The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Itse Sagay

  • Sagay cautions on absolute powers for governors over state police

    Eminent professor of Law Itse Sagay on Thursday cautioned that governors should not have absolute powers over state police.

    The Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) said the caution became necessary to prevent abuses.

    He said while he had always advocated state police creation, there must be effective checks to ensure that the purpose is not defeated.

    Reacting to the governors’ consent for state police, Sagay told The Nation: “I’ve always advocated state police, given the size of the country, but the advocacy is in principle.

    “Like El-Rufai, I see some underlying dangers. Without mentioning names, there are one or two governors who have private militias that can confront the Federal Government to a standstill without state police.

    “For instance, those states where elections are never concluded; they reschedule elections and they end in violence – those governors raise private armies to counter federal police and the federal army. They kill soldiers.

    “What happens if such governors have state police in addition? That’s my only fear; otherwise the principle is good for federalism.”

    On how to prevent such abuses, Sagay advised that the power to control state police should not be vested solely in governors.

    He said: “That is what they have to think about carefully. There should be some form of control over state police outside the sole command of the governors.

    Read Also: Oshiomhole, Sagay on Zamfara and Rivers

    “They should think of some form of independent control so that directives will not just be issued by the governors alone.

    “If that can be done, it will be better. But we need state police; just that it may be abused by a few who are very militant and aggressive in the way they deal with matters.”

    The Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman believes there is something to learn from advanced countries that operate state police with limited jurisdictions.

    He said: “The state police will deal basically with those who commit crimes in the states. But when the crime is complex or the level of violence is excessive, the federal police can always step in to assist.

    “If the crime is cross-boundary, it becomes a federal police issue.”

  • Sagay knocks SANs for misleading public over Onnoghen

    Eminent professor of law Itse Sagay (SAN) on Thursday asked senior lawyers to stop misleading the public with lies that Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen is not a public officer and subject to the code of conduct.

    He condemned the “fraudulent misconduct of some crooked lawyers” who he said have been lying “glibly” on television that judicial officers are not public officers.

    Sagay referred to Part 2, paragraph 5, Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, which defines a public officer thus: “Public Officers for the Purposes of the Code of Conduct:…(5) Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice of the Supreme Court, Presidents and Justices of the Court of Appeal, all other Judicial Officers and all Staff of Courts of Law.”

    Sagay said: “You can now see that these lawyers, senior advocates and all have been indulging in monumental lies on television, misleading the public.

    “Another major lie is that a public officer, who commits a breach of the Code of Conduct by failing to declare some of his assets, is free from liability, provided he makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance. For this, they rely on the proviso to Section 3 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act 1989.

    “However, if one refers to the provisions of the Constitution, there is no such exemption from punishment. I refer specifically to the 5th Schedule Part 1, Paragraph 18 of the Constitution. That paragraph provides for the punishment for a breach of the Code of Conduct.

    “These punishments are: (a) vacation from office, (b) disqualification from holding office for 10 years, (c) seizure and forfeiture to the state of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.

    “There is absolutely no proviso whatsoever to the effect that an admission in writing of the offence will relieve the public officer of liability from punishment.

    “On the contrary, paragraph 18(3) goes further to state that the three punishments listed above are without prejudice to the penalty that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence.”

    Sagay said there was, therefore, a clear conflict between the provision of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and the 1999 Constitution.

    Read Also: CCT orders IGP to arrest Onnoghen

    According to him, where there is a clash between the Constitution and any other law, Section 1(3) of the Constitution provides that the “Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of inconsistency be void”.

    Besides, Sagay said where there is conflict between two pieces of legislation covering the same matter, the latter in time prevails.

    “The Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act were enacted in 1989. On the other hand, the present Constitution took effect from 1999. So either way, the provisions of the Constitution prevail over the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

    “It can, therefore, be seen that there is no exemption from punishment whatsoever for a public officer who admits his guilt with regard to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

    “One other opportunistic matter that the defenders of the Chief Justice are now raising, is the query that if the EFCC could petition the National Judicial Council (NJC) regarding  the $30, 000 allegedly deposited  in the Chief Justice’s Bank account, why was the earlier matter of the failure to fully disclose his assets not sent to the NJC?

    “The answer is simple for anyone thinking in good faith. The non-declaration of assets is Constitutional and mandatorily a matter for the Code of Conduct Tribunal exclusively.

