THE House of Representatives on Thursday accused the Presidency of usurping the powers of the courts to interpret the constitution by insisting that Ibrahim Magu must remain the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. Magu’s confirmation failed twice at the Senate, but the Presidency later took a position that the Senate’s confirmation was no longer required in view of the provisions of Section 171 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

While Section 2(3) of the EFCC Act makes express provisions on the confirmation of the commission’s chairman by the Senate, the constitution empowers the President to make such appointments but is silent on the role of the National Assembly. The Presidency opted for the constitutional provisions after its bid to get the Senate to confirm Magu, failed.

However, on Thursday, lawmakers kicked against the decision and specifically held the Vice-President, Yemi Osinbajo, responsible for encouraging the Presidency’s stance on the matter. They said by Osinbajo’s advice on the matter, the executive had not only “eroded” the principles of separation of powers, but had also assumed the role of the judiciary to interpret the laws of the land.

“The House is aware that while the feud over the confirmation of the Chairman of the EFCC lasted, a statement was credited to Osinbajo to the effect that the appointment of the chairman does not require confirmation of the Senate, in line with Section 171 of the constitution”, part of a motion debated on the floor, read.

The motion, which was moved by the Minority Leader, Mr. Leo Ogor, received overwhelming support of members. The session was presided over by the Speaker, Yakubu Dogara. In his lead debate, Ogor argued that the right way to go would have been to approach the courts for interpretation, if in the opinion of the VP, there was a conflict between the constitution and the EFCC Act.

“This motion is to protect the doctrine of separation of powers. The right thing to do is for the executive to approach the courts if they have any issues with any law passed by the National Assembly and the constitution”, he added.

One All Progressives Congress member from Adamawa State, Mr. Sadiq Ibrahim, said, “The VP, by his action, has usurped the powers of the courts to interpret the constitution.”

Another member from Kogi State, Mr. Karimi Sunday, asked that Osinbajo should be invited before the House to explain why he advised the executive the way he did. “The VP will have to be invited to tell the nation why he attempted to ridicule the parliament”, he said.

On his part, a member from Rivers State, Mr. Kingsley Chinda, noted that while Osinbajo might appear to have offered a personal opinion on the issue, his position had become the government’s position ultimately. “His opinion has been upgraded to be the position of the government.

“The interpretation of the VP is wrong and the fact of his being a professor of law does not make it the best. Section 171 cannot, in truth, apply to the chairman of the EFCC, whose position is tenured”, he added.

Like Karimi, Chinda asked that Osinbajo and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, should be invited by the House. But, when a prayer to invite Osinbajo and the AGF was put to vote by Dogara, it was defeated.

Another prayer asking that Magu should be suspended until the matter was resolved by the Supreme Court, was also defeated. But, lawmakers insisted that the Presidency must uphold the doctrine of separation of powers. – Punch

—  Apr 27, 2017 @ 18:30 GMT