The Nation Newspaper

Tag: IGP

  • IGP and Senate’s tactless visit to presidency

    A DAY after the police leadership concluded plans to transfer to Abuja a group of suspects arrested in Kwara State for cult-related offences, Senate President Bukola Saraki raised the alarm that he feared he was about to be framed for crimes he knew nothing about. The police immediately denied the allegation of collusion and conspiracy. Weeks before, however, especially following the controversial Dino Melaye affair poorly and melodramatically handled by the police in Abuja with the suspicious connivance of the Kogi State government, the Senate had declared the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Ibrahim Idris an enemy of democracy and unfit to hold public office. The IGP had thrice been invited by the Senate to answer questions relating to the poor handling of the Melaye affair and the country’s dangerous lurch towards anomie; but thrice the IGP declined, thumbing his nose at the senators, questioning their bona fides, and lecturing them on the duties and responsibilities of the parliament.

    Infuriated by his presumptuousness and the many barbs he threw at the Senate, and affronted by the widespread nods and winks from the public, the Senate huffily dismissed the IGP as ignorant and incompetent. It was while the back and forth between the parliament and the IGP was still seething that the Kwara cult case popped up, a case the Senate appears convinced was contrived by the police to frame Dr Saraki. After all, said the Kwara State government, the case was not buried nor downplayed; investigations had been concluded and advice from the state’s Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) had been secured; and the suspects were due to be charged in court. Both the state and Dr Saraki said they were mystified by the peremptory decision to move the suspects to Abuja knowing full well that they could neither be tried in Abuja nor kept there indefinitely.

    The following were the sentiments that set the stage for this inordinate and demeaning grandstanding. Dr Saraki had said: “This plot is part of the strategy by the IGP Idris to settle scores over the declaration by this honourable Chamber that he is not qualified and competent to hold any public office, within and outside the country and that he is an enemy of Nigerian democracy based on his usual disrespectful conduct towards lawful authorities. In my own view, this plot is an act of desperation, blackmail, intimidation, abuse of office and crude tactics aimed at turning our country into a Police State where top officials cannot be made to obey the law, follow due process and subject themselves to constituted authorities.”

    But the IGP responded thus: “The Force (therefore) wishes to categorically state that there is no iota of truth in the allegation and false assertion by the Senate President of plot against him by the IGP to implicate the Kwara State Government and the Senate President in any criminal matter. Until investigation is concluded, any person (s) or group(s) who tries to interfere in the investigation process by action or utterances is committing an offence.” The IGP also added that his interest was to ensure “that justice prevails in the matter. Nobody, no matter how highly-placed, would be allowed to interfere or obstruct police investigation to pervert the course of justice.” He then gave dark hints that the Senate President, by his hasty conclusions, could “dissuade and discourage living victims/deceased families of those who must have been killed by this vicious hired assassin gang from coming forward to give evidence against them.” Nonesense.

    While it is difficult to vouch for the police, not to talk of trusting the IGP himself, given the way he has conducted himself over the Melaye affair, it is even harder to make sense of the decision by the Senate to send representation to the president over the Kwara cult matter. The police did not persuade anyone it didn’t have an axe to grind on the cult case, nor that it was not motivated by some subterranean goals, but they still can manage on the surface to justify their decision to transfer the case to Abuja on the excuse that they want more diligent investigation. Do Nigerians, after all, not sometimes petition Abuja to take over a case if they feared that it had been compromised by some vested or powerful interests?

    The Senate can sensibly justify why it is at daggers drawn with the police. The IGP, despite his grandstanding and abusive and disrespectful statements, has not inspired confidence that he is independently minded, that he is not at the whimsical beck and call of the president and possibly some other shadowy groups. If therefore the Senate takes him to task, regardless of their own embarrassing weaknesses, they do so as the parliament. But senators are supposed to be smart enough to know that the IGP is working very closely with Aso Villa, for he sees himself first and foremost as a tool in the hands of the presidency, not as Nigeria’s chief law officer. The IGP does not think in the grand perspectives of a chief law officer, and indeed appears incapable of doing so, going by his appalling and disrespectful statements against the parliament. It takes a misguided public officer not to know that there is a difference between some individuals in the parliament and the National Assembly as an institution.

    Had the Senate thus guided itself in deciphering the IGP’s worldview, they would have moderated their anger against him. More crucially, and surely, the Senate knows that the presidency itself does not appear ruffled by the views and shenanigans of the IGP. Indeed, they give the impression he is working at their behest. So, why would the Senate needlessly raise a team to report the IGP to the president? What good could they hope would come out of it? They should have kept dignified and magisterial aloofness, continue to make laws as deftly as they can manage, make pronouncements on errant public officers and appointees even if the government and the public scorn them, and put as much pressure as possible to defang their enemies, especially the so-called enemies of democracy. The Senate may not know it, but the fact is that while many may object to some of the parliament’s abhorrent practices and disposition, they also have no illusions whatsoever about the total lack of nobility of appointees like the IGP and how indifferently he and others like him try to undermine democracy.

  • Buhari to take actions on IGP/Saraki issue, others – Senate Leader

    President Muhammadu Buhari would soon take appropriate actions aimed at addressing the `not too cordial’ relationship between  National Assembly and the Executive arm of government.

    Senate Leader Ahmad Lawan revealed this on Tuesday when he briefed State House correspondents on the outcome of the closed door meeting between the president and the 10-man senate delegation.

    He said the president had pledged to address all issues concerning the two arms of government including the impasse between Senate President Bukola Saraki and Inspector-General of Police Idris Ibrahim.

    Cue in audio – Lawan

    “Well the IGP thing was one of the issues discussed on a general note But of course it is right that the committee was set up after some incidents had happened.