    “On the other hand, payment by a lawyer into the account of a judge including the Chief Justice constitutes an offence committed by the judge as a judicial officer. Therefore, that matter according to the wrongly decided Nganjiwa’s case, goes to the NJC.

    “Failure to declare assets is not an offence committed in the process of Judge’s activities as a judicial officer.

    “Therefore, any complaint arising from such matter does not go to the NJC but to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (in cases of non-declaration of assets) or the ordinary Courts in other cases,” Sagay said.

     

  • Sagay: Why NJC can’t consider Onnoghen’s case

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) on Wednesday explained why Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen’s assets non-declaration charge cannot first be determined by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    In a statement, the eminent professor of law, citing constitutional provisions, argued that not every offence committed by a judicial officer must first be brought before the NJC.

    He added: “By the very logic of the powers of the NJC, cases arising out of a breach of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and the Code of Conduct provision in the Constitution cannot come before the NJC.

    “If the NJC first decides the matter before the defendant is arraigned in court or at the Tribunal, what happens if the NJC finds the defendant liable and removes him from office as a Judge?  In that case, he ceases to be a Judicial Officer as well as a Public Officer.

    “Can he, therefore, be tried as a public officer before the Code of Conduct Tribunal?  The answer is no, because he is no longer a public officer.

    “The extant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act would be rendered nugatory by a prior NJC involvement.”

    The PACAC chairman faulted arguments that the prosecution ought to comply with the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Nganjiwa vs. F.R.N.

    He said: “It should be noted first that this judgment contradicts the clear provisions of the Code of Conduct as established in the Constitution which gives the Code of Conduct Tribunal jurisdiction over all public officers, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria.  (See 5th Schedule, Part One, of the 1999 Constitution).

    “Moreover, the Court of Appeal in Nganjiwa’s case was directing its judgment to a judicial officer committing an offence in the process of carrying out his duties as a judge in a court namely: demanding bribe from a party to the case before him.

    “Therefore, the ratio decidendi in this case is much narrower in scope than is being touted by our all mighty Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs).  Filling an Assets Declaration Form is totally outside the ambit of a judicial officer’s work. It applies to all public officers.

    Read Also: EFCC denies raiding CJN Onnoghen’s house

    “If one may ask – should a drunken judge behind a car steering wheel kill an innocent pedestrian, will the offence be taken before the NJC, before the police can act on the crime?

    “Indeed, inspite of its defects, the Court of Appeal judgment in the Nganjiwa’s case expressly limited reference to the NJC only to cases of a judicial officers’ misconduct in court whilst exercising his authority as judge in case before him in court.

    “According to the court: ‘It must be expressly stated that if a Judicial officer commits theft, fraud, murder or manslaughter, arson and the likes, which are crimes committed outside the scope of performance of his official functions, he may be arrested, interrogated and prosecuted accordingly by the State directly without recourse to the NJC. These classes of criminal act are not envisaged and captured by the provisions of paragraph 21, Part One of the Third Schedule.’

    “This demonstrates the hollowness and invalidity of the argument that every offence committed by a judicial officer must first be brought before the NJC, before the law enforcement agencies can entertain it.”

    Besides, Sagay believes that the NJC cannot be expected to be fair in Chief Justice Onnoghen’s case.

    “Almost all the Senior Advocates of Nigeria have argued that even in a case involving the breach of the Code of Conduct, for which the law has already made express provisions, the matter shall be taken to the NJC rather than to the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    “They can’t be serious.  They must obviously be speaking tongue in cheek.  Even a baby, three months old, must realise that no one can get justice against the CJN at the NJC.

    “The CJN is not only the Chairman of the NJC, he is also the appointor of 20 out of the NJC’s 23 members.  The CJN is the NJC.

    “Only a grossly ignorant man or an extremely mischievous one could seriously suggest that a matter involving the CJN should be brought before the NJC for adjudication.

    “Therefore, the whole idea of taking the present case to the NJC is a nonstarter, for that would make the CJN the Chief Judge of his own case – a clear violation, not only of the Constitution, but also of a long standing common law principle coming all the way from MAGNA CARTER in the year 1215,” the PACAC chairman said.

    Sagay was of the view that the substance of the charge against Chief Justice Onnoghen “is deliberately being abandoned by the SANs and some other lawyers.”

    “Why is Nigeria such a Theatre of the Absurd?  Today, we are only talking about preliminary objections, interim injunctions, challenge of jurisdiction, wrong procedure, etc., etc.

