By Kunle Edun

Mr. Danladi Umar is a legal practitioner and the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Nigerians have not forgotten that he was the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal that made an interim order removing the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honorable Justice Walter Onnoghen (now Rtd.). Sometime in 2020, Mr. Danladi Umar was alleged to have been involved in a public brawl and affray.

There were viral videos of the “Honorable” Chairman of the CCT publicly exhibiting his kung fu skills in a market square while engaging in a physical bout with a simple and defence-less un-harmed security guard at the Banex Plaza, Abuja. Mr. Dalnladi Umar was seen in the video throwing caution and dignity to the wind by unleashing the power and influence of his official position in assaulting the young man.

Till date, Mr. Danladi was never arrested by any of the security agencies in the country. Mr. President also never deemed the shameful incident as sufficient enough to sack him. As at today, Mr. Danladi is still presiding as a ‘Judge” at the CCT over matters before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, determining cases of breach of Code of Conduct by public servants. What an oxymoronic clash of integrity, dignity, respect for the rule of law and public decency.

The latest is that a Committee of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria relying on section 89(1),(c) & (d) of the Constitution has invited him in respect of a petition made against him by some human rights activists on behalf of the poor security guard. Section 89(1),(c) & (d) of the Constitution empower the Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its Committee to “summon any person in Nigeria to give evidence at any place or produce any document…” and “issue a warrant to compel the attendance of any person who, after having been summoned to attend, fails, refuses or neglects..” to obey the summons. Therefore, any summons issued by any legislative house has same effect like a court order and failure to obey same, may lead to the person in defiance being arrested and fined.

A democratic society is governed by laws, and not by impunity or fiat. All public officials must exhibit respect to the laws of the country.

The need for public officials and institutions to obey laws was emphasized in the case of Governor, Ebonyi State & Ors. v. Hon. Justice Isuama (2003) FWLR [PT. 169] 1210 @ 1227-1228, where the Court of Appeal held that, “Obedience to the rule of law by all citizens but more particularly those who publicly took oath of office to protect and preserve the constitution is a desideratum to good governance and respect for the rule of law. In a democratic society, this is meant to be a norm; it is an apostasy for government to ignore the provisions of the law and the necessary rules made to regulate matters”.

Also, in the case of Governor of Delta State & Ors. v. Olukunle Edun (2021) LPELR-53369(CA) the Court of Appeal while condemning public authorities and officials that abuse the powers and influence of their office, held that “Before drawing the curtain on this judgment, I need to remind public bodies and public officers that a public body or public officer vested with statutory power must take care not to exceed or abuse its or his power. It or he must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. This is to prevent arbitrariness and the rule of man rather than the rule of law. See WILSON v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 4) 572, 591. The Vehicle Inspection Officers went beyond the powers vested in them by the Law and the RTR by violently stopping the private motor vehicle of the respondent on a public highway using menacing tactics and dangerous implements to demand for certificate of road worthiness which the said vehicle is not required to have. Such conduct sends a wrong signal to the citizens who may adopt such strong-arm tactics as a means of settling disputes.

Mr. Danladi Umar, being the face of the Code of Conduct Tribunal should consider it as a duty to assist the Senate Committee to arrive at a conclusion of the petition against him.