Senators have remain unfazed by reports that the presidency may
likely head to the Supreme Court to seek a judicial interpretation
of Section 171 of the constitution, in a bid to resolve the impasse
on the powers of the Senate to confirm the nominees of the
president and by extension whether the acting Chairman of the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu,
can remain in office despite his rejection by the upper legislative
chamber.
The executive arm and the Senate have been at loggerheads for
months over the latter’s insistence that the executive must remove
Magu, having been rejected twice during his confirmation process at
the upper legislative chamber.
The Senate’s rejection of Magu was based on a report from the
Department of State Services (DSS), which had indicted him for
alleged corruption and unprofessional conduct.
Giving a reason for the presidency’s refusal to remove Magu, Acting
President Yemi Osinbajo had latched onto Section 171 of the
constitution and stated that the confirmation of the Senate was not
required for Magu’s appointment.
Osinbajo’s stance prompted a reaction from the Senate, which
accused the presidency of double standards for sending the name of
another nominee for the post of Director General of the National
Lottery Commission for confirmation, after dismissing its powers to
consider and confirm nominees.
On this basis, the Senate said it would no longer consider nominees
sent by the presidency except Magu ceases to act as the chairman of
EFCC.
Following the impasse over the powers of the Senate to confirm
the nominees of the presidency, which was further aggravated by
another disagreement over the power of the National Assembly to
alter the figures in the executive’s Appropriation Bill, Osinbajo
had held a series of meetings with the leadership of the National
Assembly to resolve the disagreement.
This was followed by information made available to THISDAY by a
presidency source on Sunday that the presidency was of the view
that only a judicial interpretation of Section 171 of the
constitution could either resolve or settle the matter once and for
all.
Reacting to the presidency’s position Monday, some senators who
spoke to THISDAY welcomed its decision to take what they described
as a bold step to lay the matter to rest.
“If they want to go to the Supreme Court, that is fine with us. The
presidency is just looking for excuses. At the end of the day, it
is a win-win situation, let the Supreme Court rule on the matter so
we can lay it to rest.
“It is good for both parties so we can settle the matter of Magu
once and for all,” said a senator who did not want to be named.
“We are sure that they would lose. If they do not lose, it will
set a bad precedence. The constitution is clear, but since they
need verification, they should go for verification.
“We have been saying it for months: go to the Supreme Court and
they have been stalling. Now we have said nothing would happen
unless they get that verification,” he added.
Another senator challenged the presidency to also consider
seeking interpretation on whether the National Assembly can alter
figures proposed in the budget submitted by the executive.
“In fact, they should go ahead on the budget bill also, so that the
Supreme Court can decide if the National Assembly can tinker with
the proposed figures.
“If the lawmakers can alter executive bills, will the Supreme Court
say it cannot alter a money bill? A bill is a bill,” the senator
said.
“We stand firm and resolute, we will not consider anything, any
request for confirmation.
“Is it not contradictory that a presidency that said the EFCC chair
does not need confirmation because the agency is not specifically
listed in the constitution, would send us a confirmation request
for another nominee for the Director General of the National
Lottery Regulatory Commission, whose proposed agency is not listed
in same constitution?
“Finally heading to the Supreme Court is actually a welcome
development.
“Whatever they do between now and next week when we are going on
recess, they have to get the ruling. The Supreme Court can get back
within this week on the matter,” he said.
Another senator maintained that Magu was rejected by the Senate on
the basis of the report of the DSS.
“If for instance the Supreme Court rules in their favour, mind
you, this is about the Presidency versus the Constitution, not the
Senate versus the Presidency, as some may look at it, the issue of
Magu’s credibility is still at stake.
“An agency of the same presidency discredited him, not us, and
it was on this basis that we rejected him, not just due to his
appalling performance during the screening exercise,” he said.
“It would actually be interesting to see how this plays out,
whatever the outcome,” he added.
Sources from the presidency had told our reporter that the
presidency was convinced that its position on Magu was the correct
one, but wants the court to lay the dispute to rest.
A source, who did not disclose when exactly the executive would
head to court for an interpretation of Section 171, said the
decision was based on the advice prepared by judicial and legal
experts.
“Our position is based on the legal advice prepared by judicial and
legal experts as a working document in the presidency regarding the
differences in the constitutional interpretations on matters of
certain federal appointments.
“In fact, the advisory unearthed a ruling of the Supreme Court
on the matter when the current Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN),
before his elevation to CJN, had ruled in line with the view of the
presidency on the matter,” he said.
He also observed that it was inaccurate to accuse the executive
of acting unilaterally in its interpretation of Section 171.
Efforts to get the official position of the Senate Monday proved
abortive, as the phone numbers of its spokesman, Senator Sani
Abdullahi, could not be reached.
