Confusion has erupted at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) as both the embattled chairman, Danladi Umar, and the newly appointed chairman, Mainasara Kogo, assert their claims to the position.
Recent inquiries reveal that both individuals have visited the tribunal and engaged with staff without any clear directive on who is officially in charge.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu appointed Kogo as the new chairman on July 13, coinciding with the announcement of Omolola Oloworaran as the Director-General of the National Pension Commission (PenCom). However, staff members have expressed concerns about the stagnation of tribunal activities since the controversy surrounding Umar’s potential removal began.
Senior staff members, speaking anonymously, expressed their confusion about whom to follow, stating, “We are civil servants and we believe we can work with anyone that comes. However, we have not seen any official communication regarding these changes.”
They noted that there is a structured process for appointing a new chairman, which typically involves screening by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), a recommendation to the National Judicial Council (NJC), and subsequent approval by the Senate.
The ambiguity surrounding the chairmanship has led to a backlog of cases, with one official reporting that the judiciary is currently on holiday, resulting in the postponement of outstanding cases until January.
Critics have pointed out that Umar’s attempts to assert his authority, including signing documents and approving payments, are inappropriate given his alleged removal. Following the president’s announcement, both the Senate and the House of Representatives endorsed Umar’s removal on allegations of misconduct and corruption.
Legal experts have raised concerns about the legitimacy of the removal process. Sunusi Musa (SAN) argued that the president did not follow constitutional procedures for Umar’s removal, which requires a resolution supported by a two-thirds majority in both houses of the National Assembly.
Furthermore, there has been no official confirmation of Kogo’s appointment from the NJC, raising questions about the legality of his claim to the chairmanship. “Where is he getting the authority to visit the tribunal if he has not been properly appointed?” Musa questioned.
Dayo Akinlaja (SAN) added that without an official letter of appointment, Kogo’s claim lacks binding authority. Haroun Eze, Esq, pointed out that the procedures for Umar’s removal were not properly followed, emphasizing that a case of misconduct should have been established before any resolutions were passed.
As the situation continues to unfold, the CCT remains mired in uncertainty, with both Umar and Kogo vying for control amid legal challenges and administrative confusion.