The House of Representatives on Thursday opposed the setting up
of special presidential investigative panels by the Federal
Government to investigate various matters, saying that the
development usurped the powers of existing anti-corruption agencies
and the Code of Conduct Bureau/Tribunal.
The House resolved to probe the operations of such panels,
particularly the seeming duplication of the functions of anti-graft
agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and
the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences
Commission.
The resolution followed a motion moved by the Chairman, House
Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Kingsley Chinda.
For instance, he said the SPIPs, which were inaugurated using
the provisions of the Public Property Special Provisions Act, 2004,
could invite Nigerians to fill asset declaration documents, a duty
reserved for the CCB.
China noted, “The said panel is alleged to have received
petitions from Nigerians and its mode of operation is to proceed to
invite citizens to fill asset declaration forms, which is by law
the exclusive mandate of the Code of Conduct Bureau under the Code
of Conduct and Tribunal Act CAP T 15, LFN 2004.
“Following the activities of the panel, the Attorney General of
the Federation has received several complaints from the general
public on the need to take an in-depth look at the law, viz-a viz
the various anti-corruption agencies that are now established,
particularly the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct
Tribunal.”
Chinda further told the House that the Public Property Act,
having predated the CCB and other anti-corruption agencies’ laws,
should no longer form the basis on which the government would
conduct such investigations.
The lawmaker added, “The Public Property (Special Provision)
Act, codified as CAP R4 LFN, 2004, predates the Code of Conduct and
Tribunal Act CAP T15 LFN 2004. Whereas the Act commenced 31st Dec,
1983, the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act commenced on 1st
January, 19991, (eight years later).
“The Public Property (Special Provision) Act CAP R4 LFN 2004 is
a spent law by virtue of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal
Act, CAP T15 LFN 2004.
“The functions specified by the Act to be performed through
panels established by the President are now performed by the Code
of Conduct Tribunal, which serves as a special court headed by a
qualified judge of a superior court of record in Nigeria to try the
offences regarding the breach of the code of conduct of public
officers.
“Besides, the Code of Conduct Act being a newer law on the
subject matter, has made specific provisions on the matter.
“It is trite law that the court will construe a later act as
repealing an earlier one if the two provisions cannot stand
together or if they both make the same provisions dealing with a
similar subject matter as established in Trade Bank Plc Vs. Lagos
Island Local Government (2003) FWLR (Pt 161) 1734.”
He added, “Special presidential investigation panels (SPIP)
ought not to have been set up in view of the existence of such
institutions as the EFCC, ICPC and especially the Code of Conduct
Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal, both created by law and
supported by the 1999 Constitution.”
Chinda also reminded the House that the SPIPs would further add
to the cost of governance by drawing funds to do the same work that
the anti-corruption agencies and the CCB/CCT were already
doing.
The House, which was presided over by the Speaker, Mr. Yakubu
Dogara, did not allow debate on the motion on the grounds that it
was “investigative.”
The House resolved to set up an ad hoc committee to conduct the
investigation within four weeks.
Meanwhile, the House, in a separate resolution, cautioned the
Judiciary against interfering with the work of the National
Assembly as an independent arm of government.
It resolved to write the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice
Walter Onnoghen, to draw his attention to such interferences and
the “urgent need” for him to caution judicial officers against
granting “questionable injunctions” stopping the National Assembly
from working.
The House passed the resolution after the Chairman, Committee on
Justice, Mr. Razak Atunwa, brought a complaint to the floor on how
an Abuja Federal High Court restrained his committee from
conducting a public hearing on the hijab controversy involving a
law graduate, Amasa Firdaus.
The University of Ilorin graduate was due to be called to the
Bar on December 12, 2017.
However, the Nigerian Law School stopped her after she insisted
on wearing the hijab, as against the traditional wig worn by
lawyers.
Firdaus had been quoted as saying that she opted to wear the
Islamic head scarf to challenge the status quo.
The House later intervened to douse tension by passing a
resolution to conduct a public hearing on the issue.
But, as the committee planned to open the public hearing at the
National Assembly, the court’s restraining order was served on the
committee.
On Thursday, Atunwa made a formal report of the incident to the
House.
