The Senate president, Bukola Saraki, says he
would win at the Appeal Court where the
Federal government has filed a petition
challenging his acquittal and discharge by
the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
The tribunal had on June 14th discharged
and acquitted Saraki of all charges relating
to his case of false assets declaration.
The tribunal held that the evidence put
forward by the prosecuting team were not
enough to find him guilty.
Upon receiving the judgement, the Federal
government filed an appeal against the
ruling on Tuesday, June 20th.
In a statement issued by his Special Adviser
on Media and Publicity, Yusuph Olaniyonu
today, Saraki said he was confident that the
appeal court verdict would not be different
from that of the CCT as the facts of the case
remained the same and the grounds on
which the tribunal’s decision was based
remain unassailable. Read the statement
below
Following the decision of the Federal
Government to file an appeal against the
ruling of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT),
which upheld the plea of no case
submission he made on the 18-count
charge of false asset declaration preferred
against him, Senate President, Dr. Abubakar
Bukola Saraki, wishes to reiterate his earlier
position that he remains unperturbed by
the development.
Dr. Saraki is confident that the verdict at the
appellate court would not be different from
that of the tribunal as the facts of the case
remain the same and the grounds on
which the decision of the CCT was based
remain unassailable.
Anybody who has been following the
proceedings and the evidence given by the
prosecution witnesses during examination
in chief and cross examination should
know that if presented before any court of
Justice and law, the same outcome as in the
CCT would be arrived at. Those who are
running commentary on the ruling by the
Tribunal and criticizing it are those who are
not even familiar with the case and the
details coming out of the trial.
That is why Dr. Saraki continues to wonder
how desperate some people in government
and their collaborators outside have
become to pull him down at all cost and by
all means up to the point that they do not
care if they destroy the institution of the
judiciary in the process. That is why they
sponsored stories of allegation of bribery
in an online publication against the
Tribunal judges. The Senate President
seizes this opportunity to call on security
agencies to immediately commence
investigation on this bribery allegation. It is
his views that those who made the
allegation should be invited to substantiate
their claims.
This same desperation made a man like
Prof. Itse SaGaey, the Chairman of the
Presidential Committee on Anti-Corruption
(PACAC) to appear on tape admitting in a
foreign country that he interfered with the
process in the Tribunal when in an
unethical manner he was instructing the
judge on how to conduct the trial.
Corruption is not just about giving or
diverting money. When an official interferes
with the judicial process with a view to
achieve personal objectives, that is
corruption.
The Senate President notes that another
sign of desperation by those who want to
get him convicted at all cost was the failed
antics of the prosecution counsel, Mr.
Rotimi Jacobs, who in collusion with the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) sought to manipulate evidence at the
tribunal. On realising the fundamental flaw
in its case as it did not invite the defendant
to make any statement at any point in the
investigation, the prosecution brought in
an agent of the EFCC to tender old
statements Saraki made in a totally different
and unrelated matter that had nothing to
do with false asset declaration. The
prosecution forgot that the letter inviting
Saraki to make the tendered statements
explicitly mentioned the matter being
investigated. At least, there are documents
to prove this. The prosecution tried to
circumvent the judicial process by ensuring
that the witness did not enter into the
witness box so as not to be on oath.
However, the tribunal, as it is obvious in its
ruling, saw through the dirty trick. It
therefore disregarded that piece of
evidence and described it as irrelevant and
of no value to the case.
