The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Falana

  • Soldiers should only wear uniform during operations, says Falana

    Human rights activist Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) has told the Presidential Investigative Panel probing alleged human rights abuses by the military that it is wrong for soldiers to wear uniform in town when they are not on military duties

    The panel was set up by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN) in his capacity as the Acting President on August 11.

    Members of the panel are Maj.-Gen. Patrick Akem, Mr. Wale Fapohunda, Mrs. Hauwa Ibrahim, Mr. Jibrin Ibrahim, Mrs. Ifeoma Nwakama and a representative of the Office of the National Security Adviser.

    Addressing the panel yesterday at the Ceremonial Hall, FCT High Court, Maitama, Abuja, Falana said: “Soldiers are not supposed to wear uniform in town, but are allowed to wear mufti. Deployment of soldiers for elections is unconstitutional.”

    The senior lawyer blames the political class for refusing to demilitarise the society.

    Air Force Deputy Director Legal Service Group Captain Sanda Dika said military system does not allow breach of procedure and rudeness to superior officers.

    Captain Dika said: “Soldiers are allowed to complain and the higher authorities must listen as there is also a human rights force desk in the air force. The authority cannot takes chances without considering fundamental human rights like freedom of speech, assembly and tribal freedom.

    “Command influence exists all over the world, ours is more pronounced while others are mild.”

    Also the memorandum filed by the Army said discipline is the strength of the armed forces and it was in recognition of this that the Armed Forces Act was enacted.

     “The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to deal with matters that pertain directly to discipline, efficiently and morale of the military. “Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and frequently,

    As a result, the military has its own code of service discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs,” the memorandum said.

  • Senior lawyer to Falana on prison amnesty: you’re wrong

    The controversy over who has powers to order the granting of amnesty to prisoners is still raging. In this article entitled: “My further rejoinder to Mr. Femi Falana, SAN”, Sebastine Hon, also a SAN, disagrees with activist lawyer Femi Falana, who insists that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and states’ chief judges has constitutional powers to do so.

    I am again forced, against my wish, to reply to my learned friend, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, by insisting that he is still wrong on his continued positing that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the respective chief judges have constitutional power to embark on prison amnesties.

    Before he forgets, I have always maintained one position: that any law, including the Criminal Justice (Release from Custody) (Special Provisions) Act, that permits this extra-judicial exercise, is null and void, by virtue of sections 1(3), 35(4), 175 and 212, conjunctively and respectively, of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

    Section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice (Release from Custody) (Special Provisions) Act, which he so much relies on, requires either the CJN or a chief judge issuing an “order” for the release and not such authority embarking upon a prison visit to physically undertake that exercise. An “order,” in law, follows the judicial as opposed to the administrative process.

    Even at that, the said Section 1(1) of that Act is unconstitutional for more additional reasons, apart from the ones I have consistently canvassed in this pulsating discourse. The first is that the CJN cannot, sitting alone, constitute the judicial quorum of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and dish out such “orders.” Section 234 of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides that in ordinary matters, the Supreme Court “shall” be constituted by “not less than five Justices of the Supreme Court,” while in constitutional matters, it must be constituted by at least seven (7) Justices of that court.

    Secondly, supposing the order detaining the prisoner was made by a High Court judge in exercise of his constitutional jurisdiction, would the CJN or even the Supreme Court have any jurisdiction to make an administrative order of release without the matter first passing through the Court of Appeal? This cannot be, under our constitutional jurisprudence!

    Thirdly, and this is in respect of states’ chief judges: can they, using administrative fiat, sit on appeal on orders made by their fellow judges while in the exercise of the latter’s constitutional jurisdiction? The answer is clearly no. Even if such state chief Judges assume judicial jurisdiction, will that not create anarchy in the judicial process? Surely, it will; and this has been consistently abhorred by the Supreme Court. Thus, while nullifying the orders made by a judge which ran contrary to the earlier order made by another judge of the same High Court, the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Cole vs. Jibunoh (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 860) 1123 at 1148E-1149B, emphatically as follows:

    A court of co-ordinate jurisdiction has no constitutional power to sit as an appellate court on a decision or order in another case and review/adjudicate on a decision or order made by another court of the same hierarchy.

