Tag: Sagay

  • APC to Sagay, political appointees: stop making enemies for Buhari

    APC to Sagay, political appointees: stop making enemies for Buhari

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) has asked all those appointed into positions by President Muhammadu Buhari to stop making enemies for him.

    In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party said the statement credited to the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption (PACAC), Prof. Itse Sagay, that the National Assembly should withdraw the invitation extended to him was regrettable.

    According to the party, such statements could complicate the relationship between the Executive and Legislative arms of government.

    The party restated its earlier position admonishing all elected or appointed officials of government to desist from making utterances that may endanger efforts to build a harmonious relationship between the two arms of government.

    The statement reads: “In furtherance of the APC efforts to resolve the rift between the Executive and the National Assembly, the APC urges all government appointees to stop making statements that may further worsen the relationship between the two arms of government and derail the party’s effort to make peace.

    “Specifically, the party urges Prof. Sagay (SAN) to exercise restraint and desist from making utterances that may be misconstrued as an attack on the institution of the National Assembly.

    “The party acknowledges the fatherly role being played by President Muhammadu Buhari to resolve outstanding issues with the National Assembly, by setting up a high-level committee led by the Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo.

    “We believe the comments attributed to Prof. Sagay are uncalled for, regrettable and could further complicate the relationship between these vital arms of government.

    “Our expectation would be that as a Law Professor of repute, Prof. Sagay would appreciate the need to not denigrate the institutions of democracy, be it the Executive, Legislature or Judiciary.

    “Moreover, as an appointee of Mr. President, we should expect the learned Professor to key into his principal’s temper and help him to make friends that would make his job easier and not make enemies of people who, by virtue of the positions they occupy under our law, are critical to the running of government and the nurturing of our democracy.”

    The statement objected to Sagay’s call on the Senate to withdraw invitation extended to him.

    “As someone appointed by our government, we find this kind of posturing unacceptable and potentially injurious to the peace efforts by the party.

    “The party wishes to reiterate its earlier position admonishing all elected or appointed officials of our government to desist from utterances that may endanger efforts to build harmonious relationship between the two arms of government. Prof. Sagay should not operate outside this admonition.

    “The party expresses happiness with the meeting it had with the Senate Caucus on Tuesday and is confident that all the issues raised will be addressed. It also urges the National Assembly to further intensify its efforts to ensure timely passage of the 2017 National Budget.”

  • Sagay to Senate: withdraw resolution summoning me

    Sagay to Senate: withdraw resolution summoning me

    •PACAC chair threatens to sue 

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) has asked the Senate to withdraw the resolution summoning him over his comments.
    In an April 3 letter to Senate President Bukola Saraki, Sagay said he would sue if the invitation was not withdrawn.
    The senators summoned Sagay before the Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee for allegedly calling them “childish and irresponsible” for asking President Muhammadu Buhari to sack Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Acting Chairman Ibrahim Magu.
    The PACAC chairman said his criticism was anchored on Section 171(1) of the Constitution, which empowered the President to appoint any person to hold or act as head of any extra-ministerial department.
    He said though he was not served with any summons, he deemed it fit to join issues with members of the Senate on the violation of his fundamental right to freedom of expression.
    The rights, he said, were guaranteed by Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution as amended and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
    According to Sagay, Section 88 of the Constitution under which the Senate purportedly summoned him is subject to other provisions of the Constitution, including Section 39, which guarantees freedom of expression.
    Sagay said the Senate’s power to conduct enquiries “is not at large”.
    “The powers conferred on the National Assembly under the provision of this section (88) are exercisable only for the purpose of enabling it to – (a) make laws with respect to any matter within its legislative competence and 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 disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by it.
    “From the foregoing, you will agree with me that the enormous investigative powers of the National Assembly are circumscribed as they are exercisable subject to other provisions of the Constitution,” Sagay said.
    He cited the cases of Innocent Adikwu v. Federal House of Representatives ((1982) 3 NCLR 394 at 416),Senate of National Assembly v. Momoh ((1983) 4 NCLR 269 at 29), and Mallam Nasir Ahmed El-Rufai v. The House of Representatives, National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors ((2003) 46 WRN 70), which he said show that the Senate’s powers to summon persons are not boundless.
    “Applying the principle of law enunciated in the above cited cases, I am fortified in my submission that the Senate lacks the constitutional power to summon me to justify my condemnation of the illegal actions of its members. Senate cannot be accuser, prosecutor and judge in its own cause,” he said.
    He threatened to sue the lawmakers should they fail to withdraw the summons, adding that any senator, who felt his reputation was damaged, could seek redress in court.
    “However, any aggrieved member of the Senate has the liberty to sue me for defamation in a competent court of jurisdiction.
    “Consequently, I urge you to withdraw the resolution summoning me to appear before the Senate.
    “If you fail to accede to my request, I will not hesitate to challenge the legal validity of the summons, once it is served on me,” Sagay said.

