The Senate drew the ire of the public when it sought to amend the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap. C15, LFN, 2004 (CCBTA) and the Administration of the Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA). The amendment Bills were first presented on 12th April 2016 and are sponsored by Senators Peter Nwaoboshi (PDP: Delta) and Isah Missau (APC: Bauchi) respectively. The main criticism was that the bills were introduced at a wrong time as the Code of Conduct Tribunal is currently trying the Senate President, Bukola Saraki for alleged false asset declaration.
In addition, the Bill was hurriedly passed for second reading shortly after it was introduced. Negative public reactions consequently led to the suspension of the amendments.
The CCBT Amendment Bill seeks to amend Section 3 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act to require the Bureau to take a written statement from a concerned public officer before referring a case of alleged non-compliance with its the provisions to the tribunal for investigation. The sponsor of the Bill, Sen. Nwaoboshi argued that the aim is to give every public officer appearing before the Bureau the right to fair hearing as provided for under Section 36 (2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution which provides for an “…opportunity for a person whose rights and obligations may be affected to make representations to the administering authority before that authority makes the decision affecting that person.”
On the other hand, the amendment to the ACJA seeks to amend section 2(2) of the Principal act by inserting a new provision that will prevent the administration of the Act by such other Courts or Tribunals not created under section 6(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) except in criminal proceedings before the FCT Magistrate Courts. This constitutional provision identifies the superior courts of record in Nigeria and the CCB is not listed as one. However, the ACJA in its section 2 (1) states that it applies to all criminal trials for offences established by an Act of the National Assembly and punishable in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja – a position reiterated by section 86 of the ACJA which provides for the application of the ACJA in all criminal trials. Critics are of the opinion that the proposed amendment will restrict the application of the ACJA, which is seen as a laudable legislation.
It has been argued that the said ACJA amendment is related to the amendment in CCBT Amendment Bill seeking to delete paragraph 17 of the Third Schedule of the CCBT Act, which allows the Tribunal to resort to the use of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Cap. C41. LFN, 2004 and the Criminal Procedure (Northern States) Act Cap. C42 LFN, 2004 when its Rules do not have any provision in respect of any matter relating to, or in connection with the trial of offences under the Principal Act.
It is noteworthy that the amendment that seeks to delete paragraph 17 of the Third Schedule of the CCBT Act has been overtaken by events as section 493 of the ACJA repeals the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Cap. C41. LFN, 2004 and the Criminal Procedure (Northern States) Act Cap. C42 LFN, 2004.
Furthermore, although Senator Peter Nwaoboshi has argued that one objective of the amendments is to ensure that the Code of Conduct Tribunal is a purely Administrative Court, the amendments appear to be superfluous in this regard. This is because a reading of the penalties in section 23(2)(a)(b) and (c) of the CCB Act shows that the Tribunal does not prescribe criminal sanctions. The said provisions merely give the Tribunal power to impose a punishment of a vacation of office, disqualify public officers from holding any public office for a period not exceeding ten years or call for the seizure of forfeiture of the property acquired in abuse or corruption of office when its provisions are breached. A replica of the provision has been reproduced:
The punishment which the Tribunal may impose shall include any of the following‐
23 (2 )(a) vacation of office or any elective or nominated office, as the case may be;
(b) disqualification from holding any public office (whether elective or not) for a period not exceeding ten years; and
(c) seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.
Section 23(6) further highlights the administrative nature of the Tribunal as an erring public officer whom the Tribunal has imposed a sentence of punishment under section 23(2)(a)-(c) can still be prosecuted or punished for an offence in a court of law.
Although the amendments have been suspended, it is important that observers remain vigilant on the Bills. This is because the decision of the Senate does not amount to an outright withdrawal or a rejection of the Bill that happens when a Bill is negatived. The time frame of the suspension is also not qualified. This is worrying as critics fear that the Bills may be resuscitated to strip the Code of Conduct Tribunal of powers as reprisal for trying the Senate President, Bukola Saraki for alleged false asset declaration. There are also reservations on whether the Senate’ s attempt to amend the Bills indirectly contravene the legal principle of “nemo judex in causa sua” that means no one should be a judge in his own case.