    “Nobody is talking about the substantive issue any longer.  That is now lost in the sands of time.

    “Did he do it?  Did he not do it?  The questions we should all be asking are contained in the front page of The Nation Newspaper of Tuesday 15th January, 2019: Did the CJN fail to submit a written declaration of all his assets and liabilities within prescribed period of three months after being sworn it?

    “Did he omit to declare a domiciliary (US dollar) account No. 870001062650 maintained with Standard Chartered Bank Nigeria Limited? Did he falsely omit to declare a domiciliary (Euro) account No. 93001062686 maintained with the bank?

    “Did he falsely omit to declare a domiciliary (Pound Sterling) account No. 285001062679 with the Bank?

    “Did he falsely omit to declare an e-Saver Savings (naira) account No. 5001062963 maintained with the bank? Did he falsely fail to declare naira Account 010001062667?”

    Sagay advised Nigerians not be distracted by what he called a vicious and fraudulent campaign intended to sacrifice the substance and justice of the case on the altar of technicalities, adding that the truth must not be the first casualty in the matter.

     

  • Itse Sagay can’t be right

    ITSE Sagay, Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Anti-Corruption (PACAC), does not only possess a huge intellect, he is also an eminent legal scholar and pro-democracy activist who is not afraid to plunge into any controversy no matter how provocative and contentious. His short intervention two Mondays ago in the debate about which political system Nigeria should embrace brings to the fore once again his immense polemical talent. He says very clearly that seeking a return to parliamentarianism is both chimerical and a ploy to get at President Muhammadu Buhari. The eminent scholar is of course at liberty to come down on the side of presidentialism, and indeed the country sorely needs views like his. But since he took the PACAC job, ostensibly to promote a cause he feels so passionately about, Prof Sagay has consistently managed to reduce every argument and position that even tangentially involves the president to one of for or against the president. This is mystifying for a man of such strong views, moral standing and great accomplishments.

    On a normal day, defending the president is a hard and gruelling task. But when the president goes off on a tangent, as he customarily does, even over the most mundane and uncomplicated of issues, defending him becomes truly a gargantuan feat. Prof Sagay sometimes manages to soar to those implausible and provocative feats. The recent attempt by some lawmakers to get the country to jettison presidentialism in favour of parliamentarianism is a perfect example of how Prof Sagay takes umbrage. If his arguments had been limited to defending presidentialsim — and he gave very cogent and infallible proofs of why the system must endure — his opponents in the debate would have had a herculean task of debunking his premises. But as he has become accustomed to doing in the past two years or more, he simply entangled his arguments in the skein of his vicious words against the opposing side and the president’s problematic image.

    Prof Sagay sees those arguing for parliamentarianism as engaging in wasteful diversion of time and resources. How the eminent scholar construes what is evidently a healthy debate to be a ‘wasteful diversion’ is hard to understand. He mocks parliamentarianism as the new ‘holy grail’, and sneers at the debaters on social media and the orthodox media for pursuing “with excitement and apparent seriousness” what he regards as a political chimera. Then, quite incredibly, he skewers the opposing side with a damning sentence or two: “Let it be made clear, the whole idea of one system being better than the other is ‘poppy cock’, time wasting, arising from either ignorance or mischief. The mischief here being to have a Buhari with reduced powers.” Prof Sagay has a knack for conflating two impossible sides. He may wish to dismiss the opinion of those who see parliamentarianism as better than presidentialism as ‘poppy cock’, but how wise is it to psycho-analyse his co-debaters? Who really cares about reducing the president’s powers when the constitution is clear about the boundaries of those powers, and when the president has himself never given any indication that he wishes to be circumscribed by any document, let alone a constitution he swore to protect and defend?

    President Buhari is only incidental to the debate — to the extent that he subverts and perverts the tenets of presidentialism. Had he been prime minister under a parliamentary system, he would have with equal and disdainful panache, if not total ignorance of how a democratic system works, subverted the other system. What is uppermost in the minds of those who see value in parliamentary system is not what it does to President Buhari but what it means to Nigeria. Prof Sagay is obviously enamoured of the president, but his opponents, so-called, are not obsessed with the president despite his utter lack of democratic composure. Nor, as the eminent professor seems to think, are the parliamentary system advocates fixated on determining which is the better system of the two.

