The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Senate

  • Senate: proper procedure for Magu’s confirmation

    Senate: proper procedure for Magu’s confirmation

    Ebun Adegboruwa, Lawyer and Human Rights Activist pulled a surprise today (Monday), 20th February, 2017 when he announced the withdrawal of a suit he had filed at the Federal High Court challenging the nomination and confirmation of Mr. Ibrahim Magu as the substantive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), admitting publicly in the process that recent events has convinced him beyond doubt that Magu is the best man for the job.

    Represented in the proceedings by Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who earlier echoed same feelings, the learned Silk also got Mr. Ebun Adegboruwa, the applicant to confirm the development to the court, an opportunity which Adegboruwa seized with courage and candour. I had been briefed to appear for the EFCC Chairman and EFCC in the proceedings supported by the young erudite EFCC Lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo. Esq.

    We had no option than to welcome the development since it remains our position that Mr. Magu is doing a great job at the EFCC presently and that it is only honourable for the Senate to confirm him as the substantive chair.

    However, in doing so, what is the proper procedure to adopt by the Senate in the confirmation proceedings? Is the senate entitled to adopt a closed door session? An executive session or simply refer the matter to a committee to conduct the confirmation hearing?

    This is the subject matter of this intervention guided by authorities, including pronouncements from the Supreme Court.

    It is our submission that proper confirmation hearing for Magu ought to take place at a plenary where senators (except those disqualified based on likelihood of bias), should be given the opportunity to raise questions to the nominee with an opportunity given to the nominee to respond to same in an atmosphere that will guarantee the element of fair hearing.

    The confirmation hearing being contemplated is not one to be undertaken at a closed shop in whatever guise – whether in the name of a closed door session, executive session, committee session, or whatever.  Rather, it should be an open process that would allow participation by eligible senators and the public given the latitude to watch and assess proceedings.

    This position seems to have found support in leading authorities, including the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

     

    Constitutional provisions

    The constitution is not silent on such matters. Section 56(1)-(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides as follows:

    “Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, any question proposed for decision in the Senate or the House of Representatives shall be determined by the required majority of the members present and voting; and the person presiding shall cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case.

    “Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the required majority for the purpose of determining any question shall be a simple majority.”

    The Senate or the House of Representatives shall by its rules provide:

    • that a member of the House shall declare any direct pecuniary interest he may have in any matter coming before the House for deliberation;
    • that the House may by resolution decide whether or not such member may vote, or participate in its deliberations, on such matter;
    • the penalty, if any, which the House may impose for failure to declare any direct pecuniary interest such member may have; and
    • for such other matters pertaining to the foregoing as the House may think necessary.

    Supreme Court pronouncements

    In the case of A.G Bendel State v. A. G. Federation & 22 Ors (1981) 10 S. C. 1 at pg. 20, the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN), the late Atanda Fatai-Williams, stated the correct legal position on proper procedure to be adopted by the legislature as follows:

    “In addition, I do not see how the courts could exercise jurisdiction over the exercise of legislative power by the National Assembly or by a State House of Assembly without being able to ascertain from the record of proceedings of the House concerned how, in what manner, and by what procedure, such legislative power has been exercised.”

    The Supreme Court interpreted similar provision in the case of A.G Bendel vs A. G. Federation (supra) where CJN Justice Fatayi-Williams on the question of prescribed procedure said:

    “The next question is this. Is the procedure followed in the passage of this Bill into law the one prescribed by the Constitution? The prescribed procedure will be found in Section 54, 55 and 58 of the 1979 Constitution…”

    The equivalent relevant provisions are Sections 56(1)-(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

     Manner of exercise of legislative powers

    The Supreme Court had the opportunity of examining the manner of exercise of legislative powers in the case of Attorney-General of Bendel State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation & 22 Ors.(1982) 3 NCLR p. 1- 151 where the court stated the correct position of the law as follows: Fatayi-Williams, on page 40 of the judgment said:

    “In my view, a legislature which operates a federal written constitution in which the exercise of legislative power and its limits are clearly set out has no power to ignore the conditions of law-making that are imposed by that Constitution which itself regulates its power to make law.

    “I am, therefore, unable to accept the proposition that such National Assembly, once established, has some inherent power, derived from the mere fact of its establishment, to delegate or transfer to its Joint Finance Committee, established or appointed only for the purpose of resolving differences which have arisen between the two Houses of that National Assembly during the passage of a money-bill, its exclusive constitutional power to make a valid law…

    “The various provisions of the Constitution to which I have earlier referred clearly indicate a different Legislative process from that followed by the National Assembly in this case.  Since this Legislative process has not been followed in the passing of the Allocation of Revenue (Federation Account, etc.) Act, 1981, the Act, to my mind, is not a valid law.

    “It carries death wounds on its face.  This view, incidentally, accords with those of Lord  Pearce in the judgment of the Privy Council in Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe (1965) AC (PC) 172 at pages 193, 195 and 197; (also see South Ottawa v Perkins US Supreme Court Reports (24 Lawyers Edition) 154 at page 156).

    “The assent by the President cannot, in my view, prevent the court from coming to the conclusion that the Act is a nullity. (See Gallant v The King (1949) 2 DLR 425 – a Canadian case – as per Campbell, CJ at page 430)…By virtue of the provisions of Section 4(8) of the Constitution, the courts have the power, and indeed, the duty to see to it that there is no infraction of the exercise of legislative power, whether substantive or procedural, as laid down in the relevant provisions of the Constitution.  If there is any such infraction, the courts will declare any Legislation passed pursuant to it unconstitutional and invalid.

