Analysing the IGP’s disrespect of the Senate shows that Nigeria does not have a separation of powers

Democracies are generally known to consist of the executive, legislature and the judiciary. These different branches, in purpose and function, work in tandem to provide as seamless a democratic experience as possible for the citizens they purport to serve. Nigeria’s democracy is no different, but the seamlessness with which all three tiers of government should work appears to be nonexistent if the recent wrangling among them are anything to go by.

The first signs of trouble can be traced back to 2015, at the start of this present government’s term of office. Both legislative houses –The Senate and the House of Representatives –found their respective heads at loggerheads with the executive due to the nature of their ascension to the top positions. In an unnecessary political crisis which dragged on for months and involved various court judgments and counter court judgments, arrest warrants, and the Senate President being docked by the Code of Conduct Tribunal, the state of play eventually levelled out with the Presidency essentially admitting defeat and the hard, cold business of governing commenced. Irrespective of the seeming political quiet that ensued, highlighted by some co-operation between both tiers of government, there have been many occasions where the executive with its vast armada of agencies and appointees, have deliberately made moves, acted, or made utterances capable of crippling and undermining the business of the legislature. The spats read like recurring episodes on a once gripping drama series – the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) chairman, Idris Magu; Customs boss, Hamid Ali; the sacked Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babchair Lawal and most recently the Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris. The IGP’s brush with federal lawmakers eager to hold him accountable for allegations of corruption and abuse of office is an instructive case in point that illustrates the dwindling health of arguably the most important partnership necessary for the country’s continued political, social and economic development.

The Main Actors

Senator Issa Misau

Senator Issa Misau, representing Bauchi Central Senatorial District, in a series of public utterances, made corruption allegations against Ibrahim Idris. Idris is accused of diverting budgetary allocations meant for the purchase of Armoured Personnel Carriers (APC) for the police force, receiving bribes from officers for promotion, ethnic favouritism, receiving monies from institutions, corporate bodies and private individuals, for services rendered by the Nigerian Police. The ripple effect of these allegations has seen both the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and the Inspector General of Police institute legal proceedings against Senator Misau. The Senate in response to the allegations invited Ibrahim Idris to appear before a committee set up for the purpose.

The Nigerian Senate

The venue for this power play is, unsurprisingly, the Senate and such, an examination of what has happened or is likely to happen, is relevant. The first point of note would be the actions of the Senate. Section 88 (1)of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended gives the National Assembly the powers to investigate: “(a) any matter or thing with respect to which it has the power to make laws, and (b) the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry or government department charged, or intended to be charged, with the duty of or responsibility for – (i) executing or administering laws enacted by National Assembly, and (ii) disbursing or administering moneys appropriated or to be appropriated by the National Assembly.”

Under Section 88(2), “The powers conferred on the National Assembly under the provisions of this section are exercisable only for the purpose of enabling it to – (a) make laws with respect to any matter within its legislative competence and correct any
defects in existing laws; and (b) expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of laws within its legislative competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by it.”

Furthermore, Section 89(1) extensively lays out the legislative process, providing that “for the purposes of any investigation under section 88 of this Constitutional and subject to the provisions thereof, the Senate or the House of Representatives or a committee appointed in accordance with section 62 of this Constitution shall have power to – (a) procure all such evidence, written or oral, direct or circumstantial, as it may think necessary or desirable, and examine all persons as witnesses whose evidence may be material or relevant to the subject matter; (b) require such evidence to be given on oath; (c) summon any person in Nigeria to give evidence at any place or produce any document or other thing in his possession or under his control, and examine him as a witness and require him to produce any document or other thing in his possession or under his control, subject to all just exceptions; and (d) issue a warrant to compel the attendance of any person who, after having been summoned to attend, fails, refuses or neglects to do so and does not excuse such failure, refusal or neglect to the satisfaction of the House or the committee in question, and order him to pay all costs which may have been occasioned in compelling his attendance or by reason of his failure, refusal or neglect to obey the summons, and also to impose such fine as may be prescribed for any such failure, refused or neglect; and any fine so imposed shall be recoverable in the same manner as a fine imposed by a court of law.”

