Presidency insists no Senate confirmation for Magu

•CJN’s ruling boosts confidence

The row over the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu, assumed a new dimension
yesterday, with the Presidency insisting that his nomination does
not require the confirmation of the Senate.

It based its decision on an advisory prepared by judicial and
legal experts on Section 171 of the 1999 Constitution.

The advisory unearthed a ruling of the Supreme Court on the
matter where the Chief Justice of the Nigeria (CJN), before his
elevation as CJN, had ruled in line with the view of the Presidency
on the matter.

The CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen, had ruled that the
constitution overrides any provision of an Act /Statute.

But the Presidency said it will await the judicial review of
Section 171 for the final say on Magu.

The details of the advisory were obtained last night by our
correspondent.

The legal advisory asked the Presidency to await a judicial
pronouncement on Section 171.

The source said: “In fact, the conclusion of the legal advisory
on the matter is very clear that a judicial pronouncement
preferably by the Supreme Court is what will settle the
matter.”

Some extracts from the legal advisory states: “The divergent
positions being held by the Executive and the Legislature on the
subject of confirmation …is one that requires timely and ultimate
resolution.

“Such resolution could only be reached through judicial
process…Such interpretation would lay to rest the lingering crises
between the two arms.”

Concerning the issue of the Acting EFCC Chairman, the legal
advisory concluded that “the rumblings in the discourse on the
confirmation of the EFCC Chairman have more to do with politics
than with the law.

“It is trite that, by the rule of ejusdem generis, any office to
which Section 171 or other Sections of the Constitution do not
confer on the Senate the power of confirmation of appointment to
such office cannot be imported and accorded equal footing as the
mentioned offices.”

The advisory affirmed the powers of the President to appoint in
acting capacity into positions such as the EFCC chairmanship.

It also clarified that “in the recent past, the ministerial
nomination of late Prof. Abraham Babalola Borishade (Ekiti State)
by President Olusegun Obasanjo was rejected repeatedly by the
Senate.”

“In fact, it would be recalled that this particular nomination
was presented four times in 18 months before it was eventually
confirmed by the Senate.

“This position is because of the long established and entrenched
principle of law that any legislation that is inconsistent with the
provision of the Constitution is null and void and of no effect
whatsoever to the extent of such inconsistency. (See the Supreme
Court cases of DR. OLUBUKOLA ABUBAKAR SARAKI v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
NIGERIA (2016) LPELR-40013 (SC) and CHIEF ISAAC EGBUCHU v.
CONTINENTAL MERCHANT BANK PLC & ORS (2016) LPELR-40053
(SC).”

•CJN’s ruling boosts confidence

The row over the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu, assumed a new dimension
yesterday, with the Presidency insisting that his nomination does
not require the confirmation of the Senate.

It based its decision on an advisory prepared by judicial and
legal experts on Section 171 of the 1999 Constitution.

The advisory unearthed a ruling of the Supreme Court on the
matter where the Chief Justice of the Nigeria (CJN), before his
elevation as CJN, had ruled in line with the view of the Presidency
on the matter.

The CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen, had ruled that the
constitution overrides any provision of an Act /Statute.

But the Presidency said it will await the judicial review of
Section 171 for the final say on Magu.

The details of the advisory were obtained last night by our
correspondent.

The legal advisory asked the Presidency to await a judicial
pronouncement on Section 171.

The source said: “In fact, the conclusion of the legal advisory
on the matter is very clear that a judicial pronouncement
preferably by the Supreme Court is what will settle the
matter.”

Some extracts from the legal advisory states: “The divergent
positions being held by the Executive and the Legislature on the
subject of confirmation …is one that requires timely and ultimate
resolution.

“Such resolution could only be reached through judicial
process…Such interpretation would lay to rest the lingering crises
between the two arms.”

Concerning the issue of the Acting EFCC Chairman, the legal
advisory concluded that “the rumblings in the discourse on the
confirmation of the EFCC Chairman have more to do with politics
than with the law.

“It is trite that, by the rule of ejusdem generis, any office to
which Section 171 or other Sections of the Constitution do not
confer on the Senate the power of confirmation of appointment to
such office cannot be imported and accorded equal footing as the
mentioned offices.”

The advisory affirmed the powers of the President to appoint in
acting capacity into positions such as the EFCC chairmanship.

It also clarified that “in the recent past, the ministerial
nomination of late Prof. Abraham Babalola Borishade (Ekiti State)
by President Olusegun Obasanjo was rejected repeatedly by the
Senate.”

“In fact, it would be recalled that this particular nomination
was presented four times in 18 months before it was eventually
confirmed by the Senate.

“This position is because of the long established and entrenched
principle of law that any legislation that is inconsistent with the
provision of the Constitution is null and void and of no effect
whatsoever to the extent of such inconsistency. (See the Supreme
Court cases of DR. OLUBUKOLA ABUBAKAR SARAKI v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
NIGERIA (2016) LPELR-40013 (SC) and CHIEF ISAAC EGBUCHU v.
CONTINENTAL MERCHANT BANK PLC & ORS (2016) LPELR-40053
(SC).”