The House of Representatives on Thursday opposed the setting up
of special presidential investigative panels by the Federal
Government to investigate various matters, saying that the
development usurped the powers of existing anti-corruption agencies
and the Code of Conduct Bureau/Tribunal.
The House resolved to probe the operations of such panels,
particularly the seeming duplication of the functions of anti-graft
agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and
the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences
Commission.
The resolution followed a motion moved by the Chairman, House
Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Kingsley Chinda.
For instance, he said the SPIPs, which were inaugurated using
the provisions of the Public Property Special Provisions Act, 2004,
could invite Nigerians to fill asset declaration documents, a duty
reserved for the CCB.
China noted, “The said panel is alleged to have received
petitions from Nigerians and its mode of operation is to proceed to
invite citizens to fill asset declaration forms, which is by law
the exclusive mandate of the Code of Conduct Bureau under the Code
of Conduct and Tribunal Act CAP T 15, LFN 2004.
“Following the activities of the panel, the Attorney General of
the Federation has received several complaints from the general
public on the need to take an in-depth look at the law, viz-a viz
the various anti-corruption agencies that are now established,
particularly the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct
Tribunal.”
Chinda further told the House that the Public Property Act,
having predated the CCB and other anti-corruption agencies’ laws,
should no longer form the basis on which the government would
conduct such investigations.
The lawmaker added, “The Public Property (Special Provision)
Act, codified as CAP R4 LFN, 2004, predates the Code of Conduct and
Tribunal Act CAP T15 LFN 2004. Whereas the Act commenced 31st Dec,
1983, the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act commenced on 1st
January, 19991, (eight years later).
“The Public Property (Special Provision) Act CAP R4 LFN 2004 is
a spent law by virtue of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal
Act, CAP T15 LFN 2004.
“The functions specified by the Act to be performed through
panels established by the President are now performed by the Code
of Conduct Tribunal, which serves as a special court headed by a
qualified judge of a superior court of record in Nigeria to try the
offences regarding the breach of the code of conduct of public
officers.
“Besides, the Code of Conduct Act being a newer law on the
subject matter, has made specific provisions on the matter.
“It is trite law that the court will construe a later act as
repealing an earlier one if the two provisions cannot stand
together or if they both make the same provisions dealing with a
similar subject matter as established in Trade Bank Plc Vs. Lagos
Island Local Government (2003) FWLR (Pt 161) 1734.”
He added, “Special presidential investigation panels (SPIP)
ought not to have been set up in view of the existence of such
institutions as the EFCC, ICPC and especially the Code of Conduct
Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal, both created by law and
supported by the 1999 Constitution.”
Chinda also reminded the House that the SPIPs would further add
to the cost of governance by drawing funds to do the same work that
the anti-corruption agencies and the CCB/CCT were already
doing.
The House, which was presided over by the Speaker, Mr. Yakubu
Dogara, did not allow debate on the motion on the grounds that it
was “investigative.”
The House resolved to set up an ad hoc committee to conduct the
investigation within four weeks.
Meanwhile, the House, in a separate resolution, cautioned the
Judiciary against interfering with the work of the National
Assembly as an independent arm of government.
It resolved to write the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice
Walter Onnoghen, to draw his attention to such interferences and
the “urgent need” for him to caution judicial officers against
granting “questionable injunctions” stopping the National Assembly
from working.
The House passed the resolution after the Chairman, Committee on
Justice, Mr. Razak Atunwa, brought a complaint to the floor on how
an Abuja Federal High Court restrained his committee from
conducting a public hearing on the hijab controversy involving a
law graduate, Amasa Firdaus.
The University of Ilorin graduate was due to be called to the
Bar on December 12, 2017.
However, the Nigerian Law School stopped her after she insisted
on wearing the hijab, as against the traditional wig worn by
lawyers.
Firdaus had been quoted as saying that she opted to wear the
Islamic head scarf to challenge the status quo.
The House later intervened to douse tension by passing a
resolution to conduct a public hearing on the issue.
But, as the committee planned to open the public hearing at the
National Assembly, the court’s restraining order was served on the
committee.
On Thursday, Atunwa made a formal report of the incident to the
House.