    “I think it is sufficient to point out that our National Assembly is not a sovereign legislature in the strict sense. Its legislative powers are not only restricted by the constitution but the mode of exercising the powers are also specified therein. Any infringement of the provisions of the Constitution relating to these matters is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts by virtue of the provisions of Section 4(8) of the Constitution.”

    Mohammed Bello, JSC (as he then was) on page 46 of the judgment said:

    “I would endorse the general principle of constitutional law that one of the consequences of the separation of powers, which we adopted in our Constitution, is that the court would respect the independence of the legislature in the exercise of its legislative powers and would refrain from pronouncing or determining the validity of the internal proceedings of the legislature or the mode of exercising its legislative powers.

    However, if the Constitution makes provisions as to how the legislature should conduct its internal affairs or as to the mode of exercising its legislative powers, then the court is duty-bound to exercise  its jurisdiction to ensure that the legislature comply with the constitutional requirements.  Sections 52, 54, 55 and 58 of our Constitution clearly state how the National Assembly should conduct its internal affairs in the exercise of its legislative powers.

    That being the case, the court is duty-bound to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 4(8) of the Constitution to ensure that the National Assembly comply with the provisions of the Constitution to ensure ‘the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly…shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts…’ the objections to jurisdiction cannot therefore be sustained.

    A Justice of the Supreme Court (JSC), Mohammed Bello, further said on page 50 of the judgment:

    “One of the cardinal pillars of our system of government is that the legislative powers of the federation is vested in the National Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives; Section 4 of the Constitution.  Section 52, 54, 55 and 58 thereof prescribe the procedure the National Assembly should follow in the passing of a money bill into law. I agree that the bill in this case is a money bill.

    It is crystal clear from the provisions of the above mentioned Sections that a bill, whether money or non-money, must be passed in the same form by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, except where the provisions of the Constitution, relating to joint sitting of the two Houses apply, before the bill shall be presented to the President for assent. Where a money bill has been passed by the two Houses in different forms, Section 55(2) empowers the President of the Senate within the time stated therein to convene a meeting of the Joint Finance Committee of the National Assembly established pursuant to Section 58(3) ‘to examine the bill with a view to resolving the differences between the two Houses.

    There is no problem where the Committee fails to resolve such differences because Section 55(3) provides the bill shall be presented to the National Assembly sitting at a joint meeting, and if the bill is passed at such a joint meeting, it shall be presented to the President for assent.

    The problem arises where the Committee, as in the case in hand, appears to have resolved the differences between the two Houses. I consider the confusion in the name of the Committee that met and resolved the differences in this case to be a matter of mere nomenclature.

    The crucial questions are: what was the force and effect of such resolution? Was such resolution tantamount to the passing of the bill within the context of the Constitution and was it proper to send the bill to the President for assent?

    Alternatively, was such resolution a mere recommendation which must be reported to the two Houses for acceptance or rejection by either House? The Constitution is silent and makes no express provisions from which the answers to these questions may be found. The answers can only be inferred on the construction of the provisions of the Constitution, relating to the legislative powers of the National Assembly, including those provisions which prescribe the mode of exercising such powers.

    It appears that all the functionaries of the legislature and the executive thought that the resolution of the differences by the Committee was tantamount to the passing of the bill and accordingly the bill was presented to the President and he signified his assent.  Were they right?

    In parenthesis, it may be pertinent to point out that such problem relating to money bills could not have arisen in England, Australia and India because ‘money bills’ within the context of their respective Constitutions, must originate from the lower Houses.

    In England, the House of Lords has no power to amend money bills at all.  In Australia and India, the Senate and the Council of States respectively, also have no power to amend. But they may suggest amendments to money bills which the other Houses may accept or reject: See Section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911; Section 53 of the Australian Constitution Act; Section 109 of the Indian Constitution.  In Canada, the Constitution is silent as to the right, which the Senate assumed of the Senate to amend money bills: See Section 53 of the British North American Act, 1867.

    It is only in the United States (U.S.) that the Constitution expressly conferred on the Senate the power to propose amendments to money bills, which must originate from the House of Representatives, as on other bills: Article 1 Section 7(1) of the US Constitution.

    Although there is no constitutional provisions to that effect, it has been the convention of the American Congress that when bills, whether money or non-money, are passed in different forms by the two Houses, a joint conference of a committee is appointed by the two Houses to iron out the differences and the committee would report its decision to the Houses for acceptance or rejection by either House: see Adrian and Press: The American Political Process, p. 440

    With the above observations in mind, I entirely agree with the construction put by the Chief Justice on Section 4(1), 54, 55 and 58 of our constitution and with his conclusions that the Joint Finance Committee has no power to  decide whether a bill shall be passed into law; that whatever decision the Committee takes on a bill referred to it cannot be final and that until the two Houses, sitting either separately or jointly, pass the bill or the committee’s version of it, it is not a bill passed by the National Assembly.  I further agree that the Act in dispute was not passed in accordance with the legislative process laid down by the Constitution.  I declare it unconstitutional and void.

    I agree with all the declarations and orders made by the Chief Justice.

    It seems clear from the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the proper procedure to adopt in the confirmation of Magu is to take the issue to the floor of the senate at a plenary.