    “But let me said that the issues are beyond IGP/Senate affair. We have so many other issues that bother on ensuring that we work better with the executive arm of government.

    “So, the IGP issue was just one of those issues that were discussed.

    “Well we have told the president all the issues that we thought we should discuss with him and of course those issues we were mandated to discuss with him and he has taken notes and would take appropriate actions,’’ he said.

    Cue out audio – Lawan

    The Senate leader expressed the hope that the meeting would promote more understanding between the executive and the legislature for the general good of the country.

    He described as `normal’ cases of misunderstanding between arms of government, saying that efforts were being put in place to ensure that “the executive and the legislative arms are on the same page.’’

    It would be recalled that the Senate had on May 9 passed a vote of no confidence on the IGP, describing him as “enemy of democracy’’ over his failure to honour its invitations twice.

    Idris, however, asked the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Operations), Joseph Habila to represent him at the senate.

    Saraki on Wednesday also accused the IGP of plotting to implicate him and Gov. Abdulfatah Ahmed of Kwara in a murder case involving some suspected cultists.

    The Senate on Thursday raised a 10-man panel to meet with Buhari over the allegation leveled against the IGP by Saraki.(NAN)

  • Saraki vs IGP: Senate delegation meets Buhari at Aso Rock

    President Muhammadu Buhari is meeting with 10-man senate delegation raised to address the ongoing impasse between the Senate President Bukola Saraki and the Inspector-General of Police over a criminal case involving some suspected cultists.

    NAN reports that members of the senate delegation included former governors of Nasarawa (Abdullahi Adamu), Gombe (Danjuma Goje) and Akwa Ibom, Mr Godswill Akpabio.

    NAN observed that the Senior Special Assistant to the President on National Assembly matters (Senate), Mr Ita Enang also accompanied the senators to the meeting with the president.

    It would be recalled that the Senate had on May 9 passed vote of no confidence on the IGP, describing him as “enemy of democracy’’ over his failure to honour its invitations twice.

    Read Also: Senate panel, Omo-Agege trade words over appearance at sitting

    Idris, however, asked the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Operations), Joseph Habila to represent at the senate.

    Senate President Bukola Saraki on Wednesday also accused the IGP of plotting to implicate him and Gov. Abdulfatah Ahmed of Kwara in a murder case involving some suspected cultists.

    The Senate on Thursday raised a 10-man panel to meet with President Buhari over the allegation leveled against the IGP by Saraki.

  • ‘Saraki, IGP face-off needless’

    Lawyers have urged Senate President Bukola Saraki and Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Ibrahim Idris to sheathe their swords.

    According to them, the two public officers should stick to their constitutional roles.

    Saraki had accused the IGP of plotting to frame him up “to settle scores.”

    He claimed that the transfer of some cultism suspects, who were arrested in Kwara State and were under investigation by the police in Ilorin, to the Force Headquarters in Abuja, was meant to coerce them into implicating him.

    But the Police dismissed the Senate President’s and Kwara State government’s claim as “untrue, misleading and an obstruction” and vowed to not allow anybody to obstruct the course of justice.

    Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) Executive Director Adetokunbo Mumuni said the brickbats were needless, adding that Nigeria’s interest should always come first.

    He said: “The police must be professional in whatever matter they handle, so that the outcome will be consistent with the truth, ethics and morality.

    “I don’t want to believe the Senate President; I also don’t want to believe the IGP. But they must do a professional job. That is what is important in Nigeria, so that we don’t hide crime under politics and we don’t hide politics under crime.”

    For Lagos lawyer, Abayomi Omoyinmi, the Police were merely carrying out their constitutional duty.

    ”The police should be allowed to do their work and it’s obvious that where anyone tries to interfere and or obstruct police investigation, such person or persons will be committing an offence under the law,” he said.

    Omoyinmi, a member of the Ogun State Judiciary Service Commission, said the unsubstantiated claims between the two must end.

    “This is very unnecessary and should be handled with caution. The police should be categorical about the situation surrounding the allegations about their intentions without allowing any perversion of the course of justice from any quarter,” he added.

    Former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja Branch Welfare Secretary Samson Omodara believes Police have acted within the laws.

    He said: “The alarm as raised by the Senate President is also his right if he suspects infringement or apprehension of infringement.

    “But for now, the police should be allowed to do their job as the Senate president should also assemble his legal team to ward off any act of intimidation.

    “It is also a way to strengthen our democracy and jurisprudence,” he said.

  • Saraki to meet Buhari over ‘IGP’s plot to implicate him’

    The President of the Senate Dr Bukola Saraki is expected to meet President Muhammadu Buhari to inform him about an alleged plot by the Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to implicate him.

    Saraki will lead the leadership of the upper legislative chamber to meet with President Buhari over the alleged plot.

    The Senate president had raised the alarm on the floor of the Senate over a plot by the IGP to implicate him using ‘coerced’ cultists.

    “My Distinguished colleagues, there is an issue which I need to bring to your attention very urgently. Last night, my State Governor, Dr. Abdulfatai Ahmed revealed to me an information at his disposal that a group of suspects who had been in police cells for several weeks for cultism and whose investigation had been concluded with prosecution about to commence under the State law based on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) and the Ministry of Justice were ordered to be transferred to Abuja this morning.

    “ According to the information available to the Governor, the Inspector General of Police, Mr. Idris Ibrahim directed the Commissioner of Police in Kwara State to immediately transfer the men to the Force Headquarters.

    “The plan, as the Governor was made to understand is that, under duress, the suspects would be made to alter the statements they already made in Ilorin. They will then be made to implicate the Kwara State Government, and in particular, myself, in their new statement.