    With much fanfare, glitz, blitz and bazaar, Mr. Falana also placed reliance on the authority of Iloegbunam vs. Iloegbunam (2001), and even made allusion to his arguments therein. In quoting the finding of Oguntade, JCA, however, Mr. Falana twisted the meaning of the dictum, which was meant to address the constitutional question raised by Chief Anah, SAN. Let me quote exactly the portion quoted by Mr. Falana: “There is power in the Chief Justice of the Federation or any of the chief judges of the states to order the release of persons detained in prison custody in the exercise of their power under section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice (Release from Custody) (Special Provisions) Act Cap 79 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 is not in doubt.

    “The exercise of that power by the Anambra Chief Judge would definitely constitute a different cause of action for the present respondents if they feel aggrieved by it.

    “And an action founded on the exercise of that power which action is challenging the authority of the chief judge is one that should be brought before the High Court of Anambra State by virtue of Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution.”

    A correct dissection of the above dictum is as follows: (a) a chief judge has power under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice (Release from Custody) (Special Provisions) Act, 1990 (not under the Constitution- as I have consistently argued) to release detained persons; (b) Chief Anah, SAN, wrongly challenged the constitutionality of that Act in that present appeal – he ought to have brought a fresh action in the High Court under Section 272 of the Constitution!

    How then would Mr. Falana claim in his rejoinder that “the Court of Appeal had upheld the constitutional validity of the Criminal Justice (Release from Custody) (Special Provisions) Act,” when that court starkly held that only a fresh action pursuant to the original jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 272 of the Constitution would enable such judicial pronouncement?

    Again, Mr. Falana relied on some foreign common law happenings to support his arguments, the first of which is the Writ of Petition (Civil) No. 406/2013, delivered by the Indian Supreme Court, sitting in a judicial (as opposed to an administrative) capacity! Mr. Falana inadvertently shot himself in the hip, by relying on this judicial decision, which supports my arguments right from the very beginning against administrative as opposed to judicial release of prisoners! Indeed, that court, constitutionally empaneled, sat under its original civil jurisdiction and entertained arguments from parties and even amicus curiae before making those orders!

    Mr. Falana also made reference to the situation in Pakistan, which unfortunately for him operates a parliamentary as opposed to a presidential system. May I remind Mr. Falana that Nigeria operates a presidential system, just like the United States (U.S.), hence presidential powers of pardon cannot be abridged by any enactment other than the Constitution itself. ‘Abridgement’ here includes enacting an Act like the Criminal Justice (Release from Custody) (Special Provisions) Act, in a manner that will make it compete with sections 175 and 212 of the 1999 Constitution.

    That was why the U.S. Chief Justice Burger held Schick vs. Reed, 419 US 256 (1974) at 266 that “the unbroken practice since 1790 compels the conclusion” that the power of the US President to grant pardon “flows from the Constitution alone, not from any legislative enactments,” concluding that such presidential powers “cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the congress.”

    In conclusion, and I hope this will satisfy Mr. Falana this time around, Section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice (Release from custody) (Special Provisions) Act, being in contradiction or at least competition with sections 35(4), 175 and 212 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, is null and void. The Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria and the various states’ chief judges have no constitutionally-recognised or cognisable power to conduct prison amnesty.

     

    CHIEF SEBASTINE HON, SAN

    (Constitutional Lawyer and Author)

     

  • Falana: chief judges can release prisoners

    Falana: chief judges can release prisoners

    LAGOS lawyer Femi Falana has argued that the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the chief judges of the states are empowered by the Criminal Justice (Release From Custody) (Special Provisions) Act  to order the release of any person, if satisfied that the detention of that person is unlawful.

    In a statement yesterday, he added that the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the chief judges are empowered to release any person if that person detained has been in custody, whether on remand or otherwise, for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment, which the person detained could have served had he been  convicted of the offence.

    Falana’s statement followed Mr. S. T. Hon, SAN’s argument on the constitutional validity of the powers of the chief judges of the states to order the release of prison inmates.

    The Lagos’ lawyer’s statement reads: “During a recent media briefing, the Comptroller General of the Nigerian Prison Service, Mr. J. Ahmed, disclosed that out of a prison population of 68,288, only 21,903 have been convicted while the remaining 46,351 are awaiting trial.

    “In a bid to decongest the prisons, the chief judges of some states of the Federation have ordered the release of scores of criminal suspects from custody during prison visits in the last couple of months.

    “Some of the suspects released in Lagos State are underage children, who were raided and jailed for wandering, even though the vagrant law was abolished in the country in 1989.

    “Thinking that the suspects who were released during the prison visits by the chief judges were granted pardon, my respected colleague, Mr. S. T. Hon SAN has questioned the constitutional validity of the powers of the chief judges of the states to order the release prison inmates.

