Appeal court reverses CCT’s suspension of Kano anti-corruption chairman
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on Friday, set aside the Code of Conduct Tribunal judgment, suspending the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission Chairman, Mr Muhuyi Magaji.
The appellate court, in a lead judgment delivered by Justice Umaru Fadawu, agreed with the arguments of Magaji’s counsel, Mr Adeola Adedipe (SAN), that the tribunal’s order was prejudicial and amounted to a denial of fair hearing for his client.
Justice Fadawu ordered that the matter be reassigned to another panel of the CCT.
Recall that a three-member tribunal, headed by Justice Danladi Umar, on April 4, in Abuja, ordered the suspension of Magaji from office.
The tribunal gave the order following allegations of misconduct brought against Magaji by the Code of Conduct Bureau.
Justice Umar in his ruling, held that the tribunal had the competence and jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed Magaji’s motion.
The tribunal also ordered Gov. Abba Yusuf of Kano State and the Secretary to the State Government to appoint the most appropriate officer to take over as acting chairman of the PCACC, pending the hearing and determination of the case.
The tribunal declared that Magaji cannot continue to discharge duties and responsibilities of the office while facing trial, to avoid any interference with the case.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the tribunal, Magaji, through his counsel, Adedipe, approached the Appellate court in Abuja.
In the notice of appeal dated and filed April 5 through his counsel, Magaji, gave five grounds why his appeal should be allowed and the CCT’s ruling be set aside by the appellate court.
He argued, “The CCT erred in law when it denied him a right to fair trial, fair hearing, and right to be presumed innocent by making an order directing him to step aside as the chairman of PCACC, thereby determining his guilt at an interlocutory stage.”
Among others, he described the ruling as “a miscarriage of justice.”
He also contended, stating, “The tribunal erred in law when, without the requisite jurisdiction, it granted the reliefs sought by the CCB, giving specific orders to Gov. Yusuf and SSG, knowing full well that they are not parties to the present charge as constituted; it thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
He further said that the tribunal erred in law when it adjudged him as capable of interfering with CCB’s witnesses in PCACC, even though no material evidence was put forward to support such a speculative claim.
He also argued that the tribunal erred in law when it acted without jurisdiction and denied him a right to fair trial by making far-reaching findings which were speculative and prejudicial in nature.
He further argued that the CCT erred in law, acted without jurisdiction, and denied him a right to fair hearing, when, suo motu, it raised and determined issues of purported contradictions in his counter affidavit and further insisted he concede to the speculative facts in CCB’s further and better affidavit.