    “This plot is part of the strategy by the IGP Idris to settle scores over the declaration by this honourable Chamber that he is not qualified and competent to hold any public office, within and outside the country and that he is an enemy of Nigerian democracy based on his usual disrespectful conduct towards lawful authorities.

    “”In my own view, this plot is an act of desperation, blackmail, intimidation, abuse of office and crude tactics aimed at turning our country into a Police State where top officials cannot be made to obey the law, follow due process and subject themselves to constituted authorities.

    “I want to bring this dangerous development to the attention of all of you my colleagues, the entire country and the international community so that you can be aware of the level of impunity in our country and the danger it constitute to our democracy,” the President of the Senate said.

    Saraki explained that he was bringing the issue to the attention of his colleagues to let them know the gravity of the situation.

    “I know the gravity of the issue that is why I am bringing it to your attention and to continue to let our colleagues and the world know presently the danger we are going with and the levels of the rascality that is going on with some of these actions.

    “I have brought it to your attention and we must continue to play our own role in doing what we believe in the course of our duty.

    “It is very unfortunate but that it the information I have as of now,” the President of the Senate said.

    Read Also: Senate, Saraki fail in bid to stay judgment voiding Omo-Agege’s suspension

    The Senate resolved that the Senate President should lead a delegation to relay the concerns raised on the floor by Saraki. The delegation would consist of the Senate President, the Senate Leader, Senator Ahmad Lawan; the Chief Whip, Senator Olusola Adeyeye; and the Minority Leader, Senator Godswill Akpabio.

    Other members of the delegation would included Senator Danjuma Goje, Senator Sam Anyanwu, Senator Aliyu Wammako, Senator Fatima Raji Rasaki, and Senator Oluremi Tinubu.

    NAN

  • ‘National Assembly has power to summon IGP’

    Renowned legal author and constitutional lawyer Sebastine T. Hon (SAN) argues that the Senate can summon any public officer.

    So much controversy has been generated over the power of the Senate to summon the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Ibrahim Idris Kpotum, to appear before it. Without the slightest hesitation or equivocation, I submit that the National Assembly is imbued with that power; and any person exercising statutory functions who shuns or spurns any invitation or summons lawfully issued by the National Assembly is prima facie guilty of contempt of the Legislature, except if he enjoys immunity from prosecution.

    The invitation issued by the Senate has the backing of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. It also has the backing of settled case law, both locally internationally. I shall now, brevi manu, examine all the relevant legal and constitutional positions.

    Section 88(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution has imbued the National Assembly with power to “direct or cause to be directed an investigation” into:

    “(b) the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, Ministry or government department charged, or intended to be charged, with the duty of or responsibility for-

    (i) executing or administering laws enacted by the National Assembly.”

    Also, section 88(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution permits this investigation, if it is targeted at enabling the National Assembly to: (a) make laws with respect to any matter within its legislative competence and to correct any defects in existing laws; and (b) expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of laws within its legislative competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated to it.

    The phrases “conduct of any person, authority, Ministry or government department,” in this case, refers to the conduct of the office and department of the Police, headed by and personified in the Inspector-General of Police. Legislative wisdom was completed in the framing of the remaining part of section 88(1)(b)(i), when the lawmaker enacted that the “conduct” of any such “person, authority, Ministry or government department” is permissible if he/it is “charged, or intended to be charged, with the duty of or responsibility for” executing or administering laws enacted by the National Assembly.

    There is no single doubt that the Inspector-General of Police is, under the provisions of the Police Act, 2004, charged with the responsibility of executing or administering laws made by the National Assembly. It was in that regard that his officers attempted to arrest Senator Dino Melaye and take him to Lokoja, Kogi State, Also, using the very words of the Constitution, if the Senate has issues with the “conduct” of officers of the police department who handled the arrest of Senator Dino Melaye, it has every constitutional right to “direct or cause to be directed an investigation” into such “conduct.” I shall later in this piece address on the motives, if any, read into the invitation by the Senate to the Inspector-General of Police.

    Constitutional reinforcement of the above view can be found in section 88(2)(a) and (b), where the oversight powers of the National Assembly are expressly limited to the purpose of enabling it to make laws within its legislative competence; and to the purpose of enabling it, inter alia, to expose “incompetence.” Clearly, by Item 45 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, the National Assembly has exclusive legislative powers over “Police and other government security services established by law.” If there is, therefore, an apparent case of ‘incompetence’ in the arrest of Senator Melaye or of policing the flashpoints in Nigeria – as is prima facie evidently shown, the Senate has every right to summon any officer of the police department, ala the Inspector-General of Police, to explain to its satisfaction the public stench oozing from the inglorious outing of the police. There is nothing personal or tendentious here: the Senate is merely scrupulously performing its constitutional functions. The Senate should be commended rather than serenaded for taking this step.

    We will now look at case law. In the celebrated case of Senate of the National Assembly vs. Momoh (1982) 2 FNLR 307, the Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that the 1979 constitutional equivalent of section 88 of the 1999 Constitution enabled either House of the National Assembly to exercise the powers named therein only with respect to “any matter or thing” it had power to make laws ‘and the conduct of any person, authority, ministry, or government department.’ In other words, that the section did not generally authorise the National Assembly to invite members of the public over statements made by them. Consequently, that the power to expose corruption or inefficiency was limited to government departments and functionaries.  This decision was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in El Rufai vs. House of Representatives (2003) FWLR (Pt. 173) 162. Without any doubt, Mr. Ibrahim Idris Kpotum is the Inspector-General of Police and not a member of the public.

