Senior lawyers yesterday disagreed on the implications of President Muhammadu Buhari’s re-nomination of Ibrahim Magu as the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Last Monday, the president sent a letter to the Senate requesting it to confirm Magu saying there was no evidence linking the acting chairman of EFCC to any act of corruption.
Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), Seyi Sowemimo and Abiodun Owonikoko offered divergent views on the renomination.
Sowemimo said from what he had read in the papers, the president had said there was no evidence to back the allegations against Magu.
He said: “You will realise too that some foreign governments, especially the American Embassy with its Ambassador and officials have visited Magu and their impression is that there is nothing damming against him and that it’s an attempt to frustrate the anti-corruption crusade.
“If the Presidency comes out and says it has looked at the DSS’s concerns and gives him a clean bill of health, I don’t think the DSS will contradict the president.
“The Senate too, the last time they considered the matter, said if the DSS comes with a different finding, they would consider him. I think that is what has been done now; so, I don’t really think there should be more problems concerning Magu’s confirmation.
“The scenario is being painted that those who are opposing Magu are those who want to kill the anti-corruption drive, especially with the support given by the foreign bodies.”
But Owonikoko’s sentiments differed. He said that the appointment of te chairman of the EFCC is governed by “divided” authorities, meaning that the president nominates; the parliament confirms.
“Each of these two arms of government has its own exclusive role under the EFCC Act. So, the president, having done his bit, is not in a position to dictate to parliament how it will carry out its own function, which is confirmation.
“Confirmation is a prerogative of parliament and it can be assisted but cannot be dictated to in coming to a decision.
“In a properly functioning constitutional government once parliament rejects a candidate, while the law does not prevent, it is no longer appropriate – if there should be harmonious and reciprocal respect for both arms of government – for the president to continue to nominate the same person as if the country is short of materials.
“So, the dilemma we have is that the department of government that is saddled with the responsibility of conducting checks on potential nominees to public offices has given its own verdict. The National Assembly has accepted its verdict. I think the only option left is for Mr Magu to challenge the DSS report in court to dispute what they have said.”
He advised the Presidency not to personalise the issue, “otherwise we are going to have ourselves in a legal logjam”. “Other members of the commission were, from my recollection, cleared by the Senate. Will they now be holding meetings of the commission to be chaired by a person that the Senate has rejected as chairman?
“And can the acting chairman whose nomination has been rejected still continue to perform the functions of that office in defiance of the clear provisions of the law that you can only occupy that office if you are confirmed?”