    “According to him, ‘the practice of chief judges, particularly of the states, granting pardon or amnesty to offenders has been going on for quite some time now; but I make bold to say that such practice is clearly unconstitutional. Section 35(4) of the 1999 Constitution as amended has stipulated that anybody accused of an offence shall be arraigned in court within a reasonable time and that it is only that court that could make an order remanding such person in prison, ordering his release from custody – either conditionally or unconditionally. Clearly, therefore, there is no pre-conviction authorisation for pardon or release from custody by any chief judge, acting in his administrative capacity’.

    Falana said it was curious to note that in the statement credited to Hon, no reference was made to the relevant laws on the subject matter.

    “However, by virtue of section 11 of the Prisons Act (Cap P29) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the Chief Judges are among prison visitors ex officio.

    “But while the Chief Justice is empowered to visit all prisons in Nigeria, chief judges are restricted to conduct prison visit in their areas of jurisdiction.  Such visitors shall exercise such functions as may be prescribed in respect of the prisons to which their appointments or authorisations relate,” the Lagos lawyer said.

    He urged whoever is convinced that the release of criminal suspects held illegally in prison custody is unconstitutional to approach the court for legal redress.

  • Police attack on anti-Buhari protesters unconstitutional – Falana

    Police attack on anti-Buhari protesters unconstitutional – Falana

    Lawyer-turned rights activist, Femi Falana (SAN), on Monday described last week’s attack on anti-Buhari demonstrators as illegal and unconstitutional.

    In a statement titled: “On duty of Police to provide security for all protesters” issued in Lagos, Falana said “by providing “adequate security” for the pro-Buhari demonstrators while harassing the anti –Buhari protesters,” the police had violated Section 42 of the Constitution which prohibited discrimination on grounds of political opinion.

    “Since the role of the Nigeria Police Force has been limited to the provision of ‘adequate security’ for demonstrators the violent attack on the peaceful rally of the ‘Our Mumu Don Do’ group by the police in Abuja last week is completely illegal and unconstitutional,” he contended.

    He asked the police to apologize to the members of “Our Mumu Don Do” group stressing that “the violent disruption of the anti-Buhari rally ought to have embarrassed President Buhari who had advised late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, in a similar situation, to step aside as he could no longer discharge the duties and functions of his office.”

    Falana listed other protests in which President Buhari participated before becoming President to include that of November 23, 2014 in which he led All Progressive Congress (APC) leaders, including APC National Chairman, John Odigie-Oyegun and former Rivers State Governor, Chibuike Amaechi, thousands of party supporters on Boko Haram insurgence and another protest he led alongside the late Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu allegedly against the inefficiency of ex- President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration.

    The statement said: “On the 22nd day of September 2003 the police disrupted the rally convened by the defunct All Nigeria Peoples’ Party (ANPP) to protest the rigging of the 2003 general election. The police authorities justified the disruption by claiming that the organizers of the rally did not obtain a police permit. Completely aggrieved by the action of the police Gen. Mohammadu Buhari and other leaders of the ANPP instructed our law firm to sue the Inspector-General of Police to justify the legal validity of asking for police permit before protesting against the government.

    “In a suit filed at the Federal High Court against the Inspector-General of Police the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Public Order Act relating to police permit.

    “In a well-considered judgment the learned trial judge, Chinyere J. held that police permit was inconsistent with sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The appeal filed against the judgment at the Court of Appeal by the police was dismissed. In affirming the decision of the lower court Olufunmilayo Adekeye J.C.A (as she then was) observed said “a rally or placard carrying demonstration has become a form of expression of views on current issues affecting government and the governed in a sovereign state. It is a trend recognized and deeply entrenched in the system of governance in civilized countries. It will not only be primitive but also retrogressive if Nigeria continues to require a pass to hold a rally. We must borrow a leaf from those who have trekked the rugged path of democracy and are now reaping the dividend of their experience.”

    “In line with the epochal judgment of the Court of Appeal and the struggle for the expansion of the democratic space the National Assembly was compelled to amend the Electoral Act to facilitate the enjoyment of the fundamental right to freedoms of assembly and expression.

    “Thus, section 94 (4) of the Electoral Amendment Act, 2015 stipulates that ‘Notwithstanding any provision in the Police Act, the Public Order and any regulation made thereunder or any other law to the contrary, the role of the Nigeria Police Force in political rallies, processions and meetings shall be limited to the provision of adequate security as provided in subsection 1 of this section.”