     Comparative jurisdiction

    We will draw analogy with the situation In the U.S. where all presidential appointments with senate confirmation must follow the appointment confirmation process. The nominee must pass several rounds of investigation and review, beginning with the submission of a personal financial disclosure report and a background check. This is followed by evaluation in a committee hearing. The nomination will then go to the floor of the Senate for confirmation.  Once the nomination is considered by the Senate, unlimited debate is allowed until 2/3 of the Senate votes to confirm, reject or take no action on the nomination.

     

     Urgency of Magu’s confirmation

    Clearly with the withdrawal of Adegboruwa’s suit and the open declaration by the applicant that Magu is eminently qualified for the job, the Senate is encouraged to initiate confirmation hearing for Magu to enable the war against corruption go on uninterruptedly.

  • Senate and defection spree: Who next?

    THE wind of defection blowing across the country’s political spectrum continued on Tuesday in the Senate. The crisis ridden Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) continues it’s losing spree in and outside the legislature.

     At the last count, four PDP senators have jumped ship. More are likely to join the bandwagon as 2019 general elections draw near. For now, all roads lead to the All Progressives Congress (APC), no thanks to the tattered umbrella of the PDP.

    Former Plateau State Governor, Senator Joshua Dariye, opened the floodgate of defection in the upper chamber. The Plateau Central Senator is however not new to roving from one party to the other.

    He moved from PDP, a platform under which he served as governor for eight years, to the Labour Party (LP). Dariye contested and won election to the seventh Senate on the platform of LP. Before the expiration of the Seventh Senate, he jumped back to the PDP and helped himself to become a member of the Eight Senate.

    Before you could say Jack Robinson, Dariye has once again cross carpeted to the APC in what appeared as a defection binge.  Those close to the former governor say it may be too early to conclude that he is done with further defection. Permutation based on realistic political realignment, they say, is the hallmark of a seasoned politician.

    Dariye was closely followed in the defection chess game by Senator Yele Omogunwa. Like Dariye, Omogunwa also shifted political allegiance from the PDP to the APC. He claimed the division in the PDP was responsible for his action.

    The Ondo South lawmaker’s defection and the way it was celebrated by the Senate President, Abubakar Bukola Saraki, did not go down well with the PDP Senate caucus.

    The caucus leader, Senator Godswill Akpabio, promptly mobilized party members to stage a walkout from the chamber. The PDP senators’ protest, which culminated in the walkout, did not make much meaning to the business of the day.  APC senators ignored the walk out and continued with the day’s legislative agenda.

    Akpabio vowed the PDP would challenge the defection in court. For him, the seat occupied by Omogunwa belongs to the PDP since it was the party that contested election. Not minding the threat of legal battle to reclaim his seat, Omogunwa is sitting pretty comfortable in the Senate chamber although hardly heard.

    The defection of Senator Nelson Asuquo Effiong, was next in the string of defections rocking the PDP.

    The defection of the Akwa Ibom South lawmaker struck the minority leader, Senator Akpabio, like a thunder bolt. Effiong did not only leave the fold of the PDP but rubbed his departure on the faces of PDP Senators. Once regarded as one of the loyalists of the former Akwa Ibom State Governor, Effiong left nobody in doubt that he has come of age politically.

    Like others before him, Effiong also blamed his defection on the intractable crisis rocking the PDP.

    Effiong did not stop there, he added the clincher. For him, “no reasonable politician worth his onions should continue to remain in PDP,” particularly when APC has “brought stability to Nigeria and restored peace to some troubled parts of the country.”

    Hardly had the defector sat down than the Deputy Minority Leader of the Senate, Senator Emmanuel Bwacha, took him on about his choice of words.

    Bwacha said he had no issue if Effiong decided to jump ship ‘but it is insulting for him to describe those in the PDP as unreasonable.”

    Those who elect to follow the weather in their political career, Bwacha said, were free to do so.

     Akpabio, who walked into the chamber half way into the fuss over Effiong’s defection, could not hide his indignation.

    He jumped into the fray by telling the Senate that PDP in Akwa Ibom State will challenge the defection in court to reclaim its mandate.

    For Akpabio, Effiong as an individual, has the right to jump ship but not to the detriment of the party under whose platform he rode to get to the Senate.

    “I want it to be noted in this Senate that the PDP in Akwa Ibom State is already on its way to court and we   would want to reclaim its mandate. We must reclaim the mandate given to us and we do not mind the Senator joining the APC, but he will not go with the mandate given to us in Akwa Ibom State. The reason why I am standing is that today, it is the PDP, tomorrow it might be APC,” Akpabio said.

    Apparently fearing escalation of the issue, Saraki refused to allow further debate of the defection.

    Tuesday was the turn of Senator Andy Uba to dump the PDP for the APC. The Anambra South senator also did it in style. Uba’s defection to the APC has been on the political radar for quite some time. It is not in doubt that he has his eyes on the governorship seat of his state. He was once declared governor of the state. He actually occupied the exalted position for some time but was cut short by the court.

    Before the inauguration of the Eight Senate, Uba was said to have been asked by a former president to cross over to APC to clinch the position of the Deputy Senate President.

  • Senate to police: Evacuate beggars, prostitutes from FCT

    The Senate on Thursday said it has mandated the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Police Commissioner and Commandant of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) to evacuate beggars, hoodlums and commercial sex workers from the streets of the FCT.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on FCT, Senator Dino Melaye, stated this at a media briefing in Abuja.