    Prof Sagay recalls the intervention of legal luminary, Rotimi Williams, in the debate on which political system to adopt in the early 1960s. Asked which was the better, Chief Williams had, according to Prof Sagay paraphrasing him, retorted: “Briefly summarized, it was that neither of the two systems was better than the other. The success of governance depended on the quality of the operators of government. Bad operators, i.e., bad politicians and ‘leaders’ would always produce bad and failed governance. In other words, the fault was not in the system of governance, but in the quality of the operators of the system.” On the surface, that response makes sense. But has it occurred to Prof Sagay that the parliamentary system advocates are not engaged in determining which is the better of the two system, but which is more suitable given the cultures and backgrounds of the peoples of Nigeria? Nigeria is an alloy of different civilisations and worldviews: the challenge is to find a system, whether once tried or still operational, past or present, that best guarantees stability and development. Prof Sagay seems to think that despite the huge cost of operating the presidential system, it is still the better option; but others think parliamentarianism will fit nicely, considering its affordability. He should make his case with all the vigour his intellect can command. But he has no right both to dismiss the other side or mock them. Their arguments are as valid, if not even more valid than his, especially considering how he vitiates his own argument by suggesting that what undid the First Republic was the reckless and irresponsible manner the politicians of the time handled power, not the regnant system of the day.

    Prof Sagay makes a sensible comparison between the powers of a prime minister and president. His opponents will not agree with him in toto. Indeed, he forgets that on the average the parliamentary system tends more frequently to produce more robust leaders, in intellect and elocution, than the presidential system. More, it also tends to discard misfits more seamlessly and with less complications. The eminent professor may be dismayed to hear this, but there is really no way a parliamentary system could have produced a Muhammadu Buhari, let alone birth what the professor describes uncharitably as the ‘foolish’ exercise of attenuating the powers of the leader. Twice the professor describes advocates of the parliamentary system as ‘foolish’, and twice he psychoanalyses them as obsessed with targeting and weakening President Buhari. Rather than insults and scaremongering, the professor needs to make a better case for both his beloved president and the presidential system.

    At the right time, this column will weigh in on the debate. But for now it is sufficient to note that only the presidential system or military rule could have produced President Buhari. More accurately, it takes a skewed and inoperable and dysfunctional political structure to produce a president whose methods of fighting corruption is stone age, whose rule of law credential is contrived and ancient, whose democratic instincts are engrafted and laboured, and whose leadership acumen thrives more on division than consensus. Will he be re-elected? It won’t be clear until late January. But if that should happen, it will be partly because the country leans more towards kakistocracy than to epistocracy, and alarmingly because the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential campaign has been unable, at least so far, to soar.

    But for the gifted polemicist, Prof Sagay, many of his admirers must wonder whether he has been best served by a public appointment, especially from a government deeply suspicious and loathing of democracy and the rule of law. Imagine if the professor had worked for, say, the great Zik or Awo, two theoreticians with diverse gifts capable of reinforcing the immense talent the law teacher is capable of exuding under the right climate. It is inconceivable that the professor, like many others who thought the Buhari presidency would be less insular with the passage of time, has not been disillusioned by the direction the government has taken, both in terms of its style and in respect of its policies. It is surprising indeed that Prof Sagay has sometimes felt the desperate need to defend President Buhari than to coax him into committing to rectitude.

    In his short intervention on the debate between the two systems, the professor advised advocates of the parliamentary system to beware of what they wished for themselves. He is indisputably right to ask them to caution themselves and to re-examine their arguments all over again, for nothing is cast in granite, and nothing says this column or any other person for that matter is right or wrong. It is not, however, all too certain that the eminent professor also cautioned himself in taking an appointment from an impossible presidency, a presidency that is difficult to defend, let alone project.

  • Sagay: FG can invoke doctrine of necessity to fund 2019 election

    Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) on Wednesday said the Federal Government could fund next year’s general election by invoking the doctrine of necessity should the National Assembly fail to pass the budget.

    According to him, the overriding necessity of elections and survival of democracy supersede the National Assembly’s powers where democracy is threatened.

    Sagay, in a statement, said while the power to approve the budget is only a single item in the Constitution, democracy and its processes, including elections, are what the Constitution are about.

    The statement reads: “The failure or refusal by the National Assembly to approve funds for the 2019 election will constitute a sabotage of our democracy, of which the Constitution is the embodiment.

    “If elections are not held, it will mean the collapse of our democracy, leading to chaos and anarchy. The question that arises is simple.