THISDAY
Senators have remain unfazed by reports that the presidency may
likely head to the Supreme Court to seek a judicial interpretation
of Section 171 of the constitution, in a bid to resolve the impasse
on the powers of the Senate to confirm the nominees of the
president and by extension whether the acting Chairman of the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu,
can remain in office despite his rejection by the upper legislative
chamber.
The executive arm and the Senate have been at loggerheads for
months over the latter’s insistence that the executive must remove
Magu, having been rejected twice during his confirmation process at
the upper legislative chamber.
The Senate’s rejection of Magu was based on a report from the
Department of State Services (DSS), which had indicted him for
alleged corruption and unprofessional conduct.
Giving a reason for the presidency’s refusal to remove Magu, Acting
President Yemi Osinbajo had latched onto Section 171 of the
constitution and stated that the confirmation of the Senate was not
required for Magu’s appointment.
Osinbajo’s stance prompted a reaction from the Senate, which
accused the presidency of double standards for sending the name of
another nominee for the post of Director General of the National
Lottery Commission for confirmation, after dismissing its powers to
consider and confirm nominees.
On this basis, the Senate said it would no longer consider nominees
sent by the presidency except Magu ceases to act as the chairman of
EFCC.
Following the impasse over the powers of the Senate to confirm
the nominees of the presidency, which was further aggravated by
another disagreement over the power of the National Assembly to
alter the figures in the executive’s Appropriation Bill, Osinbajo
had held a series of meetings with the leadership of the National
Assembly to resolve the disagreement.
This was followed by information made available to THISDAY by a
presidency source on Sunday that the presidency was of the view
that only a judicial interpretation of Section 171 of the
constitution could either resolve or settle the matter once and for
all.
Reacting to the presidency’s position Monday, some senators who
spoke to THISDAY welcomed its decision to take what they described
as a bold step to lay the matter to rest.
“If they want to go to the Supreme Court, that is fine with us. The
presidency is just looking for excuses. At the end of the day, it
is a win-win situation, let the Supreme Court rule on the matter so
we can lay it to rest.
“It is good for both parties so we can settle the matter of Magu
once and for all,” said a senator who did not want to be named.
“We are sure that they would lose. If they do not lose, it will
set a bad precedence. The constitution is clear, but since they
need verification, they should go for verification.
“We have been saying it for months: go to the Supreme Court and
they have been stalling. Now we have said nothing would happen
unless they get that verification,” he added.
Another senator challenged the presidency to also consider
seeking interpretation on whether the National Assembly can alter
figures proposed in the budget submitted by the executive.
“In fact, they should go ahead on the budget bill also, so that the
Supreme Court can decide if the National Assembly can tinker with
the proposed figures.
“If the lawmakers can alter executive bills, will the Supreme Court
say it cannot alter a money bill? A bill is a bill,” the senator
said.
“We stand firm and resolute, we will not consider anything, any
request for confirmation.
“Is it not contradictory that a presidency that said the EFCC chair
does not need confirmation because the agency is not specifically
listed in the constitution, would send us a confirmation request
for another nominee for the Director General of the National
Lottery Regulatory Commission, whose proposed agency is not listed
in same constitution?
“Finally heading to the Supreme Court is actually a welcome
development.
“Whatever they do between now and next week when we are going on
recess, they have to get the ruling. The Supreme Court can get back
within this week on the matter,” he said.
Another senator maintained that Magu was rejected by the Senate on
the basis of the report of the DSS.
“If for instance the Supreme Court rules in their favour, mind
you, this is about the Presidency versus the Constitution, not the
Senate versus the Presidency, as some may look at it, the issue of
Magu’s credibility is still at stake.
“An agency of the same presidency discredited him, not us, and
it was on this basis that we rejected him, not just due to his
appalling performance during the screening exercise,” he said.
“It would actually be interesting to see how this plays out,
whatever the outcome,” he added.
Sources from the presidency had told our reporter that the
presidency was convinced that its position on Magu was the correct
one, but wants the court to lay the dispute to rest.
A source, who did not disclose when exactly the executive would
head to court for an interpretation of Section 171, said the
decision was based on the advice prepared by judicial and legal
experts.
“Our position is based on the legal advice prepared by judicial and
legal experts as a working document in the presidency regarding the
differences in the constitutional interpretations on matters of
certain federal appointments.
“In fact, the advisory unearthed a ruling of the Supreme Court
on the matter when the current Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN),
before his elevation to CJN, had ruled in line with the view of the
presidency on the matter,” he said.
He also observed that it was inaccurate to accuse the executive
of acting unilaterally in its interpretation of Section 171.
Efforts to get the official position of the Senate Monday proved
abortive, as the phone numbers of its spokesman, Senator Sani
Abdullahi, could not be reached.
THISDAY
Read more https://nairalaw.com/power-of-confirmation-senate-unfazed-by-presidencys-decision-to-head-to-scourt/