  • Sagay asks Senate to withdraw summon

    The Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Prof Itse Sagay (SAN), has asked the Senate to withdraw the resolution summoning him over his comments.

    In an April 3 letter to Senate President, Bukola Saraki, Sagay said he would sue the upper chamber if the invitation is not withdrawn.

    The Senators resolved to summon Sagay to appear before its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions to explain why he described them as “childish and irresponsible” for asking President Muhammadu Buhari to sack the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu.

    The PACAC chairman said his criticism was anchored on Section 171(1) of the Constitution which has empowered the President to appoint any person to hold or act as head of any extra-ministerial department.

    Sagay said though he has not been served with any summons, he deemed it fit to join issues with the Senate over the threatened violation of his fundamental rights to freedom of expression.

    The rights, he said, were guaranteed by Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution as amended and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

    According to Sagay, Section 88 of the Constitution under which the Senate purportedly summoned him is subject to other provisions of the Constitution, including Section 39, which guarantees freedom of expression.

    Sagay said the Senate’s power to conduct enquiries “is not at large.”

    “The powers conferred on the National Assembly under the provision of this section (88) are exercisable only for the purpose of enabling it to – (a) make laws with respect to any matter within its legislative competence and 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 disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by it.

    “From the foregoing, you will agree with me that the enormous investigative powers of the National Assembly are circumscribed as they are exercisable subject to other provisions of the Constitution,” Sagay said.

     

  • Sagay: Senate lacks authority to summon me

    Sagay: Senate lacks authority to summon me

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) yesterday said the Senate cannot summon him for expressing an opinion.

    He said the Senate lacks the authority to summon a private citizen.

    Sagay said the lawmakers were embarking on a “futile” exercise that could have “embarrassing consequences”.

    According to Sagay, he does not fall within the category of government officials that the Senate can summon.

    He said he only exercised his constitutionally guaranteed right to hold an opinion.

    Sagay said a government official can be summoned during an amendment of a law that affects the official’s agency, or where the official is directly involved in spending monies appropriated by the National Assembly.

    The eminent professor of law said any senator who feels that his reputation was damaged by his comments could seek redress in court.

    He said the Senate was not a court of law before whom he could be ordered to appear.

    Sagay was reacting to a move by the Senate to summon him over comments he made on the lawmakers.

    The PACAC chairman also faulted the suspension of Senator Ali Ndume for six months, saying it was not justifiable.

    He said: “I expressed an opinion in the newspaper. It’s my constitutional right. Now, they say they’re inviting me.

    “I’ve not got the summons yet, but I’m saying that they absolutely have no authority or power to summon me before them, just as I have no power or authority to summon them before me. Our powers in that regard on virtual summons are exactly the same.

    “So, it is a futile exercise. My advice to them is to ask their legal advisers to tell them how limited their powers are under Sections 82 to 89 of the 1999 Constitution. Then they will know that I am far, far outside the category of people they can ever invite. And they would save themselves the embarrassment of the consequences of that futile invitation.”

    Asked if the Senate has the right to order the arrest of a citizen who refuses to appear before it, Sagay said: “They can do so if that citizen comes within the small group of people they can invite.

    “Usually when they invite, there are one of two reasons: they want to make a new law or improve a law, and you’re an official in that area, an official probably in government in that area, and they invite you to interrogate you so they can improve or get ideas on improving that law they intend to make. That’s one.

    “Additionally, when they have voted money for particular government activities, and you’re the one who is overseeing that activity and spending the money they have allocated, they can invite you to give an account of how you spend the money in order to improve efficiency in that type of expenditure or to check corruption. Those are the two groups of people they can invite. They should know that that has nothing to do with me.

    “They absolutely have no authority to invite a private citizen who expresses an opinion. They have been defeated in court so many times for trying to invite people over whom they have no power.

    “So, that’s why I said they should just save themselves that embarrassment. They can’t intimidate anybody. They can’t stop me from expressing my views, which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

    “They cannot become a court for me to appear before. Courts are established, and I can only appear before a court, not before them.”

