Conduct Tribunal adjourns suit against Ribadu

The Code of Conduct Tribunal on Wednesday, adjourned hearing till October 2 on the asset declaration trial of Nuhu Ribadu, the former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

The Appeal Court had, on its part, earlier, adjourned its initial sitting on the case brought by Mr. Ribadu, after the prosecution counsel made no appearance in court. The request to disallow the trial which Mr. Ribadu filed, will now be heard on December 15, 2009, the judge said.

At the Code of Conduct Tribunal sitting, Mr. Ribadu’s counsel, Femi Falana, requested that further hearing on the case be suspended while awaiting the outcome of the appeal.

The trial Judge, Constance Momoh, said the Tribunal will decide on the defense application and also on the progress of the case bin October.

The Code of Conduct Bureau is accusing the former EFCC Chairman of failing to declare his assets while serving as the head of the anti-corruption agency.

But Mr. Ribadu has rejected the claim through his counsel, and has kicked against his trial by the Conduct Tribunal.

The former EFCC Chairman had argued on the constitution of the Tribunal and also questioned the timing of the trial, which he said came after he had left office.

But Ms Momoh said his tribunal was properly constituted as demanded by law, with two of its three members enough to form a quorum. She also ruled that the Tribunal could hold charges against past office holders whom Mr. Ribadu argued are protected by the law that demands the declaration of assets. She had, on June 24 ordered Mr Falana to ensure that his client appeared at Wednesday’s sitting.

But Mr. Falana appealed against the order and filed a three-legged counter motion, praying for leave, extension of time as well as stay of proceedings.

“As it stands, this tribunal cannot entertain this matter until the pending motions are dealt with in the Court of Appeal,” he said. “We are doing this because the life of my client is not safe in the country under this government; a manhunt has been declared for Ribadu by the state; we have all the pieces of evidence. The tribunal lacks the power to make any pronouncement on the arrest of Ribadu while our application of stay is before a superior court; doing this is tantamount to a “fait accompli.” “The motion of the prosecution is simply a dangerous invitation to bring the two courts on a collision cause,” Falana added.

Diversionary action

Mr. Ribadu’s request to the Court of Appeal is to set aside the decision of the lower Tribunal and also disallow further trial on the case which is being conducted in his absence.

The prosecution counsel, Kyari Ahmed, argued that the action of Mr Falana was diversionary. He said the motion on the bench warrant was ripe for hearing, adding that, “Falana is using his fame to obtain justice.” Mr Momoh said Mr Falana’s action was wrong as he only informed the Tribunal on Wednesday of his appeal to the Court of Appeal.

“The court ordered you to produce your client; instead you brought us copies of motions from the Court of Appeal to halt our proceedings. Even with these, the court will go ahead to listen to arguments on both motions before it on Oct. 2, 2009,” she said.