SIGNS that the legislature and the executive would resume another set of acrimony upon the National Assembly’s resumption from the two weeks’ recess were written all over the place even during the break. Shortly before the recess in June, an altercation had erupted over the 2017 budget, leading the two chambers of the National Assembly to target jibes at Acting President Yemi Osinbajo.
After assenting the 2017 Budget, Osinbajo addressed the media and complained about some aspects of the budget said to have been altered by the National Assembly. He was also quoted in the media as regretting the alterations to the budget by the Legislature. The two chambers immediately fired back and insisted that they were not ready to let go the power of appropriation granted them by the constitution. The gathering dust could however not settle as a result of the recess.
The tension did not really clear off. Midway into the recess, the Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Babatunde Fashola stirred things up again, as he released a statement that highlighted some distortions to the budget of his ministry. He accused the National Assembly of mutilating the budget of his ministry, particularly, the removal of sums from key projects. Spokesman of the two chambers, Senator Sabi Abdullahi and Honourable Abdurazak Namdas, immediately rejected Fashola’s submissions and declared that the reductions made to specific projects were in anticipation of private-sector funding for the projects.
With that setting leading to the resumption on July 4, anything should be expected. Already a section of the lawmakers had threatened to jettison the gentleman’s agreement between the National Assembly leadership and the executive to effect virements on some of the key projects.
On resumption of the lawmakers on Tuesday, the two chambers practically spit fire as they took on the Executive frontally. While the House of Representatives took on the Minister, Fashola and eventually set up a 14-member committee to investigate him, the Senate tackled the acting President and passed a resolution to stop the consideration of any presidential nominations.
The resolution from the Senate, which was just slightly short of an impeachment threat asked Osinbajo to immediately respect the resolution of the Senate, rejecting the nomination of the Acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu. The lawmakers rejected the nomination of Mr Lanre Gbajabiamila, as the Director General of the National Lottery Commission on the grounds that the Acting President had claimed in media reports that the chamber lacked the power to confirm certain nominations by the President.
The red chamber erupted immediately when the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, read a letter from the Acting President requesting the confirmation of Gbajabiamila as the chairman of the National Lottery Commission.
Their anger was to the effect that the presidency has so far refused to respect the resolution rejecting the nomination of Ibrahim Magu as EFCC chairman, while he has continued to act in the office.
As soon as Saraki finished reading the letter from the Acting President, Senators wasted no time venting their anger. Senator Ahmad Sani (APC Zamfara West) seized the floor with a Point of Order. He mentioned Order 42 of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 as amended and declared that the chamber should stop the confirmation of Gbajabiamila based on the comments attributed to the Acting President. He wondered why Osinbajo was requesting for the nominee’s confirmation after he had reportedly said the Senate lacked the power of confirmation on certain nominees from the Presidency.
He was joined by Senator George Sekibo, who stated that the Executive was only trying to take over the powers of the Senate. He stated that the EFCC Act indicates that the President shall nominate and Senate will confirm. Sekibo quipped:“The Constitution did not give room for acting appointment after a nominee has been rejected by the Senate. If the Acting President says we do not have the power to confirm and then turns around to send us a nomination, which one do we not take?”
Another Senator, who spoke extensively on the powers of the two chambers, was the Chief Whip, Senator Sola Adeyeye. He declared that no public officer had the right to cheery pick the laws to obey or disobey
Adeyeye said: “These are frightening times. These times are frightening because many Nigerians, including many of us in this chamber put our lives on the line to ensure that we have democratic governance in Nigeria and I want to remind all of us that which I think nobody needs reminding but in particular to remind the republic that the difference between a military regime, however benevolent or autocratic it may be, and a democratic regime, is the presence of a legislature – a legislature whose responsibilities are explicitly defined by the Constitution.
“I also want to say that whether you serve this republic in the Executive, Legislature or Judiciary, every public servant is sworn to obey all the laws of the republic. If there is any law which has been passed, by the Legislature, signed by the President, gazetted into the laws of the republic, no one is given an exemption to dodge, bend, avoid or dance around that law.
“Many have argued and I believe convincingly, that the power to confirm certain appointments are explicitly written in the Constitution, but does a republic or any country in this world obey only its constitution? Does a republic not obey its laws? Every act that specifies confirmation of any appointment is the law of the land.
“Nobody – not the President, not the Vice President nor the Senate President – nobody has the right to avoid obeying that law. To that extent, whoever has a problem with any law, whoever believes that the law of the land is not constitutional, should go to court and seek it to be declared null and void.
