Nigerian presidency, in a statement sent to PoliticsNGR, has replied the
European Union, US and UK on the recent suspension of the Chief Justice
of Nigeria, Walter Nkanu Onnoghen.
Read the Full Statement, signed by Garba Shehu, below;
“The
Presidency notes with interest the coordinated statements of the US, UK
and EU linking the suspension of CJN Onnoghen to the conduct of the
upcoming elections. We appreciate the concerns voiced by the three
statements and accept that the authors of the statements believe they
were acting in friendship toward Nigeria with regard to making the
statements.However, we also note that friends, when not properly
informed or acting in haste, can indeed make serious mistakes even with
the best of intentions. Such is the case here.The statements by
the three seem more driven by unfounded assumptions and to be honest, a
certain condescension to this African democracy. This is unfortunate.
But this gives us an opportunity to clarify some points in the hope that
these three friends reach a deeper understanding of the situation.The
statements by the US, UK and EU speak of their respect for
constitutional practice and fair elections. However, the positions they
stake tend to contravene rather than strengthen these laudable
objectives.CJN Onnoghen’s situation is one of his own making and, to a large degree, his own choosing.
The
CJN was brought before the CCT because of a serious breach of law
regarding his assets declaration. This is not a mere technicality like
innocently placing a document in a wrong file or mistakenly placing
yesterday’s date on a document.All credible evidence indicates
the CJN owned and operated several secret bank accounts. Unexplained
large sums of money, exceeding several million dollars have passed
through these accounts. Several thousand dollars are currently parked in
the accounts. Multiple deposits of equal sums of money were deposited
in some of those accounts during the same day. Such rapid and equal
deposits are indicative of a person attempting to evade banking
reporting laws and regulations.Thus far, CJN Onnoghen has given
no plausible explanation for the funds or for failing to report the
subject accounts in his assets declaration despite having ample time and
opportunity to explain the omission. Given the amount of money involved
and the CJN’s inability to explain the source of the funds, the most
plausible explanation at this point is also the most unfortunate
explanation. No one did this to CJN Onnoghen. He and he alone is to
blame for this turn of events.Over the years and with great
frequency, the authors of the three statements have advised and even
chided Nigeria about official corruption. Now we are presented with the
sad and unwanted situation where the CJN is discovered to have a vast,
unexplained amount of money in his pocket.Because of this he has
been thoroughly discredited. It is untenable that a person in such
compromised circumstances would be allowed to preside over the entire
judicial system of a great nation. That would travesty the nation and
what it stands for.Had the situation been reversed and the US,
UK or any EU member government found that its chief judicial official is
the recipient of large sums of money of questionable origin and Nigeria
suggested that you retain the person in that position, you would
question Nigeria’s bona fides. You also would swiftly move to suspend
the official pending final determination of the causes against him.Not
one of your nations would allow a person enmeshed in legal uncertainty
to preside over your legal systems until the cloud has been cleared from
him. That would incentivize corruption and assault the rule of law.Thus,
the CJN should have and could have helped the process in this regard by
recusing himself from the bench until this matter is settled.Instead,
he indefinitely postponed a NJC meeting for no plausible reason except
to avoid any consideration of this matter by the NJC.Again, this
calls into question his motives while undermining the normal operations
of the judiciary. The CJN cannot be allowed to use his office to shield
himself from the normal operation of the law as applied to any other
jurist or any other Nigerian for that matter. Such a ruse is effectively
an abuse of office. His position is one of utmost public trust; it is
not a shield to protect him from the fair consequence of his own
actions.Despite these errors and omissions by the CJN, let us
make this very clear, he has not been removed from office. Nor has he
been permanently replaced. Those who claim that he has been permanently
removed, do so out of imprecision of thought or mischief.CJN
Onnoghen has been suspended pending the final determination of the
substantive issues in his matter. The suspension is only temporary. This
is only as it should be. He cannot sit as both defendant and umpire in
his own matter. No legal system allows for such self-interested
adjudication; the US, UK and EU should not now ask us to embrace such an
anomaly.While the three friends seem to give much credence to
those who question the constitutionality of the suspension, they seem to
give less to those who believe what we did is constitutional and
protective of the integrity of the judiciary. Only the three can answer
why they have assumed this bias.Last, the three make a curious
direct linkage between the CJN suspension and the elections. However, in
Nigerian law there is no such linkage. The CJN does not run the
election. Nor is he the first arbiter of any electoral complaints. He
and the Supreme Court will only get involved as the final arbiter at the
end of the appellate process.For the authors to link the CJN to
the elections in this way is illogical unless they assume that election
complaints will be filed and will go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Here perhaps they know something about the intentions of certain
political actors to which we are not privy.Yet, even with that,
the US , UK and EU should want any such matters to be heard by a Supreme
Court led by a CJN without an obvious and outstanding ethical and legal
blemish on his ledger. To have such a person preside over any case,
would call into question the impartiality of any decision rendered and
undermine the rule of law.This cannot be what these three
friends of Nigeria intended. Thus, they should do a bit more research on
this matter and refrain from being too hastily attracted by the
arguments of those who have partisan agenda at odds with the
government’s positions on most matters and who thus hope to use this
issue as a new arrow in their quiver of partisan contestations.”