    “Which is more critical to democracy and the survival of Nigeria: Is it (1) the power of the National Assembly to approve budgets or (2) the survival of democracy and Nigeria itself?

    “If the survival of democracy is more important and fundamental to Nigeria’s existence, then failure to approve the budget for elections will trigger the doctrine of necessity, thus compelling the funding of election without the approval of the National Assembly.

    “It is simply a question of the survival of democracy and the continued existence of Nigeria. The power of approval of budget is just a single item in the whole of the Constitution.

    Read Also: Saraki should resign as a matter of honour, says Sagay

    “On the contrary, elections and democracy which they support, constitute what the whole Constitution is about.

    “Therefore, the overriding necessity and imperative of elections and democracy simply override the power of National Assembly.

    “If the National Assembly refuses or fails to approve the budget for election, the doctrine of necessity will validate the provision of the funds without the National Assembly’s approval.”

    The National Assembly Joint Committee on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will o reconvene on August 27 to conclude work on the 2019 INEC budget submitted to it by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    Co-Chairman of the Joint Committee, Senator Suleiman Nazif, had said in a statement: “Sequel to the ongoing consideration of the INEC 2019 General Election Budget by the joint committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, the general public is hereby informed that work on the budget is in advanced stage and in line with the mandate issued to the joint committee by the leadership of the National Assembly.

    “Equally, the joint committee deliberated on all key attributes of the budget while taking into cognisance the imperative urgency for the budget to be ready in time for the 2019 general election hence, necessitating sacrifice and selflessness from our distinguished and honourable members.

    “Furthermore, it is imperative to state here explicitly that, after an audacious session with all critical stakeholders, the joint committee dissolved into executive structure and agreed to resume on 27th of August, 2018, (after Sallah) to consider the harmonised version of the budget report diligently.

    “Moreso, the report of the joint committee will be made available for further and appropriate legislative action in earnest.”

  • Sagay: Not all whistleblowers will get five percent reward

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) on Friday said not all whistleblowers will get five per cent of recovered sum.

    According to him, the reward could be as low as one per cent of what is recovered depending on the amount.

    Minister of Finance Kemi Adeosun said the Federal Government has received 1,231 tips from whistleblowers since the policy was introduced in 2016.

    She said 791 investigations were commenced; 534 had been concluded, with N7.8billion, $378million and 27,800 pounds recovered so far.

    Sagay and Adeosun spoke in Abuja at an “Evaluation workshop on the whistleblower policy and the role of the inter-agency asset tracing team,” organised by PACAC.

    Adeosun was represented by Head, Presidential Initiative on Continuous Audit (PICA) and Whistleblower Unit of the Ministry of Finance, Dr Mohammed Dikwa.

    Sagay said Nigerians should be made aware that not every whistleblower would get five per cent of what is recovered.

    “One controversial issue in the policy is the question of remuneration. The public seems to be fixated on five per cent. But in fact, five per cent is the maximum.

    “It can be as little as one per cent, depending on the amount of money involved. It could be slightly more if it is an extremely large amount,” he said.

    The eminent professor of law described the whistleblower policy as “very successful”, adding that it was not limited to looted funds.

    “Things like breach of procurement practice, which is closely associated with corruption, and unapproved expenditure by agencies, are all subject of whistleblowing,” Sagay said.

    Read Also: Buhari’s revelation explains herdsmen puzzle, says Sagay

    Adeosun said the Whistleblower Team in her ministry went on a study tour of the United Kingdom and met with relevant agencies to learn best practices.

    “Following lessons learnt from the study tour, we will begin to focus more on preventive measures, putting in place tight control measures, making it more difficult for a few people to take away assets that belong to an entire country.

    “In addition to this, the investigation framework of the whistleblower policy will be reviewed.

    “We will continue to work with all stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of the policy and put in place required institutions and tools to achieve our objective,” she said.

    PACAC Executive Secretary Prof Bolaji Owasanoye said not all acts of whistleblowing attract reward.

    For instance, he said a situation where a planned fund diversion is stopped, there would be no financial reward for the person who gave the tip-off.

    He, however, urged Nigerians to view whistleblowing as a civil duty and a constitutional responsibility.

    “There is a duty to report, even without the five per cent reward,” he said.

  • Law allows Nigerians to defend themselves from attacks – Sagay

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) on Sunday said the law allows Nigerians to defend themselves from being massacred.