    Also, in Attorney-General of Abia State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 338) 604 at 674, Lord Justice Tobi, JSC, defined “oversight functions” of the National Assembly to include “watchful supervision;” and that those powers are exercised by the Legislature “to conduct investigations, control and surveillance… and control and supervision of government general business.” He concluded, however, that if exercised by the National Assembly, such powers must be limited to its lawmaking powers.

    In this case, therefore, the summons extended to the Inspector-General of Police was and remains constitutional, since as shown above, Item 45 of Part 1 of the 2nd Schedule to the Constitution has vested the National Assembly with lawmaking powers over “Police and other government security services established by law.” He was wrong to have ignored it or to have delegated a junior officer, since the buck stops at his table. I wonder if Mr. Idris will delegate a junior officer if it is the President that invites him.

    A peep into foreign decisions, in countries practicing presidential constitutionalism, will also agree with the above position. In the celebrated US case of Watkins vs. United States, 354 US 178, 187 (1957) – a decision the Nigerian Court of Appeal adopted in Momoh’s case, supra –  the US Supreme Court described the extent of the investigative or oversight functions of Congress as encompassing:

    [I]nquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed to possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.

    The phrase “surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system” in the above dictum is wide enough to include the IGP Idris Kpotum saga.

    In similar fashion, it was held in McGrain vs. Daugherty, 273 US 135 (1927) that investigation by the Senate as to whether the Justice Department of the US Federal Government was performing or neglecting its duty was constitutionally proper, because this rightly fell under congressional oversight functions. Arguments that the resolution of Congress did not specifically state that the investigation was in aid of legislation, hence was invalid, were rejected. The US Supreme Court concluded that a legislative purpose is always to be presumed once the subject matter falls within the legislative jurisdiction of Congress; because the “only legitimate object the Senate could have in ordering the investigation was to aid it in legislating.”

    In the Dino Melaye saga, arguments in particular, are tailored toward alleged bias or egotism on the part of the Senate. In constitutional jurisprudence, such arguments are puerile and pale into thin air. This is because presumption that valid congressional investigation has no ulterior motives apart from aiding Congress to enact or improve upon existing legislation is always upheld. Thus, in both Tenney vs. Brandhove, 341 US 367, 377-378 (1951) and Barenblatt vs. United States, 360 US 109 (1959) at 132-133, the US Supreme Court validated congressional investigations and threw out arguments that individual members of Congress had personal and political interests to serve. The Court reasoned that in all circumstances, in so far as Congress has legislative powers over the subject matter, the presumption that it is investigating for lawmaking purpose only should always be upheld. See, also, Townsend vs. United States, 95 F 2d 352, 361 (D.C. Cir. 1938).

    In the present case, Mr. Idris’s invitation, which includes an inquest into the vicious killings going in the Benue Trough and other parts of Nigeria, cannot be unconstitutional for any reason, both constitutional and commonsensical.

    From the above, therefore, the invitation issued by the Senate to the Inspector-General of Police, Ibrahim Idris Kpotum, was and remains valid and constitutional. His refusal to honour it amounted and still amounts to a gross breach of the Constitution; and the Senate ought not to have merely declared him person non grata but to have issued a warrant for his arrest and citation for contempt, pursuant to section 89 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Declaring him persona non grata is, with respect, too mild.

  • ‘Senate’s declaration of IGP as enemy of democracy groundless’

    A law teacher, Wahab Shittu submits that the Senate was wrong to declare the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Ibrahim Idris an enemy of democracy.

    The ongoing controversy between the Senate and the office of the Inspector-General of Police may have to be assessed in the light of constitutional provisions because the Constitution is the organic law of the land, what is technically referred to as ‘the un-commanded commander’.  What exactly is the powers conferred on the office of the Inspector-General of Police and how may such powers be exercised?

    Section 215 (1) (a-b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides:

    “(1) There shall be –

    (a)  an  Inspector-General of Police who, subject to section 216(2) of this Constitution shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Nigeria Police Council from among serving members of the Nigeria Police Force;

    (b) a Commissioner of Police for each state of the Federation who shall be appointed by the Police Service Commission.

    As to the question whether the Inspector-General of Police is under obligation to exercise powers conferred on his office personally or whether such powers could be delegated, please refer to section 215(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which provides as follows:

    “The President or such other Minister of the Government of the Federation as he may authorize in that behalf may give to the Inspector-General of Police such lawful directions with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order as he may consider necessary, and the Inspector-General of Police shall comply with those directions or cause them to be complied with.”

    Clearly from the above constitutional provision, the Inspector-General of Police can delegate his powers in furtherance of lawful instructions given to the IGP by the President of the Federation.  The Inspector-General of Police will be acting legally and cannot be held guilty of insubordination to any authority whether the President or the Senate if the IGP caused lawful instructions to be carried out.  The clear implication of this constitutional provision is that the powers of the IGP can be lawfully delegated.

    Again we make reference to the Police Act.  Section 309 of the Police Act on the duties of the Inspector-General of Police provides:

    “(1)     The Inspector-General shall be charged with the Supreme command of the Force and with the maintenance of public safety and public order.

    (2)       The Inspector-General shall keep the President fully informed on the state of public security in the Federation.”

    Section 312 (1 – 2) of the Police Act on the duties of Deputy Inspector-General provides:

    (1) The Deputy Inspector-General is the second in command of the Force, and shall act for the Inspector-General in the Inspector-General’s absence from Force Headquarters.

    (2) When acting for the Inspector-General, the Deputy Inspector-General shall be guided by the following –

    (a)  all  matters involving any change in Force policy shall be held in abeyance pending the Inspector-General’s return, or, if the matter is urgent, referred to the Inspector-General for instructions;

    (b) all matters of importance dealt with by the Deputy Inspector-General during the Inspector-General’s absence shall be referred to the Inspector-General on his return.”

