Probe: Senate, IGP flex muscles

THE Senate Adhoc Committee investigating offences levelled against the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Ibrahim Idris, and the Inspector General of Police appeared headed for a collision on Wednesday following the refusal of the Inspector General to appear before the panel.

Police boss, Ibrahim Idris had on Wednesday refused to appear before the Senator Francis Alimikhena-led committee, informing the panel through his lawyer, Alex Izinyon (SAN) that the matter was sub judice.

But the panel chairman, a principal officer of the Senate, who held the office of Deputy Majority Whip. Declared that the Senate would go ahead with its probe of the IGP, adding that the senate cannot be stopped in the course of performing its duties.

He declared that the matter was already before the Senate, while the IGP dragged it to court, adding that the Senate panel would insist the IGP appears before it on Tuesday next week.

He said that if the IGP refuses to appear before the panel next week, the Committee would have no other option than to invoke the provisions of Section (89c) of the 1999 Constitution.

The Senator said: “The Inspector General of Police said he will not appear before this committee because he has gone to court and that there are three cases he went to court for, if he should appear before the committee it will be sub judice and because of it will not appear. Most of the allegations levelled against him and vehement was not part of what they went to court. This committee was constituted before the IG went to court, the court case will not deter our committee because following the principles of Separation of Powers no court can stop our committee.

“By Section 89(c) and (d) of the constitution we are still going to invite the IGP to appear before us to answer specific questions like vehement of 2016, 2017 appropriation acts, and oversight functions which Sen. Misau alleged too; to appear before us on Tuesday next week. We are going to write him specifically.

“So, I just want to let you know that the Inspector General of Police will not be appearing this afternoon (Wednesday) but we are going to wrote him again to appear before us on Tuesday next week.”

But the IGP, through a letter by his counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN said that the matter was already sub judice and should be left for the courts to decide.

He said that it would be necessary for the committee to stand down the probe for now and keep same in abeyance.

The letter dated October 31, 2017 read in part: “The reasons why this Ad Hoc Committee cannot and should not proceed with the said investigation are outlined hereunder.

“There are two criminal charges pending before both the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

(a) The Federal Republic of Nigeria VS. Senator Isah Hammed Misau, Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/170/2017. This criminal case has been slated for 7th November, 2017. For ease of reference and further guidance, a copy of the said charge is annexed hereto as Annexure A.

(b) The Federal Republic of Nigeria VS Senator Isah Hamman Misau, Charge No: CR/345/17. This case has commenced and the said defendant was arraigned and the matter adjourned to 29th of November, 2017 for trial. For ease of reference and better appreciation, a copy is annexed hereto as Annexure ‘B’. You will observe from the 5 areas of investigation Vis items 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of your terms are covered in the said count charges.

“One does not need a stargazer to see that the gamut of these allegations are sub-judice and for trial before the High Court of Justice Federal Capital Territory, which constitutionally under Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is vested with such adjudicatory power in the circumstances.”

He also said that another suit, marked Suit No: CV/3/3158/17 is a civil matter which is already before the High Court of Justice Federal Capital Territory and is an application by the IGP for an order of Enforcement of his fundamental rights.

The letter further read: “Our client has informed us that upon the receipt of your letter reference above, he wrote to the Hon Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice for advice as the Chief Law Officer of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to whom our client is under his control. A copy of the said letter with your letter attached is annex hereto as Annexure ‘E’. Our client is yet to receive the reply from the Hon Attorney General of the Federation.

“Without prejudice to the foregoing, we feel strongly that the committee in the light of these various cases outlined above should put the matter in abeyance to allow the resolution of these by the courts and as pointed out these are all sub-judice. Your rules recognise this too. It is instructive to draw your attention to numerous legal propositions that have settled this issue by the Superior Courts. Permit me to just refer to the case of BELLO V. A-G, LAGOS STATE (2007) 2 NWLR (PT. 1017) 115 AT 151 – 153 PARAS H – F where the Court put it pungently thus: -5-

“It therefore amounts to contempt, a criminal contempt for that matter. See paragraph 26 of the Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition-

“26. Prejudging issues. Comments on pending legal proceedings which purports to prejudge the issues which are to be tried by the court is intrinsically objectionable as being a usurpation of the proper function of the court. This it seems may be punished or restrained as a contempt irrespective of the effect or likely effect on the particular proceedings in question.”

“It is on the above premise that we urge you to defer your investigation in the circumstances.”