“Until that is done, it remains the law of the land and must be respected and anyone who does not respect it is breaking the law of the land and we don’t want to go to the extent of what happens to those who swear to obey the laws of the land but do not obey them.
“For the records, I want to say here that I voted yes for Ibrahim Magu. But this is not about my view. The Senate of Nigeria voted no! I stand with the Nigerian Senate because if a republic must choose between strong leaders and strong institutions, it is wiser by far to choose strong institutions.
“We must not allow any branch of government to be weakened to an extent that the laws of the land can be fragrantly disregarded. To that extent, my dear colleagues, I believe what is happening is not about you and myself. What is happening is about the character of this nation until eternity.
“Can we pass laws and not obey our laws? Can we stand by our laws? Are we going to say that we are the same thing as when a government can pass a Decree without even the voice of the people being heard? We the Legislature, we are the voice of the Nigerian people. Maybe 100 years from now, the Nigerian people may decide they don’t want the Legislature, by then I would have been dead!
“But today, the Constitution says that there is a legislature, we make laws and even in the recent history of Nigeria, there are laws that we have made that the Supreme Court has overturned as unconstitutional. What did we do? We abided by it.
“When nobody has gone to challenge a law, that person has no other option that to obey that law. For that purpose, I want to 100 per cent lend the whole of my being to the strengthening of the First Realm of the estate – the first realm of every democratic Estate is the Legislature.
“In fact, in advanced countries, when the Judiciary misinterprets the law, the Legislature is quick to make such amendments so that such misinterpretation will not take place again.
“In that regards, let me say again with all of my being, that I pray that we will assert the independence of the Legislature, not as a way of power-mongering, but as in making sure that this is not the government of individuals, but the government of laws. May God bless the Republic of Nigeria!”
Following Adeyeye’s long intervention, the Senate passed a resolution stopping further consideration of nominations from the President, while Saraki put his seal.
After dropping the gavel on the resolutions, Saraki said: “This is an issue that we have to once and for all address. We cannot pass laws and see that the laws are not being obeyed.
“This resolution must be obeyed by the Acting President otherwise, we will take appropriate actions and resolutions.”
The House of Representatives was also taking up arms against the Executive at the same time. The chamber, which objected to Fashola’s outbursts on the budget, set up a committee to investigate his outbursts.
Honourable Ibrahim Sadiq, who raised a Point of order under matters of Urgent Public Importance, at the Tuesday’s plenary in the House, said that Fashola had, in the passing weeks, attacked the House with unsavoury comments. He claimed the minister had abandoned official channels of communication and took to the streets.
He said: “The Minister of Works has been talking about the issues that have been rested. The minister is not a spokesperson of the Judiciary, therefore, he has no powers to speak on an already assented budget.
“The minister has abandoned official channels of communication to the Legislature. This budget has been signed by the Acting President and it has become a law. I pray that this House will summon the Honourable Minister to appear before a committee of this House and answer for the breach and inciting Nigerians.”
His position was supported by House Chief Whip, Honourable Ado Doguwa, who claimed that the integrity of the legislative institution had been “greatly injured” by the minister. He stated that Fashola had, by his action, incited the people against the National Assembly and asked the chamber to sanction him.
But, the outbursts from the Legislature appear endless, when on Wednesday, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Senator Danjuma Goje, took the floor and asked Fashola to resign if he was overwhelmed by the assignment given to him.
He said: “Initially, I wanted to come under a motion but on Tuesday, the House of Representatives took up the matter. Since we are on the same page with the House, I feel I should not come under a motion. But, I will like to seize this opportunity to advise the minister that he should remember that he is now a minister and should behave like a minister.
“He is not a governor (anymore) and this National Assembly is not the Lagos State House of Assembly. This is an Assembly composed of very patriotic Nigerians, very experienced Nigerians; many had done his job; many were governors before him.
“Fashola should know that he is dealing with the National Assembly of Nigeria, not of Lagos. If the job is too much for him – the ministry is too big; it comprises three ministries, which are works, housing and power; if he cannot adjust, then, he should do the honourable thing. He should so the needful.
“No amount of blackmail by him; no amount of propaganda by him or his surrogates will stop this National Assembly from discharging its duties in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. We have sworn to uphold and protect this Constitution, and this we will do to the end of this Assembly.
“For now, I will seize fire and watch to see how the House will handle him. If he is well handled there, we will leave him with them. But if we are not satisfied and they pass him to us, then, we will take him over.”