    Clearly from the above provision, the Inspector-General of Police is entitled to delegate his powers in obedience of lawful instructions.

    The next question is, to whose authority is the Inspector-General of Police responsible?  Clearly, from the combined provisions of Section 215(1) and 215(3) the Inspector-General of Police is primarily responsible to his appointor, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who may give the Inspector-General of Police ‘Lawful directions with respect to security matters and he is under a duty to comply or cause compliance to such lawful orders.

    Since the appointment of the IGP is based on the recommendation of the Police Council, it can also be said that the IGP is responsible to the Police Council.  The next question is from whom is the Inspector General of Police entitled to seek clearance before responding to any invitation to security matters?  The answer obliviously is the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who is the Chief Security Officer.  Flowing from this argument, if the Senate extends invitation to the Inspector-General of Police, the Inspector-General of Police is entitled to respond to such invitation either personally or through officers delegated by him after clearance from the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Police Council.

    Based on the foregoing, the Senate cannot declare the Inspector-General of Police as the enemy of democracy where the Inspector-General of Police had sent delegates to represent him under his authority and without first of all confirming from the President whether the Inspector –General of Police was under lawful directive of the President to appear.  The declaration of the IGP as the enemy of democracy without first of all fulfilling these conditions precedent is not only a violation of the constitution but a breach of protocol.

    From the facts disclosed in the media, the Inspector-General of Police repeatedly sent representatives to represent him in the Senate hearing but these representatives were rebuffed by the Senate who insisted that the Inspector-General of Police must make personal appearance. In my view, such insistence on personal appearance of the Inspector-General of Police when the Inspector-General of Police is authorized by the constitution to delegate his powers, cannot be supported by constitutional provisions.  Must the IGP appear personally?  Since the IGP has delegated representatives to represent him before the Senate, the IGP cannot be said to have shunned the Senate and as such his declaration as the enemy of democracy is a fundamental breach of his rights and amounted to an assault on his reputation for which he is entitled to sustain an action for libel against the Senate.

    The next question is the extent of powers of the Senate to cause investigation pursuant to Section 88 & 89 of the Constitution?

    The investigative powers vested in the Senate by section 88 and 89 of the Constitution is not at large.  The powers can only be exercised responsibly by the Senate after compliance with clear guidelines.  From what I have read in the papers, the IGP was being summoned to explain the circumstances surrounding the arraignment of Senator Dino Melaye, one of its members that does not enjoy immunity from prosecution.  This in my view is a wrongful exercise of the powers of investigations vested in the Senate by Sections 88 & 89 of the Constitution.  If the rights of Senator Dino Melaye was wrongfully tampered with in exercise of the investigative powers vested in the Police, Senator Dino Melaye is entitled to enforce his rights and sustain an action for exemplary damages without the Senate making official what is ostensibly a purported violation of individual rights of Senator Dino Melaye.  The Senate cannot hide under Sections 88 and 89 to summon the IGP to ask questions surrounding the arraignment of Senator Dino Melaye.  To do so in my view is tantamount to a violation of the investigative powers conferred on the Senate by Section 88 and 89 of the Constitution.

    In saying this, I draw considerable strength from foremost Senior Advocate and former Attorney-General of the Federation CHIEF RICHARD AKINJIDE, CON, SAN, FCI Arb. (UK) FCE COUNSEL had, had cause to comment on the extent powers conferred on the National Assembly by virtue of Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). In arguing that the said Section 88 and 89 are severally limited, we reproduce the views of the respected silk as follows:

    “It is not open to the National Assembly or any of its Committee to clothe itself with the aprons of the Courts and purport to make decision on issues of legal rights and liabilities in blatant breach of the rule of the separation of power. The National Assembly has no power to make judicial decision, with judgmental flavour by means of political resolution or otherwise. The investigative power of the National Assembly does not extend to the grant of judicial relief or redress.

    Recently, the House of Representatives Committee on Gas Resources invited SPDC to disclose the documentations in respect of its private commercial contractual transactions with other private contracting parties between the years 2012-2013. Upon being briefed, I wrote to the Committee on gas resources that the investigative powers provided under sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution do not extend to such exercise. I informed them that the Committee on Gas Resources was acting ultra vires the constitution.

    There are occasions where the National Assembly has put a ban on the ability of private companies (whether foreign or local) to conduct business with other private companies in Nigeria. It is my opinion, and I so state that the National Assembly cannot legally put a ban on the ability of private companies (whether foreign or local) to conduct business with other private companies in Nigeria.

    Proper Issuance and service of Summons by The National Assembly is a condition precedent for the order of attendance of witness (es) to give evidence.

    The Issuance and service of a valid summons by the National Assembly is a condition precedent before a person can be ordered by the National Assembly to give evidence before it.

    Section 89 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides as follows:

    “(2) A summons or warrant issued under this section may be served or executed by any member of the Nigerian Police Force or by any person authorised in that behalf by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may require. “

    Also, Section 5 of the Legislative Houses (powers and Privileges) Act provides:

    “(1) Any order to attend, to give evidence or to produce documents before a committee of a legislative house in accordance with section 4 of this Act shall be notified to the person required to attend or to produce documents, by a summons under the hand of the Clerk of the House issued by the direction of the President or Speaker thereof.

    (2) In every summons issued in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, there shall be stated the time when and the place where the person summoned is required to attend and, in the case of an order made in accordance with paragraph (b) of section 4 of this Act, the documents he is required to produce.

    (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, every such summons shall be served on the person mentioned therein by delivering to him a copy thereof and there shall be paid or tendered to the person so summoned such sum for expenses as may be authorised by standing order of the house.

