Saraki’s Legal Team Denies Walking Out On Tribunal

bibing

The legal team of the Senate President, Olubukola Saraki, has said that it did not stage a walk out on the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in Abuja to protest the alleged bias by the Chairman, Danlandi Umar.

However, Raji in a statement yesterday in Abuja, debunked in clear terms that the Saraki Legal team walked out on the honourable tribunal.

The Senior Advocate clarified that the legal team only sought permission to leave the tribunal pending when the issues at the Supreme Court were settled, which he noted, was granted by the tribunal chairman.

Raji further clarified, that even though he disagreed with the proceedings, he has utmost respect for the Tribunal and never used the words “Judicial Rascality” as was being attributed.

“My attention has been drawn to several news articles making the rounds in both the print and online media to the effect that I, Ahmed Raji, SAN, as a member of the Defence team engaged by Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki in his trial currently pending before the CCT walked out on the Honourable Tribunal following the Tribunal’s refusal to accede to our application for an adjournment of the proceedings.

“It has also been reported in the aforesaid media that the defence described the actions of the Honourable Tribunal as; “Judicial Rascality”.

I wish to use this medium to correct the said erroneous information”, he stated.

Part of the statement read: “At the resumed hearing of the case against Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki (‘Our client’) before the Code of Conduct Tribunal on the said 5th November, 2015, we, as defence counsel, notified the Honourable Tribunal that we have filed an Appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal, wherewith we filed a Motion on Notice for Stay of Proceedings of the Honourable Tribunal pending the determination of the Appeal.

“Consequent on the foregoing, and citing a plethora of judicial authorities on the point, we respectfully urged the Honourable Tribunal to adjourn the matter pending the determination of our client’s appeal filed at the Supreme Court or in the least, to await the outcome of the Motion on Notice for Stay of Proceedings filed at the Supreme Court.”

Source: Leadership