    Melaye said his committee invited the police commissioner and NSCDC commandant to brief them about the growing insecurity in the FCT and the need to take steps to curb the trend.

    He noted that the Senate as an institution is unhappy with the security situation in Abuja.

    He said, “Last week we summoned the commissioner of police in the FCT and the commandant of NSCDC because as a committee and the Senate we are appalled with the security situation in Abuja.

    “We are also very uncomfortable with the number of hoodlums on the streets of Abuja. We have beggars, destitute and commercial sex workers spread across several parts of the city and we have given a marching order to the commissioner of police and the commandment of NSCDC to clear them.

    “We have also instructed the FCT to provide logistics for the immediate evacuation of all dissidents and beggars including those little boys who claim they are helping you to clean your glass and by so doing they are adding additional dents to your cars.”

     

  • Osinbanjo declines to sign four bills

    Osinbanjo declines to sign four bills

    Acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo has withheld  his assents to four bills passed by the National Assembly.

    The bills are Agricultural Credit Guarantee Fund, Currency Conversion Freezing orders Amendment Bill , Dangerous Drugs Amendment  Bill and National Lottery Bill .

    Senate President, Bukola Saraki announced the decision of the Acting President in a letter written to the Senate on Wednesday.

    More details

  • Senate: proper procedure for Magu’s confirmation

    Senate: proper procedure for Magu’s confirmation

    Ahead of Ibrahim Magu’s second appearance before the Senate for screening as the substantive Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following another letter from the Presidency for his confirmation, constitutional lawyer Wahab Shittu is pushing for open screening by the lawmakers. The University of Lagos (UNILAG) law teacher gives his reasons.

    Ebun Adegboruwa, Lawyer and Human Rights Activist pulled a surprise today (yesterday), 20th February, 2017 when he announced the withdrawal of a suit he had filed at the Federal High Court challenging the nomination and confirmation of Mr. Ibrahim Magu as the substantive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), admitting publicly in the process that recent events has convinced him beyond doubt that Magu is the best man for the job.
    Represented in the proceedings by Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who earlier echoed same feelings, the learned Silk also got Mr. Ebun Adegboruwa, the applicant to confirm the development to the court, an opportunity which Adegboruwa seized with courage and candour. I had been briefed to appear for the EFCC Chairman and EFCC in the proceedings supported by the young erudite EFCC Lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo. Esq.
    We had no option than to welcome the development since it remains our position that Mr. Magu is doing a great job at the EFCC presently and that it is only honourable for the Senate to confirm him as the substantive chair.
    However, in doing so, what is the proper procedure to adopt by the Senate in the confirmation proceedings? Is the senate entitled to adopt a closed door session? An executive session or simply refer the matter to a committee to conduct the confirmation hearing?
    This is the subject matter of this intervention guided by authorities, including pronouncements from the Supreme Court.
    It is our submission that proper confirmation hearing for Magu ought to take place at a plenary where senators (except those disqualified based on likelihood of bias), should be given the opportunity to raise questions to the nominee with an opportunity given to the nominee to respond to same in an atmosphere that will guarantee the element of fair hearing.
    The confirmation hearing being contemplated is not one to be undertaken at a closed shop in whatever guise – whether in the name of a closed door session, executive session, committee session, or whatever. Rather, it should be an open process that would allow participation by eligible senators and the public given the latitude to watch and assess proceedings.
    This position seems to have found support in leading authorities, including the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

    Constitutional Provisions

    The constitution is not silent on such matters. Section 56(1)-(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides as follows:
    “Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, any question proposed for decision in the Senate or the House of Representatives shall be determined by the required majority of the members present and voting; and the person presiding shall cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case.
    “Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the required majority for the purpose of determining any question shall be a simple majority.”
    The Senate or the House of Representatives shall by its rules provide:
    • that a member of the House shall declare any direct pecuniary interest he may have in any matter coming before the House for deliberation;
    • that the House may by resolution decide whether or not such member may vote, or participate in its deliberations, on such matter;
    • the penalty, if any, which the House may impose for failure to declare any direct pecuniary interest such member may have; and
    • for such other matters pertaining to the foregoing as the House may think necessary.

    Supreme Court
    pronouncements

    In the case of A.G Bendel State v. A. G. Federation & 22 Ors (1981) 10 S. C. 1 at pg. 20, the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN), the late Atanda Fatai-Williams, stated the correct legal position on proper procedure to be adopted by the legislature as follows:
    “In addition, I do not see how the courts could exercise jurisdiction over the exercise of legislative power by the National Assembly or by a State House of Assembly without being able to ascertain from the record of proceedings of the House concerned how, in what manner, and by what procedure, such legislative power has been exercised.”
    The Supreme Court interpreted similar provision in the case of A.G Bendel vs A. G. Federation (supra) where CJN Justice Fatayi-Williams on the question of prescribed procedure said:
    “The next question is this. Is the procedure followed in the passage of this Bill into law the one prescribed by the Constitution? The prescribed procedure will be found in Section 54, 55 and 58 of the 1979 Constitution…”
    The equivalent relevant provisions are Sections 56(1)-(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    Manner of exercise
    of legislative powers