    (4) A summons issued in accordance with this section may be served by an officer of a legislative house or by a police officer:

    Provided that the President or Speaker may, if he is satisfied that for any reason personal service of a summons cannot be effected, order that service be effected by forwarding the same by registered post addressed to the person to whom it is directed at his last known place of abode or business.”

    For any summons issued and served on any person by the National Assembly to be competent, it must fulfill all the above stated conditions. If the National Assembly issues any summon which does not fulfill the above stated conditions, such summon is incompetent and can be set aside by a competent court.

    Some months past, I advised a multinational Oil Company (name withheld because of Counsel/Client Privilege) which was invited by the National Assembly to tender certain documents. The National Assembly issued a purported summons which did not fulfill the above stated constitutional and statutory conditions. The matter died.

    In the case of Ozobia v. Anah (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt.601) 1 at 7, F-G, Muhammad, and J.C.A (as he then was) held thus:

    “It is my view that where a law places certain conditions precedent to the performance of a given act, such an act cannot be said to have been duly performed without the fulfillment of the stated conditions.”

    In view of all the above, I state as follows: (a) That although the National Assembly has investigative powers it must be subject to the constitution. The powers are not without limits.

    (b) Any actions or steps predicated on the National Assembly or the Senate House of Representatives’ Committee Recommendation which are ultra vires can be successfully challenged in law court. E.g the Ijaw Aborigines Case…

    In sum, the declaration of the IGP as enemy of democracy is faulty in several respect particularly in the light of the foregoing arguments.

  • Anambra youths protest against Senate’s comment on IGP

    YOUTHS numbering over 300 yesterday in Anambra State staged a peaceful protest against the Senate’s declaration of the Inspector General of Police, (IGP) Ibrahim idris , as an enemy of democracy and one who is unfit to hold public office.

    The protest was done by youths under the aegis of Anambra Youths Forum. The state’s Commissioner of Police, Garba Umar, passed a vote of confidence on the IGP. The Senate’s pronouncement on the IGP, followed his continued refusal to honour the lawmakers’ invitation to explain the spate of killings in the country and the alleged inhuman treatment meted out to the Senator representing Kogi West, Dino Melaye.

    The protesters carried placards with various inscriptions like: “Is Senate for crime”, “Senate: the public is watching you”, “Vote of confidence on IGP,” among others. The youths asked the lawmakers to go ahead to enjoy their huge take home salaries and leave the IGP alone.

    They said they were satisfied with the level of successes he had recorded since he assumed office,especially in Anambra State, “where kidnapping and armed robbery had become a thing of the past.” Addressing reporters yesterday, the leader of the group, Anthony Ogbu, wondered why the Senate was taking the case of the IGP and that of the embattled Senator Melaye personal. According to him, “The IGP is the Chief Security Officer of the country after the President. They should allow him to perform his duties. The Senate should be more concerned in promulgating laws. “The IGP has no time. His hands are full fighting all manner of criminality everywhere- Fulani herdsmen, Boko Haram, armed robbery, kidnapping, among other crimes,”he said.

  • IGP urges Nigerians to fight corruption

    The Inspector General of Police, Mr Ibrahim Idris has called on Nigerians to support President Muhammadu Buhari’s fight against corruption to put the country back on the path of greatness.

    Idris made the call at the customary dinner organised for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Detective Superintendent Course (7) 2017/2018 at the Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna.

    He said the feat achieved by the EFCC with the recovery of looted funds under the leadership of the Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu, could not have been possible without the support of Mr. President.

    “Without the support and prompting of Mr President, the achievement made by the commission would not have been possible.

    “Mr president has zero tolerance for corruption and I urge all Nigerians to support him to carry the fight to its logical conclusion,” Idris added.

    The IGP, while congratulating the 314 cadets who successfully completed the 13 months training course, charged them to exercise high sense of professionalism and courage in carrying out the task ahead.

    Read Also: Invitation: IGP should not hold on to straw, says Senate

     “You have been called upon to join the anti-corruption crusade of the President, Commander -in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; as such, you must be professional, committed and courageous in the fight.

    “This is the only way you can guarantee your service in the commission,” he said.

    He warned them against temptations in the course of their job, urging them not to pervert the course of justice for monetary and material rewards.

    “I advise you to be above board and resist all the temptations.

    “You must be contented with your salary and allowances and know that being an officer of the EFCC does not make you immune to arrest and prosecution if found wanting,” Idris said.

    He said that the Police would continue to partner with the commission to ensure that all those who looted the treasury and diverted funds that would have been used to develop the economy were arrested and prosecuted.

  • Senate, IGP rift deepens

    •Stop holding on to straw, Senate tells police chief
    •Police: your declaration is laughable

    The Senate and the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Ibrahim Idris are locked in a battle of wits. The Red Chamber accuses the police chief of disrespect for snubbing its summon. But the police feel otherwise. To senior lawyers Itse Sagay and Femi Falana, the lawmakers are off their track, report Onyedi Ojiabor, JOSEPH JIBUEZE and Faith Yahaya

    There is no letup in the war of words between the Senate and the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Ibrahim Idris over the refusal of the police chief to honour the lawmakers’ summon.

    The verbal darts continued yesterday with the Senate telling the police chief to let go the straw and the the Nigerian Police describing the lawmakers’ verdict as laughable.

    The crossfire yesterday attracted reactions from senior lawyers, including the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) and activist-lawyer Femi Falana. Both are senior advocates.

    In their views, the lawmakers erred in summoning Idris over the rising wave of insecurity and the travail of one of their colleagues.

    Falana said the right persons the senators ought to have invited were the Interior Minister Gen. Abdulraman Bambazau (for killings) and Attorney-General of the Federation & Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami.

