For some time now, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Ibrahim Idris, has been at daggers drawn with Senator Isah Hamman Misau, chairman, Senate Committee on Navy, who raised serious allegations bordering on alleged mishandling of over N120 billion against the IGP in the media.
Senator Misau, a former police officer, appeared to have landed in the black book of the police as a result of his allegations, leading to a full blown confrontation between him and the police establishment.
At a stage, the IGP asked that the Senator be summoned to answer questions regarding his exit from the police and alleged doctoring of police documents. Police spokesman, Jimoh Moshood, who has been the IGP’s voice in the battle so far once accused Misau of parading fake documents as regards his retirement from the Force. The police appeared to have had upper hand in the tussle, especially while the National Assembly was on recess. The Force, at a stage, threatened to arrest the Senator, having accused him of being a deserter and falsification of retirement papers.
With the National Assembly resuming plenary, Misau immediately took his case to the chambers and the music had to change. It is now a case of the police (an executive body) versus the Senate (the legislature).
It is no news that when the two arms of government engage in a brawl, the grass does not live long to tell the story of the assault and battery it gets exposed to. It is always an epic battle and such is the one that is brewing right now between the Senate and the IGP.
Penultimate week, Senator Misau told a sitting of the Senator Francis Alimikhena-led Senate Adhoc Committee set up to investigate the allegations he raised against the IGP that the top cop had turned himself to a car distributor of some sort by purchasing two Toyota Prado Jeeps for the use of the wife of the president, Hajia Aisha Buhari.
Last Wednesday, the stage was set for the IGP to appear before the Senate Committee and defend himself against the allegations. IGP Idris refused to show up but asked his lawyer to submit a letter detailing the plethora of cases already instituted against the Senate and the fact that appearing before the committee could amount to sub judice. He asked the committee to put the probe in abeyance.
The submissions by his lawyer, Alex Izinyon (SAN) drew the ire of the committee, which threatened to invoke the power of the Senate to arrest the IGP if he fails to appear before it on Tuesday November 7.
On Thursday, November 2, Senator Alimikhena reported the IGP to the Senate plenary and put them on notice as to the possibility of the need to invoke the constitutional powers against the nation’s chief law officer.
While ruling on Alimikhena’s motion, Senate President Bukola Saraki told Idris to “respect himself” and show up to defend himself. Saraki said the IGP is “best advised” to make the appearance. He further said: “As the chief law enforcing officer, one will expect that he should know what the law is and he should know that there have been many judgements stating that such court action cannot stop the Senate from doing its job.”
Though Saraki’s response was quick and sharp enough, it is a loaded statement. Beneath those words are clear steel and determination that could fuel a prolonged executive/legislative feud this time.
The letter from IGP’s lawyer, which catalogued the series of legal battles he instituted in the wake of the Misau salvos is sadly following an emerging trend since the advent of the incumbent change administration.
It is fast emerging that once an officer of state is set to come under the searchlight of the Senate or the House of Representatives, such an officer immediately rushes to the court to put the matter in abeyance. The lawyers would then immediately term the matter sub judice. It is simply a case of putting a piece of meat in the mouth and announcing it has disappeared. Or you can say it’s merely working to the answer.
The lawyers are simply trying to take advantage of Rule 53 (5) of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 as amended (there is a similar rule in the House book). The Rule simply reads: “Reference shall not be made to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending, in such a way as might in the opinion of the President of the Senate prejudice the interest of parties thereto.”
What the Senate Rule envisages is that the chamber would not dabble into a matter that the court is already handling. As a mark of separation of powers, the Senate has in most instances, respected that Rule. Once it came to its notice that a matter it was going to entertain was already being handled by a court. Right now, however, we are being treated to a strange interpretation of the Rule. What you see today is that once the Senate adopts a motion to probe into an issue, the subject(s) of the investigation will rush to the court and ask the lawyers to claim the matter is sub judice.
We have seen that happen in the case of the Comptroller General of Customs, Col Hameed Ali (retd) and the sacked Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), who also rushed to court in the wake of Senate’s probe of the grass cutter saga that eventually saw to his removal from office. Now the IGP is following the pattern.
In the spirit of separation of powers, no segment of the powers is denied the exercise of its functions. The lawmakers are to investigate persons, agencies and expose corruption within the government. The executive is granted the power to actualise/execute policies of government, while the judiciary interprets the laws with its power of judicial review.
.
and then