3 years after: Lawyers want Buhari to represent Magu to Senate

…Say Magu deserves confirmation as EFCC chairman
…12 consolidated suits against Magu pending in court
Prominent lawyers on Sunday demanded necessary action from President Muhammadu Buhari on the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Ibrahim Magu.

Magu will today mark his third year in office as the Acting Chairman of the anti-graft agency.
The lawyers, Chief Robert Clarke (SAN), Mr Wahab Shittu and Mr Daniel Bwala, spoke during exclusive interviews with The Daily Times on Sunday.

The lawyers also called on the President to represent Magu’s name to the Senate for confirmation.

The Daily Times recalls that twice, the Senate had refused to confirm Magu as the substantive boss of the anti-graft agency on the grounds of controversial reports from the Department of State Security (DSS) that Magu failed integrity test unfit to head the EFCC.

Incidentally, the DSS had sent two different and contradictory security reports to the Senate on Magu

President Buhari had nominated many nominees for appointments as Resident Electoral Commissioners of INEC, National Lottery Regulatory Commission and others but the Senate stepped down the confirmation in protest of President’s refusal to replace Magu.

The Senate recently made a U-Turn after the parties primaries and started confirming the President’s nominees.

Speaking on Magu’s confirmation, sChief Robert Clarke (SAN, said: “Well, my view has always been what it had been that if the National Assembly refuses for one reason or

the other to approve the nominee of Mr. President in respect of any executive position, the President reserves the right to ask that same person on Acting capacity until either when the tenure of Mr. President expires or when the President deem it fit to replace that person.

“Mr. Magu has been caught in a web of politics between the executive and the National Assembly. He was recommended by the executive at a time when he was investigating not only the President of the Senate but, also many principal officers.

“I wish him luck and also ask Mr. President to revisit his appointment by sending it back to the National Assembly who has about eight months left and I believe Mr. Magu should be allowed to finish the situation he is handling so that we can have sanity.”

Another constitutional lawyer, Mr. Wahab Shittu, said: “Well, my answer to that will refer you to relevant constitutional provisions and statutory provisions which is now subject of interpretation before our courts.

“On the one hand, section 171 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is to the effect that heads of inter – ministerial agencies such as EFCC are entitled to be appointed by the President without reference to the Senate.

“On the other hand, the EFCC Act says that the appointment of the chairman of EFCC is subject to the confirmation by the Senate. So, you now have a situation where the constitution is saying heads of inter – ministerial agencies do not require confirmation and the existing laws such as the EFCC Act saying such appointee must undergo Senate confirmation.

“Between the constitution and the EFCC Act that is the existing laws, which is supreme? That question can be answered by section 1 sub section 2, as well as section 1, sub section 3, and section 315 of the 1999 constitution (as amended)

which says that the constitution is the supreme, and if there is any conflict between constitutional provisions and the provisions of any existing laws including the EFCC Act, the constitution shall prevail.

“If that interpretation is eventually accepted by the court, it then means Ibrahim Magu does not require Senate confirmation to function as the head of EFCC.

The other interpretation is that since the EFCC Act has said the man can be confirmed, then having been rejected by the Senate, the appointment is set aside. That’s another interpretation.

“I’m more persuaded by the first interpretation because the constitution of the Land is supreme. There’s no law that is superior to the constitution of the land.

Even if you say Ibrahim Magu cannot be confirmed, he can, by the virtue of section 11 of the Interpretation Act be functioning in Acting capacity.

“If we look at section 11 of the Interpretation Act closely, then we will be persuaded by the argument that there is no limitations as to the timings that Magu can Act. It is at the pleasure of the appointing officer, in this case, the President.

“So, if the President is still comfortable in retaining Magu in Acting capacity, then who is anybody to complain? All these arguments I have canvassed is now a subject of judicial interpretation before the court. We should wait for the court pronouncement.”