    Sagay said any senator who feels his reputation was damaged by his comments could sue. “O, definitely. That’s his constitutional right and then, we’ll meet there,” he said.

    On Senator Ndume’s suspension, Sagay said: “Clearly there’s no basis for that suspension. He brought something that the whole country was talking about to their attention. They had an opportunity of clearing themselves. That’s the kind of offence for which he is suspended for six months”.

  • Senate summons Sagay over ‘disparaging’ comments

    The Senate on Wednesday resolved to invite the Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Prof. Itse Sagay, over his alleged disparaging comments against the upper chamber.

    Sagay’s invitation is seen as further escalation of the current face-off between the Senate and Presidency which blew open on Tuesday with the Senate’s suspension of the consideration and confirmation of 27 Resident Electoral Commissioners (RECs) submitted by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    The presidential is expected appear before the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions to explain why he allegedly described senators as “childish and irresponsible” for pushing President Buhari to sack the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu, within two weeks.

    The PACAC chairman is also expected to explain why he allegedly said the Senate is “filled with people of questionable character who put personal interest ahead of the nation.”

    The lawmakers said it is necessary to invite the professor of jurisprudence to name the questionable characters in the Senate.

    The resolution followed a motion of privilege by Senate Deputy Leader, Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah (Kebbi South), who told the Senate that Sagay infringed on his integrity, character and privilege as a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

     

  • Sagay’s tiresome tirades

    In the heady early days of President Muhammadu Buhari’s ascendance, Professor Itse Sagay was the giant signpost of a no-nonsense anti-corruption era. An eminent professor of Law with a well-honed reputation for social activism, he also wears rather haughtily, a visage that seems to bear a permanent scowl against bad behaviour and official graft.

    When shortly after inauguration, Sagay was drafted to lead a high-calibre anti-corruption think-tank, many agreed that the PMB administration was indeed smart off the blocks.

    In August 2015, Sagay was announced chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC). And the mandate of the body is clear and without any ambiguity whatsoever: to advise the PMB administration on the prosecution of the war against corruption and the implementation of the required reforms in Nigeria’s criminal justice system.

    Other notable members of this committee are Prof. Femi Odekunle, Prof. Bolaji Owasanoye, Prof. Sadiq Rabba, Prof. E. Alemika, Dr. Benedicta Daudu and Hadiza Bala Usman. And funding was no issue as a matching grant of sort of about $5million was provided by three international development partners – the Ford Foundation; MacArthur Foundation and Open Society Foundation. “The fund is to assist implementation of key components of the Action Plan and the work of the Presidential Advisory Committee”, according to a release from the Presidency then.

    Sorry to note that more than one and a half years after, the Sagay Committee seemingly have made little or no impact in the anti-graft war. This columnist is not aware of any preliminary reports from PACAC or any notable impute it has made in the quest to rid Nigeria of acute and chronic systemic corruption. As indicated in its terms, PACAC seems to have been designed to be the intellectual backbone and guiding light of a renewed resolve to stem graft. We expected organisational retooling of anti-corruption agencies and of course fresh rules and laws to revamp and indeed return our policing, investigative and criminal justice systems.

    We expected new ways of battling financial and economic crimes; improved methods of monitoring the treasury, tracking revenues and executing public procurements. In fact, if the PACAC has been at work, nothing of it has been brought to the public domain at least to show Nigerians that it is not just another privileged, funds-guzzling bureaucracy.

    On the contrary, Prof. Sagay has since his appointment delved into what may be regarded as the politics of anti-graft war instead of tinkering with the technicalities that would deepen the war and imbue lasting solution.

    At almost every turn, the erudite professor has infused the media space with comments better left to political party spokesmen and information ministers.

    Some instances: commenting on the Supreme Court’s verdict in favour of the governors of Rivers and Akwa-Ibom states, he described the judgments as “perverse.” That of course, is a brashly impolitic statement to make in a bi-partisan affair, considering his status and position. In the matter of the night raid of the residences of some justices of the Supreme Court by the Department of State Security (DSS), Sagay had said: “Judiciary has lost its moral armour.”

    But this article is actually triggered by Prof. Sagay’s current outing in which he railed against the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) and the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC).

    “You will not believe that with all we are going through, the NDDC, which is the other name for uncompleted projects, has just bought over 70 cars,”  Sagay notes.