     

     

     

  • Police attack on anti-Buhari protesters illegal, says Falana

    Police attack on anti-Buhari protesters illegal, says Falana

    Activist lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) yesterday described last week’s attack on anti-Buhari demonstrators as illegal and unconstitutional.

    In a statement titled: “On duty of police to provide security for all protesters”, issued in Lagos, Falana noted that “by providing adequate security” for the pro-Buhari demonstrators while harassing the anti-Buhari protesters”, the police violated section 42 of the constitution, which prohibited discrimination on grounds of political opinion.

    “Since the role of the Nigeria Police Force has been limited to the provision of ‘adequate security’ for demonstrators, the violent attack on the peaceful rally of the “our mumu don do” group by the police in Abuja last week is completely illegal and unconstitutional,” he contended.

    He asked the police to apologise to the members of “Our mumu don do” group, stressing that “the violent disruption of the anti-Buhari rally ought to have embarrassed President Muhammadu Buhari, who, he said, had advised President Shehu Yar’Adua, in a similar situation, to step aside as he could no longer discharge the duties and functions of his office”.

    Falana listed other protests in which Buhari participated before becoming President as including that of November 23, 2014, in which he led All Progressive Congress (APC) leaders, including APC National Chairman John Odigie-Oyegun and former Rivers State Governor Chibuike Amaechi, thousands of party supporters on Boko Haram insurgence and another protest he led alongside the late Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu allegedly against the inefficiency of the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

    The statement said: “On the 22nd day of September 2003, the police disrupted the rally convened by the defunct All Nigeria Peoples’ Party (ANPP) to protest the rigging of the 2003 general election. The police authorities justified the disruption by claiming that the organisers of the rally did not obtain a police permit. Completely aggrieved by the action of the police, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari and other leaders of the ANPP instructed our law firm to sue the Inspector-General of Police to justify the legal validity of asking for police permit before protesting against the government.

    “In a suit filed at the Federal High Court against the Inspector-General of Police, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Public Order Act relating to police permit.

    “In a well-considered judgment the learned trial judge, Chinyere J. held that police permit was inconsistent with sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The appeal filed against the judgment at the Court of Appeal by the Police was dismissed. In affirming the decision of the lower court, Olufunmilayo Adekeye J.C.A (as she then was) observed said that ‘A rally or placard-carrying demonstration has become a form of expression of views on current issues affecting government and the governed in a sovereign state. It is a trend recognised and deeply entrenched in the system of governance in civilised countries – it will not only be primitive but also retrogressive if Nigeria continues to require a pass to hold a rally.”

    The lawyer, therefore, urged the police authorities to apologise to Mr. Charlie Oputa and other members of the “Our mumu don do.”

  • Falana warns Fed Govt on Lagos waterways

    Falana warns Fed Govt on Lagos waterways

    Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has urged the Federal Government to respect the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which upheld the constitutional right of the government of Lagos State to control intra-inland waterways.

    The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development, Mr. Mohammed Abass, had directed some dredgers licensed by the Federal Government to continue to mine resources in the intra-inland waterways in Lagos State despite the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

    But Falana, in a statement issued yesterday in Lagos, contended that the Federal Government lacks the power to authorise dredgers to mine any resources in the intra-inland waterways in Lagos State.

    He counselled the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN) and Minister of Mines and Steel Development, Dr. Kayode Fayemi to call Abass to order.

    The statement reads: “ On July 18, 2017, the Lagos Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal delivered an epochal judgment in the case of Lagos State Waterways Authority & Ors. v. The Incorporated Trustees of Association of Tourist Boat Operators & Water Transportation in Nigeria  (Unreported Suit No: CA/L/886/2014). In the leading judgment of the Court, the Honourable Justice Hussein Mukhtar held inter alia:

    ”Item 64 is couched in no narrower scope as it deals with water from such sources declared by the National Assembly to be sources affecting more than one State. The inland waterways within Lagos State are not and cannot by any stretch of interpretation be covered by any item on the Exclusive Legislative List under Part 1 to the Second Schedule of the Constitution and I so hold…

    ”The glaring absence of the Lagos State intra-waterways in the Exclusive Legislative List under Part 1 as well as the Concurrent Legislative List under Part 2 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution means that it is automatically a residuary item that falls within the legislative competence of the Lagos State House of Assembly.”

     ”It is indubitably clear from the above judgment that the Court of Appeal has rightly upheld the constitutional right of the Lagos State House of Assembly to make laws in respect of the intra-inland waterways in Lagos State. Accordingly, the Federal Government lacks the power to authorise dredgers to mine any resources in the intra-inland waterways in Lagos State.