    He backed the advice by a former Minister of Defence and an elder statesman, Lt. Gen. Theophilus  Danjuma (rtd.) that Nigerians should defend themselves against killers.

    Sagay urged the Federal Government to investigate Danjuma’s allegations that the armed forces were not neutral.

    According to him, the allegation that the armed forces guide the bandits to kill people and cover them up were “serious”.

    Sagay said: “General Danjuma did not say that the military is incapable. But he accused them of bias and not protecting the people deliberately. That’s a very, very serious accusation.

    “And this is coming from such a senior man in Nigeria’s military – probably apart from former General Olusegun Obasanjo and General Yakubu Gowon, he (Dajuma) is the most senior former military officer we have – and he’s a man who has tremendous influence.

    “He has held important positions – chief of staff, minister of defence – so, he won’t speak lightly. So, his allegation needs to be investigated.

    “If there are elements within the military doing this, then the government has to take immediate steps to deal with them and put people who are responsible and patriotic in the positions.”

    Asked whether resort to self-defence by Nigerians would not result in anarchy, he said: “That’s an interesting point. It’s a point I’ve always made myself. It’s not an illegal measure for Nigerians to defend themselves. If you look at our criminal law, there is the principle of self-defence.

    “If someone attacks you, and you feel endangered, and you defend yourself, and in the process you kill the person, the fact that you were defending yourself is a complete defence to any charge. The right already exists.

    “So, I think what General Danjuma is saying is that instead of each individual exercising that right, they should begin to exercise it collectively in their communities. I think that’s reasonable too.

    “There is breakdown of law and order if you’re in your house and someone comes and kills you. I think there will be less danger of breakdown of law and order if that person knows that the next time he comes to your house, all your neighbours would gather and stop him.

    “So, I think it’s worse for people to lie down complacently doing nothing while they’re being massacred,” Sagay said.

     

  • Magu: Lawyers differ following court ruling

    Magu: Lawyers differ following court ruling

    Senior lawyers yesterday expressed different views on the status of Ibrahim Magu as Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) following yeaterday’s judgment of a Federal High Court in Abuja.

    Justice J. T. Tsoho said the senate acted within the law when it screened and rejected Magu’s nomination as EFCC chairman.

    Prof Itse Sagay SAN, Seyi Sowemimo SAN, Festus Keyamo SAN and Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA ) Vice President Monday Onyekachi Ubani offered their thoughts pending when they read the full judgment. 

    Sagay said: “I don’t expect that the judgment will have an effect on Ibrahim Magu’s status as Acting EFCC Chairman. I don’t expect that there’s anything externally that is going to affect Magu’s position. 

    “I don’t know whether the judge considered Section 171 of the Constitution which even allows the President to appoint heads of agencies like Magu’s agency without any reference to the Senate. That is already there, so I don’t know what was brought to the court’s attention. When we see the full judgment we will be able to express our opinion. 

    Sowemimo observed, among others, that in the event that the ruling includes a court order removing Magu from office, he would probably seek a stay of execution and launch an appeal.

    Keyamo noted, among others, the law did not prescribe a time limit for Magu to remain in an acting capacity. 

    Keyamo said: The fact that the law has not circumscribed the amount of time or the time period that someone can act as the head of an agency, it would mean therefore that I see no legal problem at all in Ibrahim Magu continuing to act as the Chairman of the EFCC, there is no legal impediment at all.”

    But Ubani advised the Executive to “respect and obey the judgement of the 

    Federal High Court unless they have secured a contrary judgement from the appellate courts.”

  • ‘APC vindicated by Babachir’s sack’

    ‘APC vindicated by Babachir’s sack’

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) said on Monday that the sack of the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Engr. Babachir Lawal has vindicated the party position.

    National Publicity Secretary of the party said while reacting g to the sack of Lawal said the President has done the needful.

    Abdullahi said: “A few days ago when the President directed the dismissal of Abdulrasheed Maina, some people say that is right but what about the suspended SGF, BD Lawal but we as a party said look, the President is the only person who has all the information. All of us can inly has one side of the story or the other.

    “But the President by the virtue of the position he occupies is the only one who has all the information and he would do what is necessary at the right time, now we have been vindicated and it shows that the President has not in anyway waiver his commitment not to tolerate corruption at any level no matter who is involve,” the APC spokesman stated.

