the CCT sha l l be a super ior cour t of record, any

argument to the contra ry wi l l surely fa l l l ike a pack of cards33

20. A l ie has however been given to an argument in certa in quar te rs , that tak ing into

considera t ion the prov is ions of Paragraph 18(4), Part 1 of the F i fth Schedule to

the Const itut ion and Sect ion 23(4) of Code of Conduct and Bureau and

Tr ibunal Act (CCBTA),34

the CCT , a „super ior cour t of record‟ with coord inate

ju r i sd ict ion with the FHC is not bound by an order of the FHC, given that “an

appea l l ies as of r ight f rom the dec is ion or f rom any punishment imposed” on a

publ ic of f ice r.35

The fa l lacy conta ined in that argument is best unraveled by the

submiss ion ea r l ier made that nei ther the Const itut ion nor the CCBTA provides

for the estab l i shment of the CCT, as a super ior cour t of record in Niger ia .36

Remedies Avai lable to a Publ ic Off icer

21. The foregoing notwithstanding, one may be r ight to asser t that leg is la tors never

intended to deny a publ ic of f ice r h is fundamenta l r ights which inc lude the r ight

to fa i r hear ing. It i s qui te inst ruct ive to note that Sect ion 36(1) of the

Const itut ion provides that “[ I]n the determinat ion of his c ivi l r ights and

obl igat ions , includ ing any quest ion or determinat ion by or against any

government or authori ty , a person shal l be enti t led to a fai r hearing with in a

32

I n At to rney Genera l o f Bende l Sta te v . At to rney Gene ra l o f t he Feder a t ion a nd o r s . (1982)

3 NCLR 1.77-78 t he Sup reme cour t , pe r Oba sek i JSC la id do wn some p r i nc ip l es to gu ide

in t he i n t e rp r eta t i on o f t he Const i t u t ion . Among t he se i s t he p r i nc ip l e tha t : - "The la nguage o f

t he Const i t u t i on where c l ea r a nd unamb iguous must be g iv en i t s p la i n ev ident mean i ng . ” Note

a l so i t i s beyond cav i l t ha t in t he in t e rp r eta t ion o f s t a t ut e s , where t he words used the r e i n a r e

c l ea r a nd unamb iguous, t he cour t ' s on ly l eg i t ima t e duty i s to g i v e t hem t he i r o rd ina ry a nd

p la i n mean i ng a nd cons t rue t hem wi t hout a ny g lo s se s o r i n t e rpo la t ion s . See Ka l u V. Od i l i

(1992) 5 NWLR (240) 130 AT 193 - 194; Af r i ca n Newspape r s Ltd . V. Fede ra l

Repub l i c Of Nige r i a (1985) 2 NWLR (6) 137; Adewunmi V. A.G. Ek i t i St a te (2002)

17 NWLR (743) 706.

33 See sec t ion 6 o f t he Const i t u t i on o f t he Fede ra l Repub l i c o f Nige r i a , 1999 (a s amended)

34 Code and Bu reau a nd T r ibuna l Act Cap . C15, Laws o f the Fede ra t ion o f N iger i a

35 See Sect ion 23(4) o f t he Code and Bureau a nd T r ibuna l Act Cap. C15, Laws o f t he

Fede ra t ion o f Nige r i a a nd Pa rag raph 18(4), Pa r t 1 o f the F i f t h Schedul e to the Const i t u t ion

o f the Fede ra l Repub l i c o f Nige r i a , 1999 (as amended)

36 See sec t i on 6 o f the Cons t i t u t ion o f t he Federa l Repub l i c o f N ige r i a , 1999 (a s amended)

and t he CCBTA.

12

reasonable t ime by a court or other t r ibunal es tabl ished by law and const i tu ted

in such manner as to secure i ts independence and impart ia l i ty .”37

22. Rely ing on the foregoing prov is ions, i t may be r ight ly asse rted that the dra fter s of

the Niger ian groundnorm never contemplated a s i tuat ion where a publ ic of f ice r

cannot approach the court, pa rt icu lar ly the FHC (which is a Super ior Court of

record as est abl i shed in Sect ion 6 of the Const itut ion) for a jud ic ia l rev iew, to

determine the lawfu lness or otherwise of an act ion or procedure adopted by the

CCT in re lat ion to such publ ic off icer . In addit ion, sect ion 46(1) of the

Const itut ion a l lows any person, in clud ing a publ ic off ice r, who a l leges that any

of the provis ions of th i s Chapter has been, i s being or l ike ly to be contravened

in any State in re lat ion to h im to apply apply to a High Court in that State for

redress.

Can the FHC exercise Judicial Review over the CCT?