    ”But in a demonstration of brazen impunity, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development, Mr. Mohammed Abass, has directed dredgers who were illegally licenced by the Federal Government to disregard the clear and unambiguous judgment of the Court of Appeal and continue to mine resources in the intra-inland waterways in Lagos State.

    “Howerver, in the light of the constitutional duty imposed on the Buhari Administration to operate under the rule of law, we urge the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN, and the Honourable Minister of Mines and Steel Development, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, to call Mr. Mohammed Abass to order without any further delay.

    ”While commending the Court of Appeal for the historic judgment we urge the Lagos State Government and other state governments to continue to challenge the constitutional validity of all Decrees (now Acts of the National Assembly) enacted by the defunct military junta which have turned Nigeria into a unitary state.”

     

  • Why Saraki must return pension, Abuja house – Falana

    Why Saraki must return pension, Abuja house – Falana

    Beyond his directive to the Kwara State government to stop paying him pensions, Senate President Bukola Saraki should refund the pension he received since 2007, Lagos lawyer Femi Falana counselled yesterday.

    Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said it will still be immoral for the formal Kwara governor to admit collecting double salaries without returning what he had illegally earned after leaving office.

    In a statement, the activist lawyer, however, lauded the senator for admitting the error, urging other ex-governors, now serving as lawmakers and members of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) to take a cue from Saraki.

    He also said it was wrong of the former governor to hold on to the house built for him in the Federal Capital City (FCT), Abuja, at a time he was allegedly collecting housing allowance as the Senate President.

    Falana said: “Since Dr. Saraki has come to the conclusion that the collection of the pension is immoral he is advised to refund the pension he had collected from the Kwara State government since he became a Senator in June 2007.

    “He should also relinquish the house bought for him in Abuja by the Kwara State government since he is said to receive housing allowance as President of the Senate.”

    Falana’s statement entitled: “All ex-governors should emulate Dr. Bukola Saraki”, reads: “The Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki announced last week that he had stopped collecting pension as a former governor of Kwara State following the protest by the Socio-Economic and Accountability Project (SERAP).

    “According to the Senate leader, the moment his attention was drawn to the allegation of the payment of double salaries he wrote to the Kwara State government to stop the payment of his pension. In like manner, three serving ministers in the Buhari administration who are former governors have disclosed that they are not being paid pension from any the state government.

    “Other ministers and legislators who are former governors and deputy governors should speak out so that Nigerians can know the public officers who are involved in the illegal collection of pension from stste governments and salaries from the Federal Government pat the same time.

    “Apart from writing to the Kwara State government to stop further payment of the pension due to him under the former governors’ pension law of Kwara State,  Dr. Saraki decided to contribute to the debate on double payment of salaries by some ex-governors.

    “In condemning such payment, Dr. Saraki stated that ‘morally, if you have got another job, you should give it up until when you are truly a pensioner. Some of these oversights are not addressing the issues. What the states should do is to go and amend their laws to say that if you have another appointment then you are not entitled to that benefit. With this, we will just simplify the matter’.

    “With respect, the proposed amendment of the obnoxious laws will not ‘simplify the matter’.

    “However, while Dr. Saraki is commended for demonstrating leadership by example with respect to the illegal collection of the ex-governors’ pension he should proceed to use his position as the President of the Senate to prevail on the 20 other senators who are former governors and deputy-governors to stop further collecting pension from their state governments since they are currently receiving jumbo salaries and allowances from t National Assembly.

    However, Dr. Saraki’s call on the houses of assembly of the states to amend the laws to stop the payment of pension to ex-governors who are receiving salaries from the federal government either as senators or ministers has not addressed the immorality and illegality of the payment.

    “In fact, the popular demand of the Nigerian people is that the scandalous pension laws be repealed in toto as there is no legal or moral basis for  paying the salaries of a sitting governor to  former governors and then provide them with vehicles and two houses, one in the state capital and another one in the FCT, more so, that majority of the states are owing workers arrears of salaries.

    Finally, the members of the Lagos State House of Assembly are alleged to have concluded plans to amend the ex-Governors’ Pension Law with a view to extending the largesse to the principal officers of the legislative body.

    “The legislators should jettison the dangerous plan. Since majority of the legislators claim to be Awoists it is pertinent to remind them that while he was the Premier of the Western region the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo lived in his personal house at Okebola Ibadan.