    The Supreme Court had the opportunity of examining the manner of exercise of legislative powers in the case of Attorney-General of Bendel State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation & 22 Ors.(1982) 3 NCLR p. 1- 151 where the court stated the correct position of the law as follows: Fatayi-Williams, on page 40 of the judgment said:
    “In my view, a legislature which operates a federal written constitution in which the exercise of legislative power and its limits are clearly set out has no power to ignore the conditions of law-making that are imposed by that Constitution which itself regulates its power to make law.
    “I am, therefore, unable to accept the proposition that such National Assembly, once established, has some inherent power, derived from the mere fact of its establishment, to delegate or transfer to its Joint Finance Committee, established or appointed only for the purpose of resolving differences which have arisen between the two Houses of that National Assembly during the passage of a money-bill, its exclusive constitutional power to make a valid law…
    “The various provisions of the Constitution to which I have earlier referred clearly indicate a different Legislative process from that followed by the National Assembly in this case. Since this Legislative process has not been followed in the passing of the Allocation of Revenue (Federation Account, etc.) Act, 1981, the Act, to my mind, is not a valid law.
    “It carries death wounds on its face. This view, incidentally, accords with those of Lord Pearce in the judgment of the Privy Council in Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe (1965) AC (PC) 172 at pages 193, 195 and 197; (also see South Ottawa v Perkins US Supreme Court Reports (24 Lawyers Edition) 154 at page 156).
    “The assent by the President cannot, in my view, prevent the court from coming to the conclusion that the Act is a nullity. (See Gallant v The King (1949) 2 DLR 425 – a Canadian case – as per Campbell, CJ at page 430)…By virtue of the provisions of Section 4(8) of the Constitution, the courts have the power, and indeed, the duty to see to it that there is no infraction of the exercise of legislative power, whether substantive or procedural, as laid down in the relevant provisions of the Constitution. If there is any such infraction, the courts will declare any Legislation passed pursuant to it unconstitutional and invalid.
    “I think it is sufficient to point out that our National Assembly is not a sovereign legislature in the strict sense. Its legislative powers are not only restricted by the constitution but the mode of exercising the powers are also specified therein. Any infringement of the provisions of the Constitution relating to these matters is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts by virtue of the provisions of Section 4(8) of the Constitution.”
    Mohammed Bello, JSC (as he then was) on page 46 of the judgment said:
    “I would endorse the general principle of constitutional law that one of the consequences of the separation of powers, which we adopted in our Constitution, is that the court would respect the independence of the legislature in the exercise of its legislative powers and would refrain from pronouncing or determining the validity of the internal proceedings of the legislature or the mode of exercising its legislative powers.
    However, if the Constitution makes provisions as to how the legislature should conduct its internal affairs or as to the mode of exercising its legislative powers, then the court is duty-bound to exercise its jurisdiction to ensure that the legislature comply with the constitutional requirements. Sections 52, 54, 55 and 58 of our Constitution clearly state how the National Assembly should conduct its internal affairs in the exercise of its legislative powers.
    That being the case, the court is duty-bound to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 4(8) of the Constitution to ensure that the National Assembly comply with the provisions of the Constitution to ensure ‘the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly…shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts…’ the objections to jurisdiction cannot therefore be sustained.
    A Justice of the Supreme Court (JSC), Mohammed Bello, further said on page 50 of the judgment:
    “One of the cardinal pillars of our system of government is that the legislative powers of the federation is vested in the National Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives; Section 4 of the Constitution. Section 52, 54, 55 and 58 thereof prescribe the procedure the National Assembly should follow in the passing of a money bill into law. I agree that the bill in this case is a money bill.
    It is crystal clear from the provisions of the above mentioned Sections that a bill, whether money or non-money, must be passed in the same form by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, except where the provisions of the Constitution, relating to joint sitting of the two Houses apply, before the bill shall be presented to the President for assent. Where a money bill has been passed by the two Houses in different forms, Section 55(2) empowers the President of the Senate within the time stated therein to convene a meeting of the Joint Finance Committee of the National Assembly established pursuant to Section 58(3) ‘to examine the bill with a view to resolving the differences between the two Houses.
    There is no problem where the Committee fails to resolve such differences because Section 55(3) provides the bill shall be presented to the National Assembly sitting at a joint meeting, and if the bill is passed at such a joint meeting, it shall be presented to the President for assent.
    The problem arises where the Committee, as in the case in hand, appears to have resolved the differences between the two Houses. I consider the confusion in the name of the Committee that met and resolved the differences in this case to be a matter of mere nomenclature.
    The crucial questions are: what was the force and effect of such resolution? Was such resolution tantamount to the passing of the bill within the context of the Constitution and was it proper to send the bill to the President for assent?
    Alternatively, was such resolution a mere recommendation which must be reported to the two Houses for acceptance or rejection by either House? The Constitution is silent and makes no express provisions from which the answers to these questions may be found. The answers can only be inferred on the construction of the provisions of the Constitution, relating to the legislative powers of the National Assembly, including those provisions which prescribe the mode of exercising such powers.
    It appears that all the functionaries of the legislature and the executive thought that the resolution of the differences by the Committee was tantamount to the passing of the bill and accordingly the bill was presented to the President and he signified his assent. Were they right?
    In parenthesis, it may be pertinent to point out that such problem relating to money bills could not have arisen in England, Australia and India because ‘money bills’ within the context of their respective Constitutions, must originate from the lower Houses.
    In England, the House of Lords has no power to amend money bills at all. In Australia and India, the Senate and the Council of States respectively, also have no power to amend. But they may suggest amendments to money bills which the other Houses may accept or reject: See Section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911; Section 53 of the Australian Constitution Act; Section 109 of the Indian Constitution. In Canada, the Constitution is silent as to the right, which the Senate assumed of the Senate to amend money bills: See Section 53 of the British North American Act, 1867.
    It is only in the United States (U.S.) that the Constitution expressly conferred on the Senate the power to propose amendments to money bills, which must originate from the House of Representatives, as on other bills: Article 1 Section 7(1) of the US Constitution.
    Although there is no constitutional provisions to that effect, it has been the convention of the American Congress that when bills, whether money or non-money, are passed in different forms by the two Houses, a joint conference of a committee is appointed by the two Houses to iron out the differences and the committee would report its decision to the Houses for acceptance or rejection by either House: see Adrian and Press: The American Political Process, p. 440

