The document, which was signed by the tribunal’s chairman, Danladi Umar, and another member of the two-man tribunal, William Atedze, takes effect from February 16, 2017. Reacting, legal practitioners said since the 26-paragraph practice direction is a procedural framework, it would take immediate effect on ongoing cases. Paragraph 12 of the document, which deals with ‘Seizures’, gives the prosecution the discretion to apply (through ex-parte motion) for temporary forfeiture of assets pending the final determination of the case. “The prosecution may, at the commencement of the trial or at a reasonable time thereafter, apply to the tribunal for an interim order of seizure, forfeiture and confiscation of the property, the subject of the charge pending the final determination of same by the tribunal,” it reads. It allows for the application to be heard in chambers or in open court by the tribunal. According to the document, “Application for temporary seizure shall be made motion ex-parte supported by an affidavit and schedule of the property to be so attached.” The Senate President, Bukola Saraki and Justice Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court are two prominent defendants currently being prosecuted before the CCT. The prosecutors in both cases spoke to our reporters on what they think of the new practice direction. A senior official in the office of the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), who is co-prosecuting Justice Ngwuta’s case, Akutah P. Ukeyima, said copies of the new practice direction have been made available to the DPP’s office and the government is aware and complying with the direction. “We complied with the provisions of the new practice direction during the last arraignment of Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Sylvester Ngwuta at the CCT so we are aware,” he said. He said on the provision for temporary forfeiture, consultations are still being made and no final decision has been reached. Ukeyima added that while he could not say if government would or would not file for temporary forfeiture of the assets that were subject of the charge against Justice Ngwuta, the option was being looked at. “We have not reached any conclusion yet; we are still studying the provisions in the new practice direction,” he said. In a phone interview, the lead prosecutor in Saraki’s trial, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), said the new practice direction is in line with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to ensure expeditious trial. “It is just intended to make sure of speedy trial of cases before it (CCT),” he said. Asked if the prosecution is considering the option of asking for a temporary forfeiture of the properties that are subject of the charge against the Senate President, he said, “No, we are not considering that option.” The document also divides the trial before the tribunal into four stages, which are arraignment, pre-hearing, the trial and sentencing procedures. Forfeiture of property, which is the subject of a trial, has been part of the three types of sentences imposable on the defendant found guilty since the establishment of the tribunal. Paragraph 21 of the Practice Direction reads: “In all cases, the tribunal shall consider whether to make confiscation, forfeiture, compensation, restitution or other ancillary orders in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws.” However, allowing the prosecution to apply for temporary forfeiture of the said property before the final determination of the case is new at the CCT. The other two sentences the tribunal can pass on a convicted defendant, according to Section 23(2a&b) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act are: “Vacation of office or any elective or nominated office, as the case may be; and disqualification from holding any public office (whether elective or not) for a period not exceeding 10 years.” The new practice direction explains in its first schedule that one or a combination of two or all the three sentences can be passed depending on the level of harm of the offence on the victim and the level of culpability of the defendant in the offence. Noticeably, sub-section 7 of the previous section reads, “The provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, relating to prerogative of mercy shall not apply to any punishment imposed in accordance with the provisions of this Section.”]]>