ABUJA, Nigeria — The controversy surrounding the leadership of Nigeria’s Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT, has deepened following a series of conflicting and backdated letters from the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, SGF, Senator George Akume.
The latest developments raise concerns over procedural irregularities and potential constitutional breaches in the bid to remove CCT Chairman Danladi Umar.
Documents reviewed by PRNigeria reveal that Umar’s disengagement letter was dated January 6, 2025, but was backdated to take effect from November 26, 2024.
Meanwhile, a separate letter appointing Dr. Mainsara Umar Kogo as his replacement was dated January 20, 2025, yet backdated to be effective from November 27, 2024—just a day after Umar’s purported removal.
Adding to the inconsistencies, the reference numbers on these documents do not align with their chronological sequence.
While Umar’s disengagement letter carries the reference number SGF.19/S.24/C.1/T/177, Kogo’s appointment letter — issued two weeks later — bears an earlier reference number, SGF.19/S.24/C.1/T/176, suggesting that his appointment was documented before Umar’s removal.
Irregular Process Raises Constitutional Questions
Legal analysts have pointed to a critical omission in Umar’s disengagement letter: the failure to cite any constitutional provisions justifying his removal. The letter states:
“I write to inform you that His Excellency, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, President, Federal Republic of Nigeria, in the exercise of his powers, has approved your disengagement as Chairman, Code of Conduct Tribunal, with effect from 26th November, 2024, following the resolution of the National Assembly.”
By contrast, Kogo’s appointment letter explicitly references Paragraph 15(3) of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 20(4) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, 2004.
The lack of constitutional basis for Umar’s removal has fuelled further legal scrutiny.
Was Due Process Followed?
The Nigerian Constitution stipulates clear procedures for appointing and removing the CCT Chairman. Paragraph 15(3) of the Fifth Schedule states:
“The Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal shall be appointed by the President in accordance with the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC).”
Additionally, Paragraph 17(3) outlines that a CCT Chairman cannot be removed from office except by a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of the National Assembly.
At present, there is no verifiable record that the National Judicial Council recommended Umar’s removal or that the National Assembly secured the necessary votes.
Furthermore, the issue of the CCT Chairmanship was already before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court before these latest letters were issued, raising further legal concerns.
Repetitive Missteps in CCT Leadership Changes
This is not the first time the Federal Government has been accused of mishandling the CCT leadership transition. In 2024, the Senate, led by Godswill Akpabio, attempted to invoke Section 157(1) of the Constitution to remove Umar, citing allegations of misconduct. However, a PRNigeria fact-check revealed that the cited section applies to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), not the CCT, rendering the move legally flawed.
Additionally, the Senate previously confused the appointment of Abdullahi Usman Bello, who was cleared to chair the CCB, with that of the CCT, underscoring repeated procedural errors in handling the tribunal’s leadership.
Political Undercurrents?
In a separate development, Umar has been invited by the police for questioning over allegations of “Obstruction and Conduct Likely to Cause a Breach of Peace.”
The timing of this invitation, coming amid controversy over his removal, has raised speculation about possible political motivations behind the government’s actions.
With backdated documents, contradictory serial numbers, and missing constitutional references, legal experts argue that the Federal Government’s handling of the CCT leadership transition risks further legal challenges.
If due process is not followed, the government could face another courtroom defeat, compounding public concerns over governance and adherence to the rule of law.