    With the above observations in mind, I entirely agree with the construction put by the Chief Justice on Section 4(1), 54, 55 and 58 of our constitution and with his conclusions that the Joint Finance Committee has no power to decide whether a bill shall be passed into law; that whatever decision the Committee takes on a bill referred to it cannot be final and that until the two Houses, sitting either separately or jointly, pass the bill or the committee’s version of it, it is not a bill passed by the National Assembly. I further agree that the Act in dispute was not passed in accordance with the legislative process laid down by the Constitution. I declare it unconstitutional and void.
    I agree with all the declarations and orders made by the Chief Justice.
    It seems clear from the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the proper procedure to adopt in the confirmation of Magu is to take the issue to the floor of the senate at a plenary.

    Comparative jurisdiction

    We will draw analogy with the situation In the U.S. where all presidential appointments with senate confirmation must follow the appointment confirmation process. The nominee must pass several rounds of investigation and review, beginning with the submission of a personal financial disclosure report and a background check. This is followed by evaluation in a committee hearing. The nomination will then go to the floor of the Senate for confirmation. Once the nomination is considered by the Senate, unlimited debate is allowed until 2/3 of the Senate votes to confirm, reject or take no action on the nomination.

    Urgency of Magu’s
    confirmation

    Clearly with the withdrawal of Adegboruwa’s suit and the open declaration by the applicant that Magu is eminently qualified for the job, the Senate is encouraged to initiate confirmation hearing for Magu to enable the war against corruption go on uninterruptedly.

  • Senate to EFCC: beam searchlight on CBN, NNPC, others

    Senate to EFCC: beam searchlight on CBN, NNPC, others

    SENATORS yesterday mandated the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to beam its searchlight on some government agencies over what it described as racketeering of foreign exchange (forex) and looting of public funds.
    They asked the anti-graft agency to look into the books of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).
    The Red Chamber spoke through when Acting EFCC chairman Ibrahim Magu appeared before its Committee on Anti-Corruption and Financial Crimes to defend the commission’s vote in this year’s budget.
    They urged the EFCC to unmask the owners of the expensive mansions in Asokoro, Maitama and other highbrow areas of the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja).
    The lawmakers claimed to have established that many public office holders, including directors and permanent secretaries in the MDAs, become overnight billionaires by corruptly enriching themselves.
    They contended that such officials hide their ill-gotten wealth in building mansions in major city centres like Abuja, Lagos and Port Harcourt.
    Magu led other members of the commission’s leadership to defend the EFCC allocation in the budget.
    The senators, who frowned at the EFCC for always going after former public officials, asked the commission to focus more on financial crimes prevention rather than chasing after officials after crimes had been committed.
    Senator Isa Misau (Bauchi Central) noted that since the EFCC was now interested in encouraging whistleblowers, he was specifically blowing whistle on the CBN, NNPC, and MDAs.
    The former police officer turned politician said: “I can’t imagine the over $9 million recovered from a former NNPC Group Managing Director (GMD). If somebody who left public office has such money stashed somewhere, then, you can just make a guess about the other people who have been on the seat. Therefore, today, I am giving it as a challenge to EFCC to go and see what the NNPC, or the CBN or the finance ministry are doing.
    “Look at the case of somebody who left office about five years ago. This is an era of whistleblowing. I am blowing my whistle”
    But Committee Chairman Chukwuka Utazi (Enugu North) noted that going by the Act and mandate of the EFCC, over 60 per cent of the commission’s task should be specifically on preventive measures while the remaining per cent should be for all other issues combined.
    According to Utazi, the EFCC has failed to focus on preventive measures in its budget defence.
    His words: “Looking at your core mandate, the essence is to curb corruption to a large extent but in the budget you have provided, I have not seen the issue raised in the prayers here. There is no prayer that is talking about enlightenment, which is the money thing you are expected to do.
    “All we hear from the press is negative publicity; chasing people who have been caught. That is what we hear all the time. We want to change the narration to ‘what are we doing to ensure that instead of chasing after people who are giving us headache, why can’t we stop other people from joining the gang?’ There is nothing like that here in this budget.”
    Utazi commended the commission’s efforts in the fight against corruption, urging its officials to put in their best in the fight to save Nigeria from corruption.
    The committee chairman frowned at the commission for always going to the Presidency to ask for funds from Service Wide Vote for its operations.
    Utazi insisted that the commission ought to interface with the National Assembly before going cap in hand to the Presidency to ask for funds to perform its functions.
    He said: “It is expected that the committee has to be informed before such action. There should be interface between this committee and the commission on such issues of going to the Presidency to ask for funds from the Service Wide Vote for operations.”
    On the budget, Utazi said that the 2016 budget performance was not properly computed.
    Decrying the reduction in the Commission’s 2017 by 8.5 per cent, Magu said the reduction came against the projected growth in the activities of the commission.
    He noted the commission’s proposed N17 billion in this year’s budget against last year’s N18.9 billion amounted to N1.7 billion shortfall.
    Magu said that the capital expenditure was N7.1 billion, overhead N3 billion and personnel N7 billion.
    The EFCC chair appealed to the committee to increase the personnel cost from N7 billion to N9.7 billion to accommodate the proposed recruitment of 750 cadets in this year and the 530 already recruited in 2016.
    Magu told the senators that inadequate funding continued to hamper proper implementation of budgets.
    He told the committee that the fragmented nature of the commission’s offices in Abuja posed a challenge to the effective operation of the commission.
    He asked for urgent completion of the commission’s head office.