23. There i s a need to cons ider the judicia l review power of the FHC in

re lat ion to the CCT. The Court of Appeal in Nwaogwugwu v. Pres ident,

F.R.N.38

has def ined „ judic ia l rev iew ‟ a s „a spec ia l procedure through which

publ ic bodies or t r ibuna ls exerc is ing quas i - judicia l or jud ic ia l funct ions a re

sub ject to the superv isory jur i sdict ion of super ior court s. ‟ S imi la r ly, the apex

Court, Per Onnoghen, J.S.C., in Afr ican Continenta l Bank P lc. v. Nwaigwe39

has opined inte r a l ia that “[j]udicia l review i s the superv i sory jur i sdict ion of the

High Court exerci sed in the rev iew of the proceedings, deci s ions and acts of

in fe r ior cour ts and t r ibunals and acts of governmenta l bodies.”40

Consequent ly, i t

37

The p rov i s ion o f Sect ion 36 o f t he Const i t u t i on i s a k i n to t he f i f t h a nd fou r t eent h

Amendment s to the Amer i c an Const i t u t ion r ega rd i ng “due p roce s s o f l aw”. More o f ten t han

not , t he r e i s a g r ea t t endency to equa t e the cons t i t u t i ona l p rov i s ion w i t h t he doct r i ne o f

na t u ra l j u s t i c e. I t ha s even been sa id t ha t “ t he r equ i r ement o f f a i r hea r i ng p re suppose s t he

obse rvance o f the p r i nc ip l e s o f na t u ra l j u s t i c e whi ch a r e the a ud i a l t e ram pa r t em ru l e (hea r t he

o ther pa r ty ) a nd nemo j udex i n cau sa sua (no one can be a j udge i n h i s own ca se) . See

I l uyomade & Eka , Ca se s a nd Mate r i a l s on Admin i s t r a t i v e Law i n Nige r i a , Second E d i t ion,

1992, Oba f em i Awo lowo Un ive r s i t y Pre s s Ltd. , I l e - I f e , Niger i a , pp . 190-191; see a l so

Ara ka , C. j . , i n Nige r i a Judges Conf e r ence Pape r s , 1982 a t p. 100.

38 (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt .1030) 237 C.A.

39 (2011) 7 NWLR 380

40 See a l so Baka r e v . L.S .C.S.C. (1992) NWLR (Pt . 262) 641 where t he Supreme Cou r t ,

Per Nnaemeka -Agu, JSC he ld a s fo l lows : “The cour t s i n exe rc i se o f t he i r power o f j ud ic ia l

r ev iew a r e cons ta nt ly ca l l ed upon to s c r ut i n i z e t he va l id i t y o f i n s t r ument s , l aws, a c t s ,

dec i s ions , a nd t ra n sa c t ion s . I n t he exer c i s e o f t he j u r i sd ic t ion, t he cour t s ca n dec la r e t hem

13

may be argued that given that the High Court ( inc luding the FH C) has the

superv isory jur isdict ion to rev iew the proceedings of an in fe r ior court and/or

t r ibuna l, the FHC, wi l l be wel l wi th in i t s inherent jur i sd ict ion to exerci se i t s

power of judic ia l rev iew on a Tr ibuna l such as the CCT, when inv ited to do so

by an aggr ieved party, except there i s an express s tatutory or const i tut ional

prov is ion to the cont rary. It must be noted, however, that there has been

cont roversy as to whether in fe r ior court s, but not admin is t ra t ive t r ibuna ls, may be

immune f rom judicia l rev iew.41

It has been argued that where a t r ibunal or

admin is t ra t ive body exerci ses sole and exclus ive jur isdict ion, taking into

considera t ion the spec ia l nature of that jur i sd ict ion, the superv isory contro l to be

exerc ised by the court must be one of l imi ted nat ure.42

The foregoing

notwithstanding, i t is can be r ight ly argued that to the extent that the FHC does

not intend to review the f ina l „deci s ion‟ of the CCT given that the Const itut ion

has a l ready prov ided that the r ight of appea l l ies to the Court of Appeal in such

instance, the FHC wil l wel l be with in i ts inherent powers to cons ider, for

instance, the va l idi ty of the procedure adopted by the CCT in t ry ing an accused

person.43

i n va l id o r u l t r a v i r e s a nd vo id not because t hey a r e uncons t i t u t iona l i n t e rms o f s ec t ion 33 o f

the Const i t u t ion but because t hey o f f end aga i n s t t he ru l e s o f na tu ra l j u s t i c e o f aud i a l t e ram

pa r t em, o r nemo j udex i n c au sa , o r o f f end s aga i n s t the r u l es o f f a i r nes s , o r o the rw i se o f f end s

the r u l e o f na tu ra l j u s t i c e. Al l t he se a r e i n t he r ea lm o f adm in i s t r a t i ve , a nd not cons t i t u t iona l ,

l aw. The cou r t ca n by i t s power o f j ud ic ia l r ev i ew set them a s ide. The g r ea t d iv ide i s tha t

s ec t ion 33 dea l s w i t h jud ic ia l bod ies and does no t nece s sa r i l y ex t end to a l l bod ie s no t

jud i c ia l but a l l t he same dec id i ng on r ig ht a nd ob l iga t i on s . "