Also making a case for representation of Magu for confirmation as substantive chair of EFCC, an Abuja based legal practitioner, Mr Daniel Bwala, said: “The world over, the necessity for confirmation of a presidential nominee is anchored on the knowledge of the job and suitability for the specific post for the nominee.

“Magu being a member of the commission from inception and having participated in numerous operations, does possess the knowledge of the job and is most suitable for the post of chairmanship of the commission.

He is EFCC through and through and has partnered with global anti-corruption agencies and bodies in the fight against corruption.

“Secondly, having acted as chairman for three years with proven results way beyond his predecessors with the highest success rate in criminal convictions and recoveries of assets and monies clearly established the case for Magu’s confirmation as substantive chairman.

Bwala, who also practice law in the United Kingdom, stated that “Magu has transformed the commission to the image of a professional body such as NCA of UK and its counterpart in the US, Today, the EFCC is seen as a thorough investigation and prosecution commission.

In the past, the problem bedevilling the commission was improper investigation, but today the case is different.

“The integrity of Magu as incorruptible is the strongest case for his confirmation as substantive chair. Everyone knows you can’t bribe Magu and you can’t twist his hands. He is committed to his job as anti-graft cop.

“Having spearheaded most of the criminal and financial.crimes investigative drive, it is only necessary that for continuity and confidence building that his name be represented to the Senate for confirmation as he clocks his third year on the job.

“He has dutifully guided the completion of the commission’s head office complex which has the state of the art facilities to prosecute the mandate of the commission.”

As a result of the impasse between the executive and the National Assembly over Magu, 12 consolidated suits over the status of the acting chairman of the EFCC are pending in court for determination

The Federal High Court, Abuja had recently ordered the consolidation of 12 suits filed last year in respect of the Senate’s controversial refusal to confirm Ibrahim Magu as the substantive Chairman of the EFCC and the Presidency’s insistence that he remains in office in an acting capacity.

Eight of the cases are said to be praying for Magu’s removal from office following his rejection by the Senate, while the four others are said to be praying for the court’s order validating his continued stay in office.

Justice Binta Nyako made the order of consolidation in a ruling on an application brought by the Solicitor-General of the Federation and Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr. Dayo Apata.

Justice Nyako had ordered the consolidation of the 12 suits which include: FHC/YL/CS/14/2017, between Barrister Bello Bakari v. Hon. Attorney General of the Federation &3 ors, holden at Yola Judicial Division;

FHC/ABJ/CS/278/2017‚ between Abubakar Sani v. The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, holden at Abuja Judicial Division (before Justice A.R. Mohammed);

and FHC/ABJ/CS/318/17‚ between Jibrin Samuel Okutepa (SAN) v. the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & 4 ors, holden at Abuja Judicial Division (before justice G.O Kolawole).

Others are:FHC/ABJ/CS/227/2OI7‚ Ahmed Tijani Yusuf, Esq & anor v. Ibrahim Magu & 5 ors, holden at Abuja Judicial Division (before Justice A.R. Mohammed);

FHC/ABJ/CS/374/17‚ Lady (Barr) Chidimma Udebani v. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria &. ors, holden at Abuja ludicial Division (before Justice A.R. Mohammed); FHC/ABJ/CS/378/17‚ The lncorporated Trustees of Justice Mission International v. Attorney General of the Federation, holden at Abuja Judicial Division (before Justice A.R. Mohammed);

FHC/KN/CS/S9/ZOl7, Barrister Ali A. Jamilu v. President, Federal Republic of Nigeria & 4 ors, (before justice A.R. Mohammed).; FHC/ABJ/CS/296/17, Emmanuel Esero v. Ibrahim Magu, holden at Abuja Judicial Division (before Justice A.R. Mohammed);

FHC/ABJ/CS/225/2017‚ Registered Trustees of African Patriotic Youth Assembly v. Mr. Ibrahim Magu & 6 ors, holden at Abuja Judicial Division (before Justice A.R. Mohammed) Suit No. FHC/ABI/CS/8OZ/l7.