  • Senate flays JVCs’ refusal to repatriate $850b oil proceeds

    Senate flays JVCs’ refusal to repatriate $850b oil proceeds

    THE Senate yesterday criticised alleged refusal by Joint Venture Companies (JVCs) to repatriate crude oil export proceeds worth over $850 billion to the country.
    Senate President Abubakar Bukola Saraki, who expressed concern over the development, noted that the amount accumulated between 1996 and 2014.
    Speaking while inaugurating an investigative hearing on “pre-shipment inspection of export activities in Nigeria,” he said the action of the JVCs was in total contravention of the Pre-shipment Inspection of Export Act and Article 26 of Export Policy Guidelines and procedures for crude oil, gas and non-oil goods.
    Saraki, who was represented by Senate Leader Ahmed Lawan, said the Senate was determined to use all available constitutional means to plug the leakages in the system.
    He noted that if the country was good for doing business, “the laws of the country must also be respected”.
    The Senate President insisted that whoever was found culpable would be brought to book, no matter how highly placed “because the money involved is enough to tackle the infrastructural challenges all over Nigeria”.
    He added: “There is a frightening consensus that if we do not kill corruption as a country, corruption will kill Nigeria. After so many years of circumventing the process, the 8th Senate is in a hurry to move the country forward, through legislative intervention to reverse the abject penury that has become the norm for the majority.
    “As leaders across board, we must be sacrificial in our various duty posts and build a great country for the unborn generation by ensuring we fully comply with the laws of the land. If we keep manipulating the process while carrying out activities of government, it will be very difficult to take Nigeria out of the woods.”
    He explained that the public hearing was prompted by a motion moved on the floor of the Senate by Senator Yusuf Abubakar Yusuf on Thursday July 21, 2016.
    The motion, he said, “was well-received by the Senate and the content of the motion clearly revealed that there has been gross violation of the Pre-shipment Inspection of Export Act by certain institutions of government”.
    He said the 8th Senate has been focused from the onset with adoption of Legislative Agenda, which was targeted at reforming critical sectors and institutions of the Nigerian economy with the aim of delivering transparency and accountability in government through legislative measures.
    Saraki noted that Nigeria is “a country with some well-drafted and interpretable laws but overtime it has become very easy to break these laws because institutions which are meant to enforce compliance are not alive to their responsibilities”.
    He said Section 11 of the Pre Shipment Inspection of Export Act clearly states that “An exporter of goods, including petroleum products, shall open, maintain and operate a foreign currency domiciliary account in Nigeria into which shall be paid all exports proceeds corresponding to the entire proceeds of the exports concerned” and Article 26 of the Guidelines provide thus that:
    “Within 90 days from the date of export, all exporters (whether oil, gas or non-oil) shall ensure that the export proceeds are repatriated and credited into their domiciliary account opened with a bank in Nigeria.
    “It is the responsibility of the Central Bank of Nigeria to monitor the repatriation of all export proceeds.”
    He said the public hearing was an opportunity for the Senate to open the books, listen to the Ministries, Department and Agencies of Government involved and the Joint Venture Oil companies as well as concerned stakeholders who came to provide useful information for the deliberation.
    Chairman of the joint committee, Senator John Enoh, said the investigative hearing was in pursuant to the mandate of the Senate for the joint committee to carry out a thorough and holistic investigation on Pre-Shipment of export activities in the country and to come up with recommendations that would help strengthen its operations and capacity with positive impact on the country’s economy.
    Enoh noted that the purpose of Pre-Shipment Inspection of exports Act was to instill probity and transparency in the process, to reduce losses through effective supervision of loading and lifting of Nigerian crude oil and non-oil exports based on quality, quantity and value of the products.
    The committees involved in the hearing included committees on Finance, Trade and Investment, Gas, Petroleum Upstream, Banking, Insurance and Other Financial Institutions, Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, and Customs, Excise and Tariff.

  • Senate wants EFCC to beam searchlight on CBN, NNPC

    Senate on Monday mandated the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to beam its searchlight on the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) over what it described as massive racketeering of foreign exchange and looting of public funds.

    The upper chamber also asked the anti-graft agency to search and identify owners of mansions in highbrow areas of Asokoro and Maitama in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

    The lawmakers claimed that it has been established that several senior officials including directors and permanent secretaries in the MDAs become overnight billionaires by corruptly enriching themselves in public office.

    They contended that such corrupt officials hide their loots in building mansions in highbrow areas of the country including Abuja, Lagos and Port Harcourt.

    The Senate Committee on Anti-Corruption and Financial Crimes stated these when the Acting Chairman of EFCC, Mr. Ibrahim Magu, appeared before the committee to defend the commission’s 2017 budget.