41 See M.Al l en & B r ia n Thompson, Ca se s & Mater i a l s on Const i t u t i ona l & Admin i s t r a t i v e Law,

7t h Ed i t io n, 2002, Oxfo rd Un ive r s i t y Pre s s , p. 581 ;

42 See a l so Reg i na v . Lo rd P re s ident o f t he P r ivy Counc i l , Ex pa r t e Page [1993] AC 682.

43

See fu r t he r Ci v i l Se rv i c e Unions v . Min i s t e r fo r t he C iv i l Se rv ic e[1985] AC 374 a t 410. I n

Counc i l o f Ci v i l Ser v i c e Unions v . Min i s t e r fo r t he Civ i l Ser v i c e ( sup ra ), he s t a t ed t ha t

jud i c ia l r ev i ew had deve loped to a s t age when w i t hout r e i t e ra t ing a ny a na ly s i s o f the s t ep s by

wh ich t he deve lopment ha s come about , one cou ld conven i ent ly c la s s i f y unde r t h r ee heads t he

g round s upon wh i ch adm in i s t r a t i v e i s s ub j ec t to cont ro l by j ud ic ia l r ev i ew. He ca l l ed the f i r s t

g round “ i l l ega l i t y ” ; the second he ca l l ed “ i r r a t io na l i t y ”; a nd t he th i rd he ca l l ed “p rocedu ra l

impropr i e ty ”. The t h i rd g round , „p rocedura l imp ro pr i e ty ‟ ident i f i ed by Lo rd Dip lo ck i s t he

app l i cab l e t es t to t he sub j ec t ma t t e r o f t h i s paper . “Procedura l imp rop r i e t y ‟ , ident i f i ed by

Lo rd D ip lock a s t he th i rd o f the g rounds upon wh i ch a dec i s i on o f a pub l i c autho r i t y o r

of f i c e r cou ld be su s cept ib l e to „ j ud ic ia l r ev i ew ‟ , Lo rd D ip lo ck wro t e : “ I have desc r ibed t he

th i rd head a s “p rocedura l impropr i e ty ” ra t he r t han f a i l u r e to ob se rve ba s i c r u l e s o f na t u ra l

j u s t i c e o r f a i l u re to a c t w i t h p rocedu ra l f a i r nes s towa rds t he per son who wi l l be a f f ec t ed by

the dec i s ion. Th i s i s becau se su s cept ib i l i t y to j ud i c i a l r ev i ew unde r t h i s head cove r s a l so

f a i l u r e by an adm in i s t r a t i v e t r i buna l to obse rve p rocedu ra l r u l e s t ha t a r e exp res s ly l a id down

in the l eg i s l a t i v e i n s t r umen t by whi ch i t s j u r i sd i c t ion i s conf e r r ed , even whe re such f a i l u r e

14

Conclusion

24. Final ly, i t i s humbly submit ted that: (x) the FHC, be ing a super ior cour t of

record, i s wel l with in i t s superv isory jur i sdict ion to exerci se jud icia l review of the

proceedings and/or acts of the CCT (which not a super ior court of record but a

t r ibuna l), that a f fect the fundamenta l r ights of a publ ic of f ice r; and (y) an order

made by the FHC fur ther to it s superv isory powers ought to be not only be

honoured but a l so respected by the CCT as anyth ing less would amount to

judicia l ra sca l i ty; and (z) the CCT is not a super ior cour t of record. As apt ly

noted by the lea rned authors of the Halsbury‟s Laws of England ,44

where it was

stated:

“The courts have an inherent ju risdict ion to review the exerc i se by publ ic

bodies or of f ice r s of statutory powers impinging on legal ly recognized

in terests . Powers must not be exceeded or abused….The superior courts

have a somewhat s imi lar inherent superv isory jurisdict ion over inferior

courts and t r ibunals. I f such a body has exceeded or acted without

jurisd ict ion, or has fai led to act fai r ly or in accordance with the rules of

natural just ice…Alternat ively, a t r ibunal may be prohibited from

violat ing the condit ions precedent to a val id adjudicat ion before i t has

made a f inal determinat ion.”45

[Emphasi s suppl ied].

does not i nvo lve a ny den i a l o f na t u ra l j u s t i c e” . The „p ro cedu ra l improp r i e ty ‟ t r i gg e r s the

j ud i c ia l r ev i ew o f the cou r t whe re the s t a t uto ry p ro cedure s and the p r i nc ip l es o f na tu ra l

ju s t i c e have not been compl i ed wi t h .

44 Vo l . 1, Four t h Ed i t io n , But te rwor t h s , London, 1973, p.51

45 Ha lsbury ‟ s Laws o f Eng la nd , Vo l . 1, Fou r t h Ed i t io n, But t e rwo r th s , London, 1973, p.51