    “The tradition of personal sacrifice by political leaders in Nigeria continued up to the second republic. Hence, Alhaji Lateef Jakande lived in his Ilupeju residence and rode his private car while he was governor of Lagos State for four years. What then is the justification for buying two houses for former governors in the same state?”

  • Falana, Ananaba back power devolution

    Falana, Ananaba back power devolution

    HUMAN rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) and Dr. Paul Ananaba (SAN) have backed the call for restructuring for true federalism and justiciability of Chapter 2 of the constitution.

    They spoke in Lagos last Friday at the 2017 National Conference of the Public Administration and Management Development Institute (PAMDI).

    Lagos State Governor Akinwunmi Ambode was the guest of honour at the event, themed “Re-engineering the Nigeria state: Challenges and prospects”.

    Falana, who was represented by a rights activist, Stanley Imhanruor, said: “It is difficult to talk about restructuring without talking about true federalism.”

    He noted that he was “100 per cent in support of restructuring provided that the issue of justiciability of Chapter 2 of the Constitution and the issue of redistribution of national resources is revisited.

    “We must restructure Nigeria economically so that the country’s wealth is fairly distributed.”

    Falana, who delivered the keynote address, warned Nigerians to be wary of political jobbers who might try to hijack the clamour for restructuring.

    Ananaba, who shared similar sentiments, condemned any attempt to balkanise the country.

    He said: “Nobody should be preaching the balkanisation of Nigeria; that is wrong. But we should be looking at reducing the size of government. This bogus government style will not help us.”

    The Chairman, Governing Council of PAMDI, Prof. Uche Jack-Osimiri said re-engineering, rather than restructuring, was the way to solve the mounting agitations across the country.

    He urged Nigerians to be their brother’s keepers.

    “We cannot afford to leave one section of the country behind. Yes there is poverty in the Northeast, but the rest of the country must not leave them behind to die. We must help them to grow, just like West Germany helped East Germany after the fall of communism,” Jack-Osimiri said.

    He noted that the country’s problems were complex, but that the problems had nothing to do with “tribe, federal or unity government. The problem is re-engineering of the Nigerian state.”

    A former Secretary to the Taraba State Government, Senator Abdullahi Bala Adamu dismissed the idea that northerners are being unduly favoured by the Federal Government because President Muhammadu Buhari is from the region.

    He lamented that despite their university degrees, five of his children are out of work.

    Adamu said the country’s economic challenges affected all Nigerians, irrespective of their region of origin or religion.

    Adamu, who represented his state at the 2014 national conference, noted that the calls for restructuring were resounding across the country.

    He urged Nigerians to unite and forge a consensus on how to make the country better.

    Falana and Ananaba were conferred with Distinguished Professional Service Award and Fellowship Award.

     

  • Magu: Sagay, Falana, others back Osinbajo

    Magu: Sagay, Falana, others back Osinbajo

    Those expecting the Presidency to drop Economic and Financial Crimes Commision (EFCC) Acting Chairman Ibrahim Magu based on the Senate’s insistence that he must go should perish the thought. Acting President Yemi Osinbajo says Magu is fit for the job. He has the backing of some senior lawyers. Joseph Jibueze and Adebisi Onanuga report.

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) yesterday backed Acting President Yemi Osinbajo’s position that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Acting Chairman Ibrahim Magu would remain in office.

    Sagay said the presidency’s position was anchored on the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which he said supersedes the EFCC Act.

    But, another SAN, Mallam Yusuf Ali, believes the provision of the EFCC Act was valid and that there would have been no conflict with the Senate if the executive had complied with the law.

    Activist lawyer Femi Falana usged the Acting President to ignore the Senate’s resolution to sack Magu.

    Two other senior advocates Prof Koyinsola Ajayi and Norrison Quakers called for caution and dialogue.

    They spoke in separate telephone interviews with our correspondents.

    To Sagay, Section 2 (3) of the EFCC Act which subjects the commission’s chairman’s appointment to Senate’s confirmation was void.

    He said: “The Section is absolutely void. A court doesn’t need to pronounce it void.  Every Nigerian can interpret the Constitution, and the lawyers particularly can interpret it.

    “There is no judge on any Bench in Nigeria today that qualified before me. I am more qualified than all of them and I qualified long before them. What are they interpreting that I cannot?

    “The truth is that the provision in EFCC Act and any other Act that says the President must get clearance from the Senate before appointing the heads of these agencies or an extra-ministerial body is null and void.

    “The Constitution has clearly provided for the President to so appoint without any reference to the Senate. That is the law of this country. The fact that we have been practicing invalid law does not mean we cannot wake up one day and do the right thing.”

