The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has rejected High Court orders and request by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen restraining it from hearing charges against him.
The members of CCT in a split decision of two to one, refused to adjourn the matter indefinitely.
The tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar and the third member of the three-member panel, Julie Anabor refused the CJN’s application for indefinite adjournment and said the orders by High Courts were not binding on the CCT.
The second member, William Agwadza Atedze in a dissenting opinion, agreed with the CJN that with the orders by the High Courts and the appeal before the Court of Appeal, it was necessary for the CCT to adjourn indefinitely pending when the issue of jurisdiction was resolved.
The National Industrial Court, Abuja, on Monday ordered the service of an interim order and hearing notice on CCT chairman Umar.
The orders follow the suit seeking to restrain the tribunal from prosecuting Onnoghen.
At the hearing, counsel to the claimant, James Igwe (SAN), informed the court that originating processes and interim order had been served on all parties except the tribunal’s chairman and the Senate President.
Igwe said it was the secretary to the tribunal’s chairman that received the document and not the chairman personally.
He, however, said the senate president was not served as an oversight that should be corrected immediately.
The judge, Justice Sanusi Kado, therefore ordered that the processes and interim order be served on the tribunal’s chairman through substituted means.
READ: State governments to negotiate own minimum wage – FG
He equally ordered that notice should be placed on the wall of the tribunal’s office.
He held that hearing notices should be served on all parties.
He also gave the order that the interim order made on Jan.14 restraining the defendants from further proceeding with the trial against the CJN should subsist.
The judge adjourned the matter until Jan. 30 for hearing of motion on notice of the interlocutory injunction in the substantive suit.