Section 89(2) even provides that a summons or warrant issued by the National Assembly may be served or executed by any member of the Nigeria Police Force or by any person authorised in that behalf by the Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Going through the various sections and sub-sections of the Constitution, the Senate seems to be well within its right to have set up the committee led by Senator Francis Alimekhena.

The Inspector General of Police

Ibrahim Idris’ reaction has been poor and suspicious, to say the least. One of the first actions of the police was to release a press statement where it stated clearly that Misau was not recognised by the NPF as a federal senator because the retirement letter with which submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission when running for his constituency’s seat was forged. The statement went on to declare Senator Misau wanted for deserting the police force and forgery. In the midst of the fog, the statement attempted to raise, the allegations made by Senator Misau were never addressed. The forgery claims were quickly debunked by the Police Service Commission–which has the legal backing to discipline any police officer except the most senior one– which authenticated Senator Issa Miasu’s retirement letter.

In a last-ditch effort, the IGP filed a libel suit against Senator Misau at the Federal Capital Territory High Court. In the suit, Idris is seeking ₦5 billion in damages while the case has been fixed for hearing on 13th November 2017, in a move which some legal analysts say may ultimately yield little success.

Appearing before the Senate ad-hoc committee after first refusing to honour their invitation, Idris refused to answer questions posed to him by committee members. The reason given for this action by his lawyer, Alex Izinoyin, was that the case was already before a court which made the Senate committee adjourn–without fixing a date–to study the presentations made by Idris and his legal team.

The Attorney General of the Federation

To further complicate a muddled situation, the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, filed criminal charges against Senator Misau, on behalf of the Federal Government. The charges brought against Senator Misau border on submitting false declarations and documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and making false statements against the Inspector General of Police and the Nigeria Police Force. It is hard not to notice the obvious fact that the AGF discarded the allegations made against the Inspector General of Police, and instead focused its legal searchlight on the potential whistle-blower himself. Coming on the heels of the controversy that surrounded the recall and reinstatement of Abdulrasheed Maina, now a de facto fugitive, Malami’s track record in decisively addressing possible corruption allegations is increasingly wearing an unimpressive look.

Conclusion

The condescending manner with which executive appointees continue to treat matters involving them and the legislature’s exercise of its oversight powers is appalling to a fault, and if not properly handled, is capable of reducing the influence of the National Assembly, a critical ballast in properly situating the balance of powers in Nigeria’s fledgling democracy.

On one of the allegations, the Police Act does gives legal backing to the use of supernumerary police by individuals, institutions, and corporate entities to protect property, it also states how it should be done. Section 18(4) of the Police Act stating that: Where any supernumerary police officer is appointed under this section, the person availing himself of the services of that officer shall pay to the Accountant-General- (a) on the enlistment of the officer, the full cost of the officer’s uniform; and (b) quarterly in advance, a sum equal to the aggregate of the amount of the officer’s pay for the quarter in question and such additional amounts as the Inspector-General may direct to be paid in respect of the maintenance of the officer during that quarter, and any sum payable to the Accountant-General under this subsection which is not duly paid may be recovered in a summary manner before a magistrate on the complaint of any superior police officer: Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of an appointment made on the application of a department of the Government of the Federation.

Idris, like Magu and Ali, seems to be symptomatic of a trend – the Muhammadu Buhari administration’s unwillingness to play by established democratic tenets and have its more excessive, excitable elements brought under the governing supervision of the arm of government constitutionally empowered to do so. A continuance of this state of affairs by a government whose leader boldly declared himself to be a ‘born again democrat’ is sure to interfere with the serious task of governing a large country beset with a laundry list of challenges, and will surely concern ordinary Nigerians slowly considering the possibility of critical decision making at the ballot box in 2019.