    On whether the EFCC Act’s provision needs to be amended, he said: “No. You just ignore it. It doesn’t exist in law. It is invalid, it is null and void.”

    Sagay, however, said it was not a bad idea for the Supreme Court to be called upon to resolve the impasse.

    The PACAC chair said: “It is not a bad idea for the Supreme Court to be asked to intervene. But I’m telling you this is my interpretation.

    “Any other interpretation that is contrary to this is dishonest. It means they have some private agenda that is contrary to the interest of Nigerians in the face clear provisions of the Constitution.”

    Lauding the Acting President for backing Magu, Sagay said: “Since the passage of our first leaders, like Awolowo, Azikiwe and Ahmadu Bello, we have not been lucky enough to have highly principled, consistent, committed men of great integrity and honour like President Buhari and Vice President Osinbajo. Perhaps the only other previous administration close to the present one is the Murtala Mohammed/Obasanjo administration.

    “Having been victimised, brutalised, looted, marginalised and contemptuously treated by past administrations, particularly the 12-year torture and brigandage of the PDP, Nigerians are extremely lucky that Buhari and Osinbajo have come on a rescue mission to bring us back from the brink of destruction. We now have leaders who are in office to serve Nigeria and who stand on integrity and high principles.

    “By the Acting President statement vowing that he and the President would stand by Ibrahim Magu to the end, we are re-assured that if you are committed to your duties and exhibit integrity, an intrepidity and indomitable spirit in your work, no power on earth can shake you. All evil powers, who are holding Nigeria hostage by their unbridled corruption, arrogance, vanity and vindictiveness will be defeated.

    “The message of Buhari and Osinbajo in the Magu saga, is that they have the courage, determination and commitment to fight evil to standstill and that the darkness of corruption will not be tolerated in the bright light of a sane, sanitised and corruption free society they are trying to establish in Nigeria.

    “Let all of us, Nigerian masses, come out in our millions to stand shoulder to shoulder with these exceptional leaders to kick evil, fraud, looting and corruption out of Nigeria. I am personally elated that I have now found an administration that I am ready to serve with all my heart because of their basic decency and love for Nigeria. Congratulations Mr. Acting President.”

    However, Ali was of the view that the provision in the EFCC Act should have been complied with.

    He said: “The way out for everybody is to follow the law. What does the law say about appointment of EFCC chairman? The law says he must be confirmed by the Senate. That’s what the law says. I believe that if people follow the law and the rule of law, there’ll be no problems.”

    Asked about the constitutional provision that empowers the President to appoint some persons without Senate confirmation, Ali said: “There’s nowhere EFCC was mentioned in the Constitution. This is a body that was not in existence when the Constitution was made in 1999.

    “The EFCC Act says whoever the President wants to appoint as chairman must go to the Senate for confirmation. That is the law of Nigeria until it is amended. And that it part of the rule of law that people must obey the law as it is.

    “Otherwise, the signal will be sent to the citizens that if government can do things against the law, citizens can also take the law into their own hands, which will be a misfortune. If you don’t want this to happen, get the law amended. As long as that is the law, everybody must obey it.”

    Quakers said the matter was a constitutional issue that should give no room for sentiments or emotions.

    He expressed concerns about a statement credited to the Attorney-General of the Federation saying that Osinbajo’s position on Magu was his personal opinion.

    Quakers said: “What I am not comfortable with is the statement credited to the Attorney-General of the Federation that the expression of the Acting President was a personal opinion. What that goes to show is that the house is divided.

    “While the Attorney-General is the chief law officer of the federation, his position as regards this constitutional issue is very important. He is to advice government on what the position is. If the Senate has taken a position on this, he ought to advice the government as to whether the position is right or wrong.

    “If you go back in time, you will recall that the government’s position has always been it will not back down on Magu and that his appointment did not require Senate approval. That is the position of the government and I want to believe it’s borne out of a legal advice from the Attorney-General.

    “The statement credited to the attorney-general is contrary to that position. The Acting President being the head of the Federal Executive Council, having made a statement, it is taken that it represents the position of the government.

    “So, if a member of the council says the expression is personal, it means that the house is divided. It is not a question of who is right or who is wrong. It is a constitutional provision that must strictly be adhered to.”

    Recommending dialogue, Quakers said: “For me, the way out is simple. All over the world, we have people referred to as lobbyists. They lobby the passage of bills or confirmation of nominees. If a nominee has been rejected, it is not for us to insist the person has to go.