    The parties on Wednesday took on each other with the Senate firing the first salvo. It passed a vote of no confidence in the IGP and classified him “enemy of democracy, who is not fit to hold public office within and outside Nigeria.”

    The Red Chamber’s revolution was sequel to the IGP’s refusal to personally appear and brief on the rising spate of killings in the land and the alleged inhuman treatment meted to Senator Dino Melaye by police.

    It was the third time the police chief would be spurning the invitation for security briefing.

    But, the IGP said the resolution was mischievous and very unfortunate, describing it as blackmail.

    According to him, he had explained why he could not appear before the Senate in a memo he sent earlier. He said he would neither succumb, nor be deterred by blackmail from any individual, or group no matter how highly placed.

    Dissatisfied with the IGP explanation, the Senate told  the IGP to stop holding on to the straw on his refusal to comply with its invitation to brief members on what effort the Police have put in place to curb the spate of killings.

    In a statement by the Chairman of its Committee on Media & Public Affairs, Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, the Senate said the crux of the matter that informed the invitation of the IGP was the ceaseless spate of killings across the country.

    Abdullahi explained that the matter concerning the arrest of Senator Dino Melaye had been overtaken by events.

    The statement reads: “We noted the response issued by one Jimoh Moshood on behalf of the IGP, Ibrahim Idris following yesterday’s (Wednesday’s) resolution of the legislative chamber on the continued refusal of the IGP to honour the invitation for him to come and explain what the police are doing to halt the spate of killings across the country.

    “Let it be known that the IGP, by trying to reduce the reason for his invitation by the Senate to the arrest of Senator Dino Melaye is simply holding on to straw.

    “The issue of Senator Melaye’s arrest has been overtaken by events. The courts are already handling the related cases. Our main concern is the security crisis across the country where people are being killed in scores on daily basis.

    “The primary responsibility of the Police is maintenance of law and order as well as protection of lives and property.

    “If there is a breach along the line of this responsibility, we do not see why the IGP should feel he cannot be invited to offer explanation to the arm of government which is constitutionally empowered to ask questions and investigate the breach.

    “No responsible body of representatives of the people will ignore sad reports given by members on the floor of the Senate. For instance, on April 24, two Catholic priests and 17 members of their congregation were murdered as reported by Senator George Akume.

    “Also, Senators Kabir Marafa and Tijani Kaura had earlier intimated the Senate of the killing of 35 people in Maradun Local Government Area, over 100 people killed in Anka and 36 people killed in Birani Village in Zurmi Local Government Area, all in Zamfara State.

    “Even as at now, reports reaching us showed that recent killings have occurred in Kaduna, Taraba and Benue states.

    “These were just few instances of daily occurrences of gruesome murder of our constituents as raised by Senators.

    “The IGP definitely should not have any problem with an invitation for him to tell the Senate what he and his men are doing to stop the killings as well as their challenges and needs in doing this.

    “Mr. Idris should not seek to confuse issues or play on the intelligence of members of the public with his diversionary statement or claims.

    “The resolution of the Senate leading to his invitation is clear and we invite our people to check. It is for the purpose of having a transparent and open hearing that we fixed his appearance for Wednesday when our plenary sitting enjoys live coverage on national television.

    “In one instance in the past, Mr. Idris had gone to court in order to evade honouring the invitation of the Senate and the court headed by Justice Abba Bello Mohammed of the FCT High Court on April 10, 2018, told him in clear terms that his suit lacked merit as Sections 88 and 89 of the constitution empower the lawmakers to carry out investigations on issues of public interest.

    “Any public officer who plans to place himself above an arm of government obviously is not fit to remain in office.

    “Mr. Idris is only afraid of his shadows by alleging witch-hunt when he is called to account on the performance of the duties of his organisation.”

    Describing the Senate declaration on the IGP as laughable, the Police said the lawmakers lack power to invite the IGP, adding that they have taken the matter personal.

    The Commissioner of Police in charge of Legal, David Igbodo responded to the Senate decision when he appeared on a morning programme on television.

    He said: “I don’t think the Senate of Nigeria has the constitutional power to declare the IG unfit to hold the office. On what basis are they declaring him unfit to hold office? Did the IG go to them for confirmation of appointment or what is it?

    “What you call a face-off between both parties is not a face-off. The IGP was invited on the 25th to appear on the 26th. Unfortunately, the IG was with the President in Bauchi and he delegated a DIG.

    “The IG has the power under the constitution and under the Police Act to delegate his line officers to represent him on official function. This is an official matter and not personal. The DIG was rejected by the senate even though the brief they requested for was given to the DIG by the IGP to brief the National Assembly.

    “They wrote another letter and he delegated another DIG because he was in Kaduna. He was to brief them on Senator Dino Melaye. We should all know that Senator Melaye does not enjoy immunity.

    “The National Assembly insisted again that he must come in person. At this point, a constitutional issue had arisen. The IGP decided to go to court to know whether each time the National Assembly invites him; whether he must as a matter of law appear in person or he can exercise his power of delegation. So we are in court.

    “We posed five questions and seven prayers for the court’s determination and until the court decides that, the National Assembly has no power to invite the IG on that issue.”

    According to Igbodo, the IGP had appeared before the Senate over 10 time since his appointment in June 2016.

    He said: “I want you to know that since the IGP’s appointment in June 2016, he has appeared at the National Assembly over 10 times. So where are they getting the issue that the IGP refused to appear?”

    On why the IGP has refused to appear, he said: “Because they are making it personal. The DIG in charge of operations understands what has happened between Senator Melaye and the Police.