    He says further: “There is no difference in Customs since May 29, 2015. If you go to Tin Can Island in Lagos, it is business as usual.” He also berated the judiciary for side-tracking the administration of the Criminal Justice Act, 2015. He noted that contrary to the stipulation that an application for a stay of proceedings in a criminal matter should not be entertained, some courts still adjourn to wait for the outcome of an interlocutory appeal. “All these are illegal and strictly constitute acts of misconduct on the part of the judges. The outcome of all this is that we have over 100 high-profile cases not going nowhere.”

    To put it mildly, Prof. Sagay’s recent outburst can be seen as capitulation and an admission of failure by default. His fulminations over the NCS or the NDDC is at best a distraction as he has said nothing new or added value to the quest to clean these Augean stables.

    We have always known that most government departments and agencies are bastions of corruption. Any little Nigerian boy or girl can guess how rotten the Customs, NNPC, Immigrations, Police and others are. The main reason Nigerians voted PMB and APC is because of the aching need to stop the corruption monster. The reason the PACAC was among the first important moves made by this administration is to tackle this virus with forensic acuity. Not to wear us out with tiresome tirades.

    But 18 months down the line nary a dent has been made on the corruption monolith and as Professor Sagay rightly pointed out, it is probably worse now. Apart from the crude effort of Ibrahim Magu and his team at the EFCC, not much else goes on in the so-called battle. But Magu’s exertions, it has become clear, has been of no effect as the method is pedestrian and non-preemptive.

    Prof. Sagay is not the only one wringing his palms in utter helplessness, seemingly. Early in the month, the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu, had this to say about his industry: “Importation of petroleum products will have to stop. There is absolutely no reason why a country with the resources that we have will continue to import petroleum products. It’s a fraud on the system and we are going to end it.” Shall we just simply say good morning to Kachikwu that he finally stirs from slumber? Kachikwu has been in the sector and this matter has been with us for over two decades! He ought to have solved this problem yesterday.

    Acting President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, also rose to the ‘great occasion’ recently albeit, belatedly. He says: “The power to do good or evil lies with a few people who form what we refer to as our Civil Service. When some of such elite see the opportunity as one of self-enrichment…. then the nation faces a monumental tragedy.”

    Wonderful, soul-stirring rhetoric but is this what we want to hear now? No! Do these denouncements stop the next procurement process abuse? No!

    This is why this column is particularly piqued by the way PACAC has turned out so far. To think that there are several things Sagay’s team could have done by merely making the right pronouncements, picking several quick wins and low-hanging fruits.

    For instance, the Office of the Attorney-General ought to be the impregnable war room from where anti-graft battles are planned and consummated. The office of the Auditor-General of the Federation – if it cannot be made fiercely independent, it can at least deliver its basic annual reports promptly and timeously.

    Same goes for the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Code of Conduct Bureau, EFCC and ICPC. These agencies could have been reshuffled and deepened to operate super-efficiently in line with the new spirit of fighting graft. But the problem is that old wines have remained in the old casks, maturing in their redundancies and old habits.

    But more irksome is that PACAC’s capitulation is almost akin to a force majeure in the fight against corruption. Enough of lamentations, please.

     

    Ali the obtuse

    They must have tagged it ‘operation show your Customs paper or be damned’. But thank goodness for the timely intervention of the Senate, otherwise Nigerians were about being subjected to the obtusest Customs rules ever enacted. Col. Hameed Ali (retd), Comptroller-General of Customs and his team had determined that they would not only follow smuggled products to Nigerians’ bedrooms and kitchens, but they were poised to drive every imported car owner up the electric pole.

    A deadline was already given and the stage was set: every second-hand car owner must show cause why he should be on the road. Just imagine for a moment Customs officials chasing about 50 million vehicles across the country – what a bedlam that would unleash on the polity! Again, thank goodness for the Senate’s intervention; it has asked the CG to junk what is obviously a junk idea meant to extort and overawe an already frazzled citizenry.

    It is hoped that our obdurate CG who won’t don the Customs’ uniform, would hearken to wise counsel this time. It must be noted, however, that Mr. Ali seems to lack the capacity to reform the Service. A rotten NCS now stinks. One instance: How did N5 billion worth of fake tyres get into the country recently? Another: Who imported those 566 AK47’s? How can we preempt smugglers instead of to pursuing them about town? The Service needs a holistic revamping, reorientation and retraining. It is an intellectual task, really.

