From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

HOPE of speedy disposal of the ongo­ing trial of Senate President, Dr. Bu­kola Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) suffered a setback yes­terday as the trial was adjourned till June 21.

This follows a fresh motion by Saraki in which he accused the tribunal chair­man of bias. He asked Umar to hands off his trial saying he (Saraki) has lost confidence in the ability of the tribu­nal chairman to conduct a fair trial and dispense justice according to law.

It is the second time Saraki is launching a bid to stop his trial at the CCT bordering on false declaration of assets, a violation of the provisions of the code of conduct for public officers.

In the motion on notice, Saraki in­sisted that Umar was in a hurry to con­vict him without giving him fair hear­ing and opportunity to defend himself.

He premised his claim on what he considered a threat by the CCT chair­man that the delay tactics allegedly employed by him (Saraki) in his trial on false asset declaration will not re­duce the consequences that he would meet from the tribunal at the end of trial.

He argued that the threat made by Umar in the open court was a clear indication that the tribunal had a pre-determined position to convict him at all cost irrespective of the evidences at the trial.

He therefore asked the CCT chair­man to step aside from further partici­pation in the trial.

The motion filed by lead his Coun­sel, Mr. Kanu Godwin Agabi on eight grounds indicated that the threat of consequences issued by Umar has caused Saraki to lose confidence in the impartiality of the chairman and that he is no longer confidence that he can get justice from the tribunal if the chairman continues to participate in the hearing and determination of the case against him.

Saraki denied the allegation by the Tribunal Chairman that his lawyers have been employing delay tactics to slow down or frustrate the trial.

On June 7, the tribunal chairman Umar had threatened Saraki in the open court that he would be made to face the consequences of the delay tac­tics being employed by his lawyers to delay the trial.

Umar said he was not happy with the delay that the defendant should be ready to face the consequences at the end of the trial because the delay tac­tics would not vitiate the consequenc­es that would be imposed on him.