Rancour between senate and executive over Magu is unnecessary; whoever feels aggrieved should go to court
Just like we advised on the dispute over the federal budget, the disagreement between the executive and the National Assembly over the legal force of a motion passed by the legislature can only be resolved by the court. So, instead of threats or blackmail, any aggrieved party should have recourse to the court. Without equivocation, the 1999 constitution, (as amended) from which the two arms of government derive their powers, in section 6(6)(b), explicitly imbues the court with the prerogative for the resolution of disputes.
That section provides: “The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section – shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.” In our view, the National Assembly and the federal executive are within the contemplation of this provision and instead of heating up the polity, any aggrieved party should seek judicial interpretation of the law.
So, the resort by the senate to arm-twist the executive for neglecting a motion demanding the removal of the un-confirmed acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu, is wrong headed. Last week, the senate, following the contributions of several senators in a plenary passed a motion not to allow the confirmation process of any other nominee from the executive, until the motion passed that Magu be dropped from his acting position is adhered to. The senate had on two separate occasions rejected the nomination of Magu as the substantive chairman of EFCC, but President Muhammadu Buhari’s government retained him in acting capacity.
Unfortunately, because a sizeable number of senators are under moral disability over the Magu confirmation process, considering that they are under one form of criminal investigation or another, it is clear that the upper chamber is not acting under any noble value. But even at that, the senators know that a resolution of the legislature is merely advisory, and the executive is not under compulsion to obey it. So, instead of resorting to self-help as the senators have threatened to do over the neglect of their resolution, they should approach the court, to interpret the compelling force of a motion.
With respect to the opinion of the Acting President, Professor YemiOsinbajo, with regards to the powers of the senate on confirmation of nominees, it remains an opinion, until the court gives it a judicial imprimatur. So, the senators should not feel offended that the Acting President who is a professor of law, like every citizen, holds an opinion. What would have legitimately angered the senators is that Lanre Gbajabiamila was appointed as Director-General, National Lottery Commission, and his name was not forwarded to the senate for confirmation.
As to whether Magu can continue in acting capacity after his double rejection by the senate, in our view, that again should be determined by the court. So, instead of engaging in outbursts and issuing personal threats over a constitutional dispute, the courts are abundantly empowered to determine the propriety or otherwise of Magu’s continuation in office.
If the senators are guided by opinions, Nigerians have severally expressed disgust at the humongous income and allowances which they cart away, all by themselves. Yet, regardless of that, and even judicial interventions, the senators have continued to enjoy untrammelled income and privileges. Despite well-reasoned opinion that it is the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission that should determine their emoluments, the senators have never threatened to boycott the self-serving emoluments.
So, instead of refusing to do their jobs, even when they are already overpaid, they should go to court to determine the extent of their powers, as provided by the constitution. Like we advised over the budget matter, the Attorney-General of the Federation or the aggrieved party, the National Assembly, should approach the Supreme Court under the provision of section 232(1) of the constitution, on exclusive jurisdiction, to determine between the executive and the legislature who is right, over the retention of Magu.
Clearly, the statement credited to the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, that: “as a society, we can’t pass laws and say these laws should not be obeyed. It is very clear these resolutions as passed must be acted upon by the Acting President” remains presumptuous, unless confirmed by the courts. As the senate president knows, there is a huge difference between laws and resolutions. Even more embarrassing is the statement credited to Senator Isa Hamma Misau (Bauchi North) linking the police raid of the houses of the Deputy Senate President and Senate Appropriation Committee chair to the issue at stake.