    “I want you you to understand that when the allegation was made in Lokoja, the IG through the DIG operations wrote the Senate asking him to release Senator Melaye to report to the Police in Kogi state for statement taking but they refused to release him.

    “They said the senate president or Melaye were outside the country then two days after, they said they should allow him report to Abuja since he said he was not safe in Lokoja.

    “If he is not safe in his state, I wonder where he would be safe. We complied and wrote a letter that he should be released to Abuja SARS but he declined. Is he above the law?

    “They are making it personal. The letter they wrote to the IG, they raised two issues, inhuman treatment to Senator Melaye. What do they mean by that?  They invited him and he refused.”

     

    Sagay, Falana to Senate on IGP: you got it wrong

    •I can’t wait for ‘worst Senate’ to go, says PACAC chief •Falana sympathises with senators

    TO two senior advocates Prof Itse Sagay and Femi Falana, the Senate was off target in passing a vote of no confidence on Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Ibrahim Idris over his refusal to appear before the National Assembly.

    Sagay, who is the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) and Falana, an activist, said the senators went to the extreme by their painting the police chief as an enemy of democracy who is unsuitable for public office in Nigeria and abroad.

    Faulting the senators’ insistence on the Idris’ personal appearance before them, Sagay wondered what the Red Chamber was out to achieve by chasing the shadow.

    The SAN said he could not wait for the Eighth Senate, which he described as the worst since 1999, to go next year. It smacks of personal vendetta for the lawmakers to reject the IGP’s representatives.

    Sagay said he was not a fan of the current Senate, which he accused of abdicating its responsibilities by not passing the 2018 budget almost halfway into the year.

    According to him, the Senate lacks the moral justification to declare the IGP as unfit to hold public office.

    His words: “You know I’ve never been impressed by this Senate. It’s probably the worst we’ve ever had since the return to civilian rule. They are more concerned about exercising vain authority and power than in actually doing anything substantive for the country.

    “These are people – the whole Senate – who would adjourn sitting and go to the Code of Conduct Tribunal in solidarity with their President. For everyday they go, the work of legislation is suspended. And they owe a duty to this country to make the laws for the order, peace and good government of Nigeria.

    “Each time they abandon their legislative duties, they’re in fact committing a breach of their obligation, apart from the fact that doing that sort of thing is infantile.

    “As if that was not enough, the whole Senate packed themselves again to visit Dino Melaye in the hospital. How rational is that? Why can’t they send a delegation of two or three people who would report back?

    “So, it’s like a showoff of power and intimidation. I don’t think it’s really worthy of them to behave like that.”

    Asked if the IGP should not have responded to the Senate’s invitations, Sagay said: “What I can deduce from the Police response is that the IGP has been honouring the Senate’s invitations.

    “You know the frequency and flippancy with which this Senate invites people. They can invite you today and next week they invite you again. And these (those invited) are very busy people.

    “They (Senate) don’t care. They just want their vanity to be assuaged, for people to know they have power and are big and that someone is disobeying their authority.

    “The IGP sent a very highly-placed representative. If the Senate really wanted information, why didn’t they get it from IGP’s deputy rather than insisting that the IGP himself must come? It suggests they’re turning the whole thing into some form of personal vendetta.

    “As I said, I’m not impressed with this Senate because as we’re speaking now, we’re going to half of this year and they have refused to pass the budget.

    “Is that a Senate that should be calling anybody unfit for anything? Are they doing their job? Budget passing is the most important job of the legislature. They’ve not done it six months into the year.

    “They were angry with the executive for not sacking Ibrahim Magu. How did they respond? They refused to confirm any nominee, regardless of how urgent and important the assignment is for this nation. Honestly we’re just praying for 2019 to come so this Senate can go.”

    Falana said the Senate lacks the power to summon the IGP, urging the upper legislative chamber to “accept his sympathy”.

    The human rights lawyer said the senate “did not get it right” by tagging Ibrahim Idris, inspector-general of police (IGP), “an enemy of democracy”.

    Speaking on a Channels TV programme on Thursday, Falana said the senate made a mistake by bringing Melaye’s case into the picture.

    He said even with the killings, IGP is not the right person to summon, rather, the minister of interior and the attorney-general of the federation.

    Falana said: “By virtue of Section 67 (2) of the constitution, either chamber can summon a minister when the affairs of his or her ministry are under consideration.

    “The only other occasion a public officer can be summoned by the national assembly is when proceedings are ongoing to expose corruption and when a law is being debated either with a view to amending it or to have a new law entirely.

    “But there is no such powers given to the national assembly by the constitution to summon everybody.”

    Asked by the programme’s anchor if the senate has the power to summon the President, Falana replied: “No. Section 67 (1) has given the president the discretion to address the national assembly either jointly or separately, on any matter of national importance. The president or the governor of a state cannot be summoned; that is the constitution.

    “The national assembly has my sympathy, but what can be done? The constitutional review is ongoing. You can deal with this lacuna, or the gaps you have identified.

    “But don’t go outside the limit of your powers. When you do that, you ridicule the constitution. And that is what is going on.”

    He added that though he condemned the arraignment of Melaye while on a stretcher, he had told the lawmakers to not “individualise problems of police brutality.

    “When you do that, you lose public support. It is the height of hypocrisy to say because the police has brutalised our member, the IGP must come. What of thousands of Nigerians that are brutalised daily?

    “Don’t single out the harassment of your member to summon the IGP. That is where they lost it. They shouldn’t have mixed Melaye’s case with the killings.

    “As far as the constitution is concerned, the person to summon is the minister of interior and the attorney-general, and they have the powers to do that. The minister can be summoned but there is no provision for summoning the IG or the customs boss to appear in one uniform or the other, it is not there.”