  • Sagay accuses Customs, NDDC, others of ‘bold and brazen corruption’

    Sagay accuses Customs, NDDC, others of ‘bold and brazen corruption’

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Itse Sagay (SAN) yesterday accused the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) and the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) of corruption and “brazen impunity”.

    He said the “recklessness” with which public officers spend public funds was “insensitive to the point of insanity”.

    “Yes, I mean that. The level of insensitivity has become pathological,” Prof. Sagay said.

    He spoke in Abuja at the National Dialogue on Corruption, organised by the Office of the Vice President in collaboration with PACAC.

    On how pervasive graft has become, Sagay said: “Corruption is omnipresent in Nigeria. High and low office holders, public and private sectors, the executive, legislative and judicial sectors, immigration, police, the civil service, everywhere.

    “What is extremely disturbing is the fact that people’s attitude to corruption has hardened. There is no longer any fear of consequences.

    “Bribe is demanded brazenly with a sense of entitlement. So too has insensitivity to misuse, abuse and waste our common patrimony, even in these lean times.”

    He said in the face of financial drought and famine, the National Assembly bought cars worth N30million each for oversight functions.

    “The NDDC, which is the other name for uncompleted projects, has just bought over 70 cars. About eight of them are super Lexus Jeeps costing N78million each,” he said.

    Sagay said the money could have been spent on infrastructure, housing, schools and hospitals.

    He said it amounted to shedding crocodile tears for the NDDC management to complain of lack of funds for projects.

    He said Customs had completely ignored the fight against corruption, operating as if it is not in Nigeria.

    Sagay said last December, his cousin who was relocating to Nigeria from the United States after 26 years paid fraudulent duties for household goods.

    “Bribe was demanded at every stage of the obstacle race called custom clearance, involving long table, short table and other ingenious instruments of extortion,” he said.

    For instance, he said his cousin paid N1.2million for “approval of personal effects”, and paid for physical examination of items because the scanner was not working, among others.

    Sagay said the huge recoveries being made by the Federal Government from former government officials showed that the “orgy of monumental looting continues”.

    “We have to ask ourselves what the problem really is. We are definitely overwhelmed by an epidemic of kleptomania. But do we have a collective psychiatric problem?

    “Why would a person loot what he cannot spend in 10 life times while exposing the rest of the population to misery, hunger, poverty, wretchedness, and even death,” Sagay said.

    He slammed judges for violating the Administration of Criminal Justice Act which provides that ruling on preliminary objections shall be made at the time of delivery of judgment.

    “In spite of these clear provisions, some judges are still granting adjournments running into months and, worse still, will adjourn their cases to give a ruling on a preliminary objection instead of giving the ruling at the same time as the judgment on the substantive criminal matter.

    “What is more, contrary to Section 306, which provides that an application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter shall not be entertained, some courts still adjourn in order to await the outcome of an interlocutory appeal.

    “All this is illegal and strictly constitute acts of misconduct on the part of the judge. The outcome of all this is that we have over 100 high profile cases not going nowhere,” he said.

    Senate President Bukola Saraki, represented by Senator Chukwuka Utasi, faulted Sagay’s comments on the National Assembly.

    He said it would be “counter productive” to “demonise” others.

    “It does not help in confidence building within government and across the civil population when institutions of state are demonised  to put a shine on others,” he said.