    “That makes the person a victim of the crisis between the executive and the legislature. There are ways of going about it. It happened under Obasanjo. For me, it requires more of dialogue and discussions and not to take a hardline position on this issue.

    “The Senate must not be made to appear that it is toothless and just a rubberstamp of the executive. I believe what the Senate is trying to do is to assert its constitutional power. In doing so, it might lead to crisis. So, the way out of this logjam is negotiation – for the two feuding parties to sit down and discuss it.”

    Ajayi believed that the face-off between the Senate and the Presidency over Magu’s confirmation was politically motivated.

    According to him, “the three arms of government should work together for the overall good of the society.”

    Ajayi said: “The drafters of the constitution in their wisdom created three arms of government for there to be checks and balances. They have done so in consonance worth constitutional principle from a long time and biblical injunctions also. Where there is distortion of fact, they should ensure that we don’t have authoritarian or dictatorship situation.

    “As the executive must not become a law unto itself, so must neither the National Assembly nor the judiciary become a law unto itself. So, the current difference between the senate and the presidency is needless.”

  • Senate not vested with power to remove Magu, says Falana

    Senate not vested with power to remove Magu, says Falana

    ACTIVIST lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, has said that the Senate lacked the power to confirm or approve any person appointed by the President to hold office in an acting capacity.

    He advised the presidency to ignore the resolution of the Senate on the removal Magu.

    According to him, the Senate’s resolution on Magu’s continued stay in office in acting capacity was illegal.

    He recalled: “Mr. Ibrahim Magu was appointed as Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in November 2015 by President Mohammadu Buhari.

    “The appointment was made by the President sequel to section 171 (1) of the Constitution. After Mr. Magu had acted in that capacity for over a year the Senate refused to confirm his appointment as the substantive Chairman of the EFCC. However, as President Buhari was satisfied with the performance of Mr. Magu he decided to retain him as the Acting Chairman of the EFCC.

    “A couple of days ago, the Senate revisited the matter. In a rather bizarre move the Senate decided to combine legislative powers with executive functions by passing a resolution which purportedly directed the Acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo SAN to remove Mr. Magu from the post of the Acting Chairman of the EFCC forthwith.

    “The resolution of the Senate was alleged to have been anchored on Section 2(3) of the EFCC Act which provides as follows:

    The Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall be appointed by the President and the appointment shall be subject to confirmation of the Senate.”

    But in a statement yesterday entitled: “The illegality of Senate Resolution on Mr. Ibrahim Magu!”, Falana said the action of the senate constitutes an affront to section 171 (1) of the Constitution.

    He said the Senate ought to have known from the clear and unambiguous provision of Section 2 (3) of the EFCC Act that the it has not been vested with the power to confirm or approve  any person appointed by the President to hold office in an acting capacity before passing its resolution.

    He said: “To that extent, the resolution of the Senate constitutes an affront to Section 171 (1) of the Constitution which stipulates that Power to appoint persons to hold or act in the offices to which this section applies to remove persons so appointed from any such office shall vest in the President”.

    He listed the offices in this category to include: Head of Service; Secretary to the Government of the Federation; Permanent Secretaries and Heads of extra-ministerial departments.

    The statement reads: “It is further submitted that Section 2 (3) of the  EFCC Act relied upon Senate to justify the confirmation of the Chairman of the EFCC is inconsistent with Section 171 (2) of the Constitution.

    “Indeed, of all the positions listed in subsection 2 of the Constitution it is only in the appointments of ambassadors and high commissioners made by the President which require the confirmation of the Senate. See Section 171(4) thereof.

    “Since the EFCC is an extra ministerial department of the Federal Government the appointment of its chairman does not require the confirmation of the Senate. In other words, Section 2 (3) of the EFCC Act is inconsistent with section 171 (2) of the Constitution. To that extent, the resolution of the Senate based on the EFCC Act is an exercise in futility.”

    He noted, however, that neither the Presidency nor the Senate has deemed to seek interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution from the Supreme Court the power of the President of the Republic to make certain appointments without the confirmation of the Senate had been challenged.

    To buttress his position, he cited Festus Keyamo’s suit versus the President and four others in which the plaintiff challenged the appointment of service chiefs without the confirmation of the Senate.

    He said: “The trial court set aside the appointments as the power of the President to appoint service chiefs under Section 218(2) of the Constitution is on the ground that the appointments were qualified by Section 218(4)(b) thereof which provides that the National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the regulation of “the appointment, promotion and disciplinary control of the members of the armed forces of the Federation.”