    Magu led other members of the commission’s leadership to the 2017 budget defence.

    Members of the committee, who frowned at the EFCC for always going after former public officials, asked the commission to focus more on financial crimes prevention rather than chasing after officials when crimes had been committed.

     

  • Senate ‘ready to pass Petroleum Bill’

    Senate ‘ready to pass Petroleum Bill’

    The Senate is ready to pass the controversial Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) into law.

    Some senators, who spoke at the end of a four-day retreat on the Petroleum Industry Governance Bill (PIGB) in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, gave the news.

    But, they insisted that the interest of Nigeria and Nigerians should always be put first ahead of any other thing.

    The lawmakers expressed their readiness to explore legal options, if it became necessary to ensure that the bill, when passed, is signed into law.

    The lawmakers hinted that they might override President Muhammadu Buhari’s veto if he refuses to assent to Bill when passed.

    The senators expressed their readiness to do the “needful” if Buhari withheld assent on the Bill, which is presently at the committee stage at the National Assembly.

    Chief Whip of the Senate, Senator Olusola Adeyeye, who also represented the Senate President at the event, said the bill was not about the occupant of the position of the President.

    The Osun Central lawmaker said though he was a strong supporter of the President Buhari, he would put the interest of the country first.

    Adeyeye said the oil industry was too important to be left in the hands of foreigners to manage.

    He said: “I am not really afraid that the President will withhold his assent. The President comes from my own party. I want my President to succeed. I am not sure there is anybody in or outside Nigeria, who as committed to the President as I am.

    “But this bill is not about Buhari. It is not about my party, the APC. It is about Nigeria. What we are trying to do is to give Nigerians a document such that if we have a good President in power, things will work.”

    Senator Chukwuka Utazi, who heads the Senate committee on Anti-Corruption and Financial Crimes, explained that the Presidency must be separated from the occupant of the office.

    He said the National Assembly was empowered by law to act in the best interest of Nigerians, noting that if vetoing the President would be the last option, he would support the move.

    Senator Barnabas Gemade, a member of the ruling APC, joined others in maintaining that the National Assembly would exercise their veto power if the President withholds his assent.

    Gemade said: “I am hoping that we will not get to the level where we may have to override the President on this particular issue. I am a member of APC and I want to President to succeed. President Buhari is trying his best to fix the country.

    “But I need to look at the bigger picture and also at the future of this country. We need to set a strong foundation for the oil and gas sector. If in the end the only option left is to override the President, I will support it. We need to safeguard the future of this great country.”

    Senators, who were at the four-day retreat, have agreed to transfer every regulatory power in the oil and gas sector to the proposed Nigeria Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NPRC).

    The lawmakers agreed on the composition of the board and management of the new agency.

    The lawmakers disagreed over the independence of the proposed commission.

    Many lawmakers who spoke, warned that the supervising Minister of Petroleum Resources should not be allowed to interfere in the day-to-day running of the agency.

    Chairman of the joint committee on Petroleum Industry Reforms, Senator Tayo Alaosoadura, told reporters at the end of the exercise that the final report would soon be submitted during plenary at the Senate for consideration and passage.

  • Senate flays poor IGR by Information Ministry

    Senate flays poor IGR by Information Ministry

    The Senate has flayed poor Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) by the Federal Ministry of Information and Culture, particularly from the culture and entertainment industry.

    During a budget defence session on Tuesday, the lawmakers grilled the Information and Culture Minister, Alhaji Lai Mohammed over the N620, 000 his ministry generated in the entire 2016.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Culture and Tourism, Senator Matthew Urhoghide, regretted that the ministry was only concerned about spending, with very little efforts at generating revenue.

    Senator Urhoghide said, “Budget is not just about expenditure. No one is talking about revenue. We need a revenue profile. Each time you come, only expenditure is mentioned. How can you say it’s only N620, 000.00 that was raised by your ministry from the culture sector?

    “We must exhaust all the avenues to generate funds internally. We seriously frown at your low and poor IGR. We query it. You must look inward because this is not acceptable”.

    Urhoghide, also queried the Minister for using the funds to acquire, saying that the Senate appropriated N60 million for the ministry for the same purpose.

    The committee chairman said the N60 million was meant to acquire land in Lagos, Edo and Adamawa states for the establishment of cultural industries in the three states.

    Senator Urhoghide, who is from Edo state, queried the Minister for acquiring land in two of the states (Lagos and Adamawa) leaving out Edo state.

    According to him, the initial budget was to accommodate six states, but was reduced to three, regretting that instead of the three, the Minister narrowed it down to two states.

    But Lai Mohammad blamed the lapses on inadequate appropriation as well as delay in the release of funds to his ministry, adding that the procurement process was also cumbersome.

    The Minister also cited inadequate release of appropriated funds and the placement of culture and tourism on the residual list as some of the challenges.

    He lamented the existing structure, saying that it makes it difficult for the government to regulate the sector.

    He also cited lack of political will on the part of stakeholders to develop the sector; as well as absence of convention bureau to attract big time events to Nigeria as a tourism destination. 

    Mohammed said, “There are several challenges militating against the smooth implementation of the required programmes/projects. Some of these are inadequate appropriation; delay in the release of funds; cumbersome nature of procurement process; partial release of appropriated amount; late passage of Appropriation Act; placement of culture and tourism on the residual list, which has made it difficult to regulate the sector; lack of political will to develop the sector and absence of convention bureau to attract big time events to Nigeria as a tourism destination”.