  • Sagay on the appointment of CJN

    Sagay on the appointment of CJN

    ON page 2 of the February 1, edition of The Nation, Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, forcefully inveighed against the debate on the appointment of the Hon. Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen as acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (ACJN) by the Presidency, a metonym for President Muhammadu Buhari, a debate which, according to him, “has generated a lot of heat, acrimony and self-generated anger without generating a single ray of light…” He, therefore, decided “to intervene in the debate as lawyer (sic) and as someone who is an occasional beneficiary of informal sources of information.”
    After stating correctly that the appointment of a Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) is provided for in section 231 of the Constitution, he went on to state that “the President is the appointor”, subject to the condition that, prior to such appointment, “he must receive a recommendation from the National Judicial Council (NJC) after which he forwards the name of the appointee to the Senate for confirmation.” All these are statements of fact as they are they dovetail into the provisions of subsections (1) and (4) of section 231 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) except for the construction he has quite clearly given to the words, “the President is the appointor.” If, by the word “appointor”, the learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria means (as is clearly evident in his later submissions), any person who, as a puissant functionary, appoints, or executes a commanding power of appointment of a CJN, and not as an official who makes an obligatory or automatic appointment of any person recommended to him by the NJC, then we come to a parting of the way.
    In disagreeing with his fellow Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Wole Olanipekun, Prof. Sagay said, among other things, that the President is not “a cipher or a robot, who has to pass on a nomination coming from the NJC to the Senate without discretion, input or without the right of rejecting such an appointment and calling on the NJC to send other nominations” (italics mine). “The truth of the matter,” the Prof. further added, “is that the President can turn down the recommendation of the NJC and request that another name be recommended,” the President not being a rubber stamp.
    With the profoundest respect, I strongly disagree with the learned professor in all his arguments. As far as the 1999 Constitution is concerned, the provisions of s. 231 thereof make the President a “robot”, a “cipher” and a “rubber stamp” in the appointment of a CJN. He cannot turn down the nomination decided on by the Federal Judicial Commission (FJC) and sent, after due consideration by the NJC, to the President for action only. If the Prof. insists that this is not so, he should show Nigerians which portion of the 1999 Constitution provides for such executive powers, or show how any of the known canons of statutory interpretation enabled him to construe s.231 as giving the President such powers of rejection of FJC/NJC’s recommendation and request for another one, or a canon of construction which grants the professor a poetic licence to smuggle an idea that is foreign to the Constitution into it!
    Section 231 (1) of the Constitution provides that the “appointment of a person to the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation by the Senate” (underscore mine). And where the office of the CJN is vacant, the President MUST, under the provisions of subsection (4) of s. 231 of the Constitution, appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as acting CJN. He cannot, by reason of that subsection, exercise any discretionary power in favour of any other legal officer in or outside the Supreme Court. When applied to a public functionary, discretion means a power or right conferred upon him/her by law to act officially in certain circumstances, according to the dictates of his/her own judgment and conscience, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others. The 1999 Constitution grants no such discretion to the President. For proof, whereas s.211 (1) of the 1979 Constitution provided that “The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President in his discretion subject to confirmation of such appointment by a simple majority of the Senate”, the sagacious draftsmen of the 1999 Constitution rightly expunged the word discretion from subsection (1) of s.231 when they realized that the doctrine of separation of powers is enshrined in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution, which presumes that the appointment of the CJN should not be the sole prerogative of either the executive or the legislature. Or which constitution are we talking about, 1979 or 1999? As the learned SAN knows very well, the popular Latin maxim, “leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant” (later laws abrogate prior laws that are contrary to them) continues to be valid!
    According to the late learned, piquant-witted Professor of Law, Jadesola Akande, in her seminal book Introduction to the Nigerian Constitution, “there is a provision for the appointment of an acting Chief Justice in the absence of the substantive office holder for any reason. Although it is provided that the President does the appointment, in practice, this is a mere formality because the Supreme Court Justice next in order of seniority acts as Chief Justice.”
    Quite clearly, there is no zone of twilight between the President and the NJC in which both the former and the latter have equal rights in the appointment of a CJN. Unlike s.147 of the 1999 Constitution which empowers the President to APPOINT his ministers according to his own judgment and conscience but subject to confirmation of such ministers by the Senate, s.231 on the appointment of a CJN (head of the third arm of government) confers no such powers on the President. The President cannot, for example, appoint any person other than the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as acting or substantive CJN as was done when His Excellency Judge Taslim Olawale Elias or Sir Darnley Alexander was appointed CJN from outside the Judiciary.
    I posit, with respect, that subsections (1) and (4) of section 231 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), in contradistinction to subsection (1) of section 211 of the 1979 Constitution forcefully prevent the President from exercising any discretionary power over any recommendation of a successor CJN that may be made to him by the NJC. Nobody should goad this President, already characterized by imperious tendencies, into full-blown tyranny or to assume powers that are alien to our written constitution through the instrumentality of legal misconstructions.

  • Sagay slams Sani over ‘deodorant’ comments

    The Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), on Wednesday faulted a statement credited to the Kaduna Central Senator, Shehu Sani, saying the President Muhammadu Buhari administration is treating corruption in government with “deodorant.”

    Sagay said Sani’s comments were a political statement.

    He accused the Senator of fighting his own political “battles” which influences his views.

    Sani had dismissed as “false” President Muhammadu Buhari’s claims on a Senate report indicting the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir Lawal, of corruption.

    Speaking at the Senate on Tuesday after Senate President, Bukola Saraki, read Buhari’s letter absolving Lawal of fraud, the Senator suggested the President’s defense of the SGF smacked of double standards.

