By Samuel Itsede
A senior investigative operative with the Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB, Mr. James Akpala, Monday, declared that the charge against the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen, was filed before his team concluded investigation on the allegation that he falsely declared his assets.
Mr. Akpala, who is the star prosecution witness, PW-1, testified before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT, where the embattled CJN is answering to a six-count charge that was preferred against him by the Federal Government.
In his Evidence-In-Chief, the witness, told the tribunal that the petition was handed to his team for investigation by his superior at the CCB, Mr. Samuel Madojemu, on January 9, 2019.
“The petition was authored by Chief Dennis Aghanya of the Anti-Corruption and Research-Based Data Initiative, alleging breach of Code of Conduct for Public Officers, including non-declaration of assets and false declaration of assets, against the Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, GCON, the Chief Justice of Nigeria.
“Thereafter, the team wrote to the Federal Political Officers Unit (of the Bureau), Asokoro, requesting the defendant’s asset declarations received from 2000 to 2009.
“The department responded. The two asset declaration forms were examined and filed in the case file”, the witness stated.
Under cross-examination, the witness told the tribunal that he was not aware that the CCB had a central register where asset declaration forms submitted to it by public officers are kept.
He said he also had no idea of the number of asset declaration forms the Bureau issued from 1993 to 2019.
The PW-1 maintained that the constitution mandated every public officer to go to the nearest office of the CCB to declare their assets.
Responding to further questions, the witness said: “I have never worked in the department where asset declaration forms are issued to public officers.
“I have never worked in the department where the forms are verified”.
He said the petition was delivered to the CCB on January 9 and forwarded to his team on January 10.
“We requested for records of his accounts from the bank on January 11”.
Asked if he would be surprised to know that the charge against Onnoghen was filed on January 10, including the list of witnesses, the PW-1 said: “I cannot answer that question”.
When he was shown a copy of the charge and the day it was filed, the witness said: “As at January 10, we had not taken the statement of the defendant. We concluded our assignment on January 11”.
At that juncture, Onnoghen’s lawyer asked him: “So Mr. Akpala, will I be correct to say that within 24 hours that the petition was received, the investigation was concluded and an order secured from the tribunal to prefer charges against the defendant?”.
The witness replied: “Yes that is correct. We requested for documents and they were forwarded to us, which we examined. Based on examination we conducted on the documents, the charge was filed”.
Onnoghen’s lawyer then asked him: “When you obtained the statement of the defendant at the Supreme Court, around 1pm on January 11, you did not tell him that a six-count charge had already been filed against him?”.
The witness said: “My Lord, I am an investigator, I do not work in the legal department.
“At the time the defendant recorded his statement around 12:30pm, the team had no idea that the charge had been filed.
“At about 2pm when we got to the office, we had not written our report then.
“We finished our report at about quarter to 3 pm. The report was addressed to the Deputy Director Intelligence, Investigation and Monitoring”.
Asked if he would be surprised to know that as at that 3pm when the team submitted its report, FG had already secured leave of the tribunal and preferred charges against Onnoghen, the witness said: “My lord I cannot answer this question.
“All I know is that we filed our report after we obtained the statement of the defendant. We were not aware that the charge was already filed”.
He told the tribunal that his team did not at any stage, involved the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, in the investigation.
Asked if he would also be surprised that some of the bank documents FG tendered in evidence against the CJN, was actually addressed to the EFCC, the witness said. ” My lord I cannot answer”.
