This legal dispute centers around the contested chairmanship of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in Nigeria. Justice Danladi Umar, the former chairman, was removed by the Senate last year on grounds of gross misconduct. However, three plaintiffs – Community Rescue Initiative, Toro Concerned Citizens & Relief Foundation, and Nasiru Bala – have filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of his removal. They argue that the removal process did not adhere to due process as outlined in the 1999 Constitution and other relevant laws. Consequently, they are seeking a court order to reinstate Justice Umar and prevent Mainasara Kogo, who has been presented as the new chairman, from assuming the position.
The plaintiffs have initiated legal proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking an interim injunction to restrain Kogo from acting as the CCT chairman pending the determination of the substantive suit. Their application also requests the court to prevent Kogo from interfering with the tribunal’s operations and its officials, including Justice Umar. Furthermore, they are seeking an order to restrain the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) from swearing in Kogo as chairman. This motion demonstrates the plaintiffs’ commitment to preventing what they perceive as an unlawful takeover of the CCT chairmanship.
The lawsuit names several key individuals and institutions as respondents, including the President of Nigeria, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Senate President, the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the House of Representatives, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the NJC, the FJSC, Mainasara Kogo, and Abdullahi Usman Bello. The inclusion of these parties reflects the wide-ranging implications of the case and the potential impact on the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
In addition to restraining Kogo, the plaintiffs also seek to prevent law enforcement agencies, specifically the Department of State Services (DSS) and the police, from interfering with the tribunal’s operations or intimidating its officials, including Justice Umar. They allege that these agencies have been acting on the President’s directives. This aspect of the lawsuit underscores the plaintiffs’ concern that executive power is being used to undermine the independence of the CCT and to enforce the allegedly unlawful removal of Justice Umar.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit, filed in November 2024, challenges the legality of Justice Umar’s removal, asserting that his appointment was substantive and could not be terminated without due process. They further contend that the President acted prematurely by disengaging Justice Umar before the court had ruled on the matter. They also accuse Kogo, though not yet sworn in, of obstructing the tribunal’s operations and hindering Justice Umar’s functions. These allegations highlight the ongoing power struggle for the CCT chairmanship and the potential disruption to the tribunal’s work.
The plaintiffs are seeking several declaratory reliefs from the court. They are asking for a declaration that the removal of Justice Umar was unconstitutional and therefore void. They are also seeking an order restraining the Clerk of the National Assembly from transmitting the removal resolution to the President. Furthermore, they request an order barring the President from appointing Kogo or any other person to the position of CCT chairman while Justice Umar’s term is still valid. These requests demonstrate the plaintiffs’ belief that the entire removal process was flawed and that Justice Umar should be reinstated as the rightful chairman. They emphasize the urgency of the matter and the need for the court to intervene quickly to uphold the rule of law and prevent further disruptions to the CCT’s operations. This case raises significant constitutional questions regarding the proper procedure for removing the chairman of a tribunal and the potential for executive overreach in such matters. It also highlights the importance of judicial independence and due process in protecting the integrity of government institutions.
