MAGU: Judgment doesn’t affect ‘Acting chairman’ position – Carl Umegboro

The recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja by His
Lordship, Justice J.T. Tsoho over confirmation of appointment of
the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu by the Senate doesn’t affect the position
of ‘acting chairman’. Unfortunately, the senate amplified the
obiter dictum (statement by the way) in the judgment, ignoring the
most important part which was dismissal of the suit over locus
standi, thus, of no effect. In addition, there was no declaratory
order by the court to remove the acting chairman from office.

Without a doubt, the Senate has unfettered powers as adumbrated
by the court to confirm or reject President’s nominee from becoming
a substantive chairman of the commission which gives statutory
benefits. However, the senate cannot dictate to the President who
to appoint on acting capacity, and clearly, the duration for acting
position is not specified. By implication, the acting-chairman of
the commission can remain in the position as long as the President
desires.

Two persons decide the fate on mere ‘acting’ position; the
President and the appointee. The business of the senate begins and
ends with the confirmation or rejection of substantive position. As
Magu is rejected for confirmation as substantive head, it implies
President Muhammadu Buhari would come up with a new nominee ‘as
soon as possible’. As long as the appointee is not bothered about
the confirmation which offers statutory securities and benefits, no
harm is done.

Incidentally, the senate relied on a report of the State
Security Service (SSS) to refuse confirmation but forgot that
pursuant to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, as amended, Ibrahim Magu is still presumed not
guilty. Funnily enough, a good number of the senators and members
of the House of Representatives have been, at one time or the other
indicted through similar reports but on account of the presumption
of innocence in the constitution, they contested election and were
sworn in. The simple direction of the obiter dictum is that the
senate confirms appointment for a substantive chairman. As for
acting capacity, no confirmation is required but sole discretion of
the President.

The recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja by His
Lordship, Justice J.T. Tsoho over confirmation of appointment of
the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu by the Senate doesn’t affect the position
of ‘acting chairman’. Unfortunately, the senate amplified the
obiter dictum (statement by the way) in the judgment, ignoring the
most important part which was dismissal of the suit over locus
standi, thus, of no effect. In addition, there was no declaratory
order by the court to remove the acting chairman from
office.

Without a doubt, the Senate has unfettered powers as adumbrated
by the court to confirm or reject President’s nominee from becoming
a substantive chairman of the commission which gives statutory
benefits. However, the senate cannot dictate to the President who
to appoint on acting capacity, and clearly, the duration for acting
position is not specified. By implication, the acting-chairman of
the commission can remain in the position as long as the President
desires.

Two persons decide the fate on mere ‘acting’ position; the
President and the appointee. The business of the senate begins and
ends with the confirmation or rejection of substantive position. As
Magu is rejected for confirmation as substantive head, it implies
President Muhammadu Buhari would come up with a new nominee ‘as
soon as possible’. As long as the appointee is not bothered about
the confirmation which offers statutory securities and benefits, no
harm is done.

Incidentally, the senate relied on a report of the State
Security Service (SSS) to refuse confirmation but forgot that
pursuant to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, as amended, Ibrahim Magu is still presumed not
guilty. Funnily enough, a good number of the senators and members
of the House of Representatives have been, at one time or the other
indicted through similar reports but on account of the presumption
of innocence in the constitution, they contested election and were
sworn in. The simple direction of the obiter dictum is that the
senate confirms appointment for a substantive chairman. As for
acting capacity, no confirmation is required but sole discretion of
the President.