Again, Saraki, who moderated, did not allow further debate on Goje’s submission; he simply asked the chamber to await the treatment of the matter by the House of Representatives.
“We will definitely wait for the outcome of his appearance before the House of Representatives before further contributions. But, we have taken your comment, Chairman of Appropriations,” Saraki said.
It looked like the tension would die down after the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, told State House correspondents that the government had a “robust mechanism” to resolve any differences between the Executive and the legislative arm of government. Mohammed, who was reacting to questions about the simmering face-off between the two chambers, said the government would resolve the differences.
“We have an excellent strategy in dealing with issues with the National Assembly,” Mohammed said adding: “Whatever may be the misunderstanding or problem between the National Assembly and Executive, we have an excellent mechanism of dealing with it.”
But on Thursday, the acting President, appeared to have called the bluff of the lawmakers when he spoke through the governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasiru el-Rufai, indicating the government was not ready to remove Magu as EFCC boss.
El-Rufai, quoting the President, Muhammadu Buhari and Acting President Osinbajo, at an event in Kaduna said: “Mr Chairman, two weeks ago, I discussed the EFCC and your appointment with President Muhammadu Buhari and he told me that he has every confidence in you and in the commission and the work that you have been doing, and as long as he is President, you remain the chairman of the EFCC.”
He added: “Last night, I spoke with the Acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, who reconfirmed the position of the President and told me that as long as he remained the Acting President or Vice President, Ibrahim Magu will remain the chairman of the EFCC.
“That is the only message from the President; so those thinking that corruption is winning this war, Magu will remain their nightmare for the next two years or six years as the case may be.”
Again, the Senate responded, insisting that the rule of law must be respected in the Magu’s case.
Senate spokesman, Abdullahi, who stated this in a telephone interview, said the Senate would not be engaged in any back and forth on the issue, declaring that the Legislature was also concerned about institutions.
He stated: “We have said what we needed to say on this matter. We don’t want to be involved in any back and forth on this matter. “What we are saying is that let’s stick to the rule of law. That is what the Senate is saying, and we are not saying anything more than that. We are also saying that let us build institutions and not strengthen individuals, because no individual is greater than the nation.
“We are running a constitutional democracy and we must stick to the dictates of the law. What we are saying is let’s stick to the rule of law. “We are saying no individual is greater than the country. We have said what we have to say and we have issued our resolution yesterday. This is what we have to say and let’s leave it at that. “
Notwithstanding the sober tone Abdullahi appeared to have applied in his response, there is nothing to doubt the steel in the resolve of his colleagues in the chamber.
Right now, a full scale war appears in the offing as the two combatants show no signs of backing down.
The contention therefore raises the questions why the Executive and the Legislature perpetually are on each other’s’ neck? What really are the issues and why are the battle lines so tick?
In the emerging scenario, there appears no consensus even among Nigerian lawyers as to which arm of government is right or wrong. While a section of the lawyers racked up the perceived supremacy of Section 171 of the 1999 Constitution in making presidential appointments, another segment of lawyers insisted that the principle of separation of powers was being misconstrued.
Dr Chima Nnaji, a public affairs analyst, who spoke on Channels television’s Sunrise Daily programme last week, insisted that the Executive could not be advised to ignore the EFCC Act and hold on to Section 171 of the Constitution without an interpretation by the Judiciary.
According to him, even if the Executive believes it was right in sticking to Section 171, it still should approach the Judiciary to nullify the EFCC Act before the dictates of that law can be ignored.
Looking at the Nigerian scenario thus far, it appears some extraneous factors are usually at the bedrock of executive-legislature face-off. In the instant case, the cracks within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) might have fuelled the different dimensions of the feud, reducing the flair and measure of engagements and dialogue expected to lessen the tension between the two arms.In effect, what is termed the “unsayables” might have been hitting the drumbeats of war now vibrating the polity.
For instance, the Executive did not realise the use of Section 171 of the Constitution until Magu was rejected twice. Even at that, there is a section of the legal minds, who has said that the EFCC could not be simply classified as an extra-Ministerial body rather than executive body.
Where all such contentions are rife, it behoves on the different arms of government to engage the principles of separation of powers with diplomatic finesse, engage in endless dialogue, rather than stick to the stack meaning of the democratic theories.
While the theory of separation of powers and checks and balances prepare the avenue for constant clinging of glasses, especially between the Executive and the Legislature, the adoption of interdependence and interrelationship of powers, rather than strict separation, could reduce instances of face-offs.
and then