    Buhari had reacted to the Senate’s demand for Lawal’s sack and prosecution, having accused him of corruption in the handling of a grass cutting contract awarded by the Presidential Initiative on Northeast (PINE).

    The President in his letter said he could not act as demanded by the Senate because the report of the Senate Ad hoc committee was signed by three of nine members.

    He also said the SGF was not given fair hearing.

    Sani, who chaired the ad hoc committee and presented the interim report last December, said seven members, not three as claimed by the President, signed the report.

    He also said Lawal was invited to appear before the committee, adding the SGF’s secretary received and acknowledged the invitation.

    Sani said advert was placed in three newspapers for Lawal and other parties involved in the matter to appear before the Senate committee.

    “Corruption in the judiciary and others is treated with insecticide while corruption in the government is treated with deodorant,” Sani said.

    But, Sagay said while he does not have much facts regarding the allegations against the SGF, he should be given a fair hearing by the Senate before being condemned.

    “With regards to the SGF, I don’t really know much about that. My own view is that they should give him a hearing and if at the end of it, they consider that he’s liable, then they should come to the conclusion and condemn him if they want. But they should give him a hearing. That’s all,” Sagay said.

     

     

  • How to win anti-graft war, by Sagay

    How to win anti-graft war, by Sagay

    Forner university don and legal luminary Prof. Itsey Sagay spoke with reporters in Lagos on the anti-graft war and how the judiciary can join President Muhammadu Buhari to win. Political Editor emmanuel oladesu was there.

    What is your position on the DSS raid on the homes of some judges and justices?

    I can respond to this as Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee on Corruption because we have an official position, and that position is: There is nobody that is above the law in this country. The only people who are enjoying immunity against criminal prosecution are president, vice president, governors, and deputy governors. Anybody outside this group is totally subject to the full weight of the law for any crime he/she commits.

    Why we look at the judiciary, with all respect, is that we expect them to conduct themselves in such a manner that they are totally above suspicion. I personally have done a study of the judiciary in the past. The judiciary I refer to is the golden era of the Supreme Court – Supreme Court of Oputa, Nnamani, Obaseki and Bello among others. I studied their supreme courts and the image and aura that accompanied their conduct and the air around them were carried on from the colonial era.

    These are people no anti-corruption agency in Nigeria will dare accuse of corruption because they have such high moral of authority. These are the people, who when President Muhammadu Buhari was the military head of state, held, on many occasions, that actions of that government were illegal in one way or the other and the government obeyed immediately because of the authority these people had. So, any judicial authority that wants to maintain that aura and authority must be credible. You cannot be corrupt and expect to be respected.

    You cannot reduce yourself to a level where you are purchasable, where what I will call irresponsible and low type of lawyers will carry money to you and buy your soul and you sell your judgement. The highest bidder will now hand over money to the judge.

    So, when you bring us down to that level where nobody can determine the outcome of a judgement based on arguments, the law and facts, then, you have destroyed the judiciary. Those judges, who are corrupt have destroyed the judiciary and nothing is too much for their punishment.

    Who are the corrupt persons? They are the politicians and lawyers who share part of the proceeds of crimes. These politicians and lawyers are stabbing Nigeria one after the other and our blood is flowing. Judiciary has stabbed Nigeria. If they want to destroy Nigeria, we have to uproot those people for our country to survive.

    In your view, do you think the anti-corruption war of the Federal Government is sustainable?

    It is sustainable, if Nigeria wants it to be sustainable. After all it is a democracy. If you are taking legitimate steps to root out corruption in the judiciary, that is the first place. We must root it out from the judiciary, otherwise we are going nowhere. After you have cleared out the political class and the lawyers we are left with nothing. You will go there and you will find justice. Judiciary is the first point of call. We must purge the judiciary of corruption. That is where we have to start.

    The said punishment must be after judgement. There has to be a mindset for those who are looking for corrupt persons. There will be investigation of suspicious behaviours, secretly acquired of illegitimate funds, leading to investigation, arrest and prosecution.

    It is the judge, who will hear the case. He is the one who has to be to cleared and seen to be neutral. He is the one who will assume innocence before conviction. Although, the case by angry Nigerians is that the process of innocence should be removed and that those charged should prove their own innocence. The prosecutor cannot have the mindset that we are talking about. Otherwise, there will be no investigation and there will be no prosecution.

    The Legal Adviser of the APC, Dr Muiz Banire has stepped down from his position following allegations that he induced a judge, how is Amaechi’s case different from that?