    Related: ‘Handover Babachir, Oke to EFCC, ICPC’

    Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Anti Corruption, Prof Itse Sagay said the sack of the suspended SGF was long over due, while describing the appointment of Boss Mustapha as his replacement as a positive development.

    Sagay said: “I think there has been a consensus on this and that was overdue. There has been too much delay. Although I will like to put a caveat that government usually have a lot more information than the rest of us as the delay might have discretionary due to the information they had. I was patient and I definitely endorse the final decision that has been taken.

    “Boss Mustapha has a very long history of political activities and my impression on him is that, apart from being a lawyer with a very good reputation in terms of integrity, he has always been a consistent person in whatever course he pursues. So, I think that we should ok at it as a positive development.”

  • Senate to Buhari: Call Sagay to order

    Senate to Buhari: Call Sagay to order

    Says “He’s a loose cannon”

    The Senate yesterday asked President Muhammadu Buhari to rein in the chairman of the Presidential Action Committee on Anti-Corruption (PACAC), Professor Itse Sagay.

    The upper chamber accused the PACAC boss of spreading falsehood and making hate speeches against the National Assembly.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi stated this in Abuja yesterday.

    The Senate spokesperson in a statement noted that Sagay was fond of using every opportunity he has to make public speeches to disparage the Federal Legislature by using uncouth and unprintable words to describe the legislators and the institution they represent.

    He said that Sagay had been one of the few divisive elements in the Buhari administration who believe their relevance is enhanced only when they create constant tension between the legislature and the executive while also setting members of the executives against each other.

    Abdullahi noted that while the legislators had ignored past statements made by the Professor of law, his recent speech at a public lecture in Lagos organized by the Society of International Law where he gave false details about the salary and allowances of the legislators and the various bills passed bordered on inciting members of the public against the legislators and deliberately circulating hate speech; which the government is working hard to contain.

    Abdullahi said, “Ordinarily, we would ignore Sagay whose statements and attitude present him like a rascal and sadist instead of a former university teacher.

    “However, his last speech in Lagos during which he was reeling out false and exaggerated figures about the salaries and allowances of legislators and also lied about the passage of anti-corruption bills showed that he just deliberately set out to undermine the legislative institution and lower its reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the society and we therefore believe we should put him in his rightful place.

    “As an academic whose creed should be to find facts and make comments based on truth, we believe that Sagay should stop spreading beer parlour rumours about the salaries and allowances of legislators when he could simply get the facts from the Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Allocation Commission (RMFAC) which is the body constitutionally charged with the responsibility of fixing salaries and allowances of all public officials.

    “Let us make it clear that our salaries and allowances are open books and the details can be taken from the RMFAC by any interested party.

    “Prof. Sagay at his lecture in Lagos also made comparisons which did little credit to his background as a lecturer as he was talking of the salary of the United States President and that of a Nigerian legislator. That is like comparing oranges with apples. Only a senile, jaded, rustic and outdated Professor of Law like Sagay will make such a comparison which falls flat on its face, even to an ordinary lay man. Surely, Sagay is basing his analysis on street talks.

    “Sagay could not even check the records before proclaiming that ‘the National Assembly has not passed a single bill for the promotion of anti-corruption war since it commenced business in July 2015′. First, the 8th National Assembly was inaugurated on June 9, 2015 not July. Also, it is on record that the Senate has passed the Whistle Blowers’ Protection Bill, Witness Protection Bill, Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Agency Bill.

    “This man talks like a man who is constantly under the influence of some substance and perhaps possessed as he employs the language of a tout with no civility. He is probably constantly excited and incensed by the fact of having his first opportunity to find himself in the corridors of power.

    “He pontificates and talks as if the war against corruption of the Buhari administration depends solely on him to survive. He once publicly attacked the Attorney General of the Federation and accused him of not doing enough to prosecute the war. In the Lagos speech, he took a blanket swipe at the judiciary and rubbished that entire institution which he as a lawyer has the professional, ethical and constitutional duty to respect.

    “This is a man who cannot stand for Councilorship election and win. We challenge him to state what his contributions are in the election of our amiable President, Muhammadu Buhari and what new ideas he has contributed to making the fight against corruption more effective since his appointment. With an easily excited man like him as head of an advisory body, the nation has continued to lose anti-corruption cases in courts due to the failure of his advice. He needs to do more work and talk less because media prosecution cannot win the war on corruption.”

    The Senate therefore called on the President to caution Sagay and stop him from further creating needless tension in the relationship between the executive and the legislature.