Presidency drags Senate to Supreme Court over Magu, others

The Presidency has reiterated its stance that certain federal
appointments should not require the Senate’s confirmation.

It said the refusal by the Senate to confirm the appointment of
the acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission, Ibrahim Magu, had more to do with politics than with
the law.

This is the position of a legal advisory prepared by judicial
and legal experts as a working document in the Presidency on the
differences in the constitutional interpretations on matters of
certain federal appointments

The Senate had on July 4 passed a resolution suspending all
issues relating to the confirmation of nominees and urged Acting
President Yemi Osinbajo to respect the constitution and laws as
they relate to nominees’ confirmation.

But the presidency’s legal advisory, concluded that a judicial
pronouncement, “preferably by the Supreme Court, is what will
settle the matter.”

A government source noted Sunday night that though it was the
view of the Presidency that certain federal appointments should not
require the confirmation of the Senate based on Section 171 of the
Constitution, the present administration had continued to send such
appointments to the Senate pending the ultimate judicial
interpretation of the matter.

According to the source, “The advisory which affirms the powers
of the President to appoint in acting capacity into positions such
as the EFCC chairmanship, also notes that in the recent past, the
ministerial nomination of Late Prof. Abraham Babalola Borishade
(Ekiti State) by President Olusegun Obasanjo was rejected
repeatedly by the Senate. In fact, it would be recalled that this
particular nomination was presented four times in 18 months before
it was eventually confirmed by the Senate.

The source, who sought anonymity, said the advisory unearthed a
ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter where the current Chief
Justice of the Federation, before his elevation as CJN had ruled in
line with the view of the presidency on the matter.

He said it was inaccurate to say the federal government or the
presidency had started to act unilaterally on its own
interpretation of Section 171.

He said: “This is because, even after the Acting President, (who
spoke when he was Vice President in support of the view of some
leading lawyers) the Presidency has continued to send nominations
to the Senate both while the President himself was around and while
away by the Acting President.

“Since the time the Acting President spoke and when Senate
recently expressed its disagreement we have been sending
nominations severally including into the INEC and other boards and
commissions. So we are clearly not acting unilaterally based on our
own interpretation of the law, even though we believe firmly we are
right.

“Here is the point, the presidency believes that Section 171 is
clear that certain appointments do not require Senate consent, but
the presidency is not already behaving as if it’s interpretation of
the law has become a policy.

“The presidency is persuaded that its interpretation is the
correct one, but we are conscious and aware of the fact that only a
proper judicial ruling on the matter would make it a settled policy
that sits right with the rule of law. That is why we have not
stopped sending all manners of nominations to the Senate, most of
which the Senate has actually confirmed, even well after the Acting
President spoke.

“In fact the conclusion of the legal advisory on the matter is
very clear that a judicial pronouncement preferably by the Supreme
Court is what will settle the matter. According to that legal
advisory the divergent positions being held by the Executive and
the Legislature on the subject of confirmation is one that requires
timely and ultimate resolution. Such resolution could only be
reached through judicial process. Such interpretation would lay to
rest the lingering crises between the two arms.”

The Presidency has reiterated its stance that certain federal
appointments should not require the Senate’s confirmation.

It said the refusal by the Senate to confirm the appointment of
the acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission, Ibrahim Magu, had more to do with politics than with
the law.

This is the position of a legal advisory prepared by judicial
and legal experts as a working document in the Presidency on the
differences in the constitutional interpretations on matters of
certain federal appointments

The Senate had on July 4 passed a resolution suspending all
issues relating to the confirmation of nominees and urged Acting
President Yemi Osinbajo to respect the constitution and laws as
they relate to nominees’ confirmation.

But the presidency’s legal advisory, concluded that a judicial
pronouncement, “preferably by the Supreme Court, is what will
settle the matter.”

A government source noted Sunday night that though it was the
view of the Presidency that certain federal appointments should not
require the confirmation of the Senate based on Section 171 of the
Constitution, the present administration had continued to send such
appointments to the Senate pending the ultimate judicial
interpretation of the matter.

According to the source, “The advisory which affirms the powers
of the President to appoint in acting capacity into positions such
as the EFCC chairmanship, also notes that in the recent past, the
ministerial nomination of Late Prof. Abraham Babalola Borishade
(Ekiti State) by President Olusegun Obasanjo was rejected
repeatedly by the Senate. In fact, it would be recalled that this
particular nomination was presented four times in 18 months before
it was eventually confirmed by the Senate.

The source, who sought anonymity, said the advisory unearthed a
ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter where the current Chief
Justice of the Federation, before his elevation as CJN had ruled in
line with the view of the presidency on the matter.

He said it was inaccurate to say the federal government or the
presidency had started to act unilaterally on its own
interpretation of Section 171.

He said: “This is because, even after the Acting President, (who
spoke when he was Vice President in support of the view of some
leading lawyers) the Presidency has continued to send nominations
to the Senate both while the President himself was around and while
away by the Acting President.

“Since the time the Acting President spoke and when Senate
recently expressed its disagreement we have been sending
nominations severally including into the INEC and other boards and
commissions. So we are clearly not acting unilaterally based on our
own interpretation of the law, even though we believe firmly we are
right.

“Here is the point, the presidency believes that Section 171 is
clear that certain appointments do not require Senate consent, but
the presidency is not already behaving as if it’s interpretation of
the law has become a policy.

“The presidency is persuaded that its interpretation is the
correct one, but we are conscious and aware of the fact that only a
proper judicial ruling on the matter would make it a settled policy
that sits right with the rule of law. That is why we have not
stopped sending all manners of nominations to the Senate, most of
which the Senate has actually confirmed, even well after the Acting
President spoke.

“In fact the conclusion of the legal advisory on the matter is
very clear that a judicial pronouncement preferably by the Supreme
Court is what will settle the matter. According to that legal
advisory the divergent positions being held by the Executive and
the Legislature on the subject of confirmation is one that requires
timely and ultimate resolution. Such resolution could only be
reached through judicial process. Such interpretation would lay to
rest the lingering crises between the two arms.”