    That one is different. N500,000 was found in an account of a judge, which was paid by Muiz Banire. There is no such link. No such was found against Amaechi. It is just the mere words of the judges. There is a lot of difference.

    His take on the role of the NJC in the fight against corruption

    I will blame them totally for the ineffectiveness of the fight against corruption to certain extent. NJC is established for a routine misconduct. There are no volumes of corruption that have not been found in our judiciary. People who have taken a whole lot of money from politicians will pay salaries of thousands of Nigerians for many years. When it gets to that stage, then you are dealing with a serious disease. The NJC is not meant to do that. Their job is geared towards routine misconduct in normal situations. What we have is not normal. It is an epidemic. It is just too much.

    Do you think the NJC is overburdened?

    My personal view is that none of those operating at the level of NJC should be serving justices. They should be retired justices with clean records because we had a situation in which one of those accused of corruption and misconduct was a sitting Chief Justice of Nigeria and he influenced the whole process to the extent that an innocent President of the Court of Appeal was suspended and not allowed to return to his seat until he retired because the corruption and misconduct of that CJN was in consonance with the President and the party in power.

    It is better to have a group of people who have nothing at stake, nothing to lose and no objection. Too many people are currently holding positions who are themselves living on huge sums of corrupt money, sitting and considering people who have been brought to court. How would you feel? You know you have committed the same thing. You know the money is somewhere and can be found in future. You don’t caution yourselves by dealing with a fellow traveller in that area. That is the problem.

    Some are worried that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC acting chairman, Magu has not been confirmed. Are you worried?

    I am not bothered and neither am I surprised because some of those who are to confirm him are under investigation. And to a typical Nigerian, there is no sense of duty, no sense of respect and no embarrassment. They are ready to fight dirty and expose themselves. People are in positions they forced themselves on in this country. Otherwise there should be no reason why they should not confirm him because they think they are saving themselves against the crimes they have committed.

    The embattled justices are being accused of having huge sums of money in their possession. As a senior lawyer, is there a provision of the law that stipulates the amount of money a Nigerian should have in his possession?

    There is a provision in the ICPC Act and similar provision is in the EFCC Act. The ICPC and EFCC are entitled to investigate any person who is living above his income, in order to determine where he is getting his extra income for his style of living. There is also a provision in the ICPC Act that entitles the government to bring an application to freeze an asset owned by somebody who cannot account for how he got it. In that case, he is obliged to provide evidence on how he acquired the money. If he cannot account, he loses that asset and presently before the National Assembly, there is a bill, which is very clear, that at any point in time that the security agency and anti-corruption agencies can ask you to account for any asset you have and how you acquired the asset, what you are doing to acquire it and if you cannot, they will give it to the state. That is how it is all over the world. We are among the few exception of countries that have not been practising this.

    I am optimistic that we will get some convicted or acquitted. We are interested in seeing cases come to conclusion. You are either convicted or acquitted. We don’t want to see suspended cases again starting from 2003, which have not been resolved. But with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, we are bound to see a major improvement because that act has blocked all the loopholes.

    Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, who are the colleagues of politicians they are exploiting and sharing the proceeds, feel totally committed to looking for loopholes. Rather than defending their clients, they look for loopholes to deny that the court has jurisdiction and drag that issue to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court for a period of 10 years or more. By the time, he comes back 10 years later, the court has the jurisdiction to try the case, witnesses and prosecutors are no longer there. There are new prosecutors not familiar with the case. All sorts of complications would have arisen to make the case almost impossible to resolve.

    This new act has provided four major things that are very helpful. If you make an application that the court has no jurisdiction, or any other preliminary objection, the court is empowered to hear your objection. After he hears it, he says, ‘fine, let us go to the main case.’ He hears the main case and gives ruling for the objection and judgement at the same time. So from there you move to the Court of Appeal.

    Secondly, the court is now committed to give day-to-day hearing. No adjournment. You must hear the case every day until it is completed.

    Thirdly, if a judge is promoted, no matter how far he has gone with the case, the case has to be given to another judge. The judge is at the verge of giving the judgement when he was promoted. That has ended.

    Finally, an appeal does not constitute stay of consideration. So you can appeal 20 times. These are the tricks lawyers are using. They just appeal. The appeal has been eliminated; a case goes on at the same time. If they are firmly implemented and that is what my committee urged to be implemented. Cases will go on with little or no interruption till the end. If that is done, we will see numerous cases decided this year.