My forgery suit against Saraki, others in public interest –AGF

The Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami on Wednesday told the Senate that the criminal case on conspiracy and forgery of Senate Standing Orders he instituted against the Senate President , Bukola  Saraki, his Deputy, Ike EKweremadu and two others  was in public interest and the interest of justice in Nigeria.

He also told the Senate that although the litigation alleging forgery of Senate documents on the part some Principal Officials had been made before being appointed as the Attorney General, he took up the matter, convinced that the amendment of the Senate Rule in 2015 did not pass through normal procedure of the Senate.

Malami disclosed this during his appearance before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, stating that the amendment of Senate Standing Orders of 2015, as controversial as it was, fell under the purview of criminality, a reason he filed a suit against those suspected as culprits.

He, however, refrained from going into the nitty-gritty of the case against Saraki and others, insisting that matters on it are already pending before a court of law, whereas comment on them would amount to subjudice.

He said the way and manner the alleged amendment of the 2015 Senate Standing rules was carried out, were not in compliance with provisions of section 60 of the 1999 constitution in procedures and proceedings, the basis upon which the case was filed.

Section 60 of the Amended 1999 Constitution read, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Senate or the House of Representatives shall have power to regulate its own procedure, including the procedure for summoning and recess of the House.”

Malami alluded to an amendment of the Senate Standing Order effected by Senators on May 18, 2011 in accordance to section 60 of the Nigerian constitution, stating that the proper procedure was followed before the amendment was approved.

According to him, the law required that for amendment to be effected on Senate Standing Orders, the sections to be amended would have been listed and covered in the votes and proceedings after a motion had been raised and deliberations and resolutions had been made.

Malami also told the Senate that his action did not constitute a threat to democracy as Senators insinuated but rather to sustain and save democracy

He said: “When the need for amendment of the Senate Rules arose in 2011, the senate conducted a proceeding and passed resolution for amendment.

“The 2015 rule as allegedly amended did not pass through the normal proceeding of doing so. That is where the inherited investigation and now criminal case comes into being.

“In as much a senate has powers to regulate its procedures any rule that did not follow the processes as stated above is a breach.

“The need to prevent abuse behooves on me. The parameter, arising from the breaching of section 60 is to ensure that I take logical criminal step to ensure things are done within the constitutional provision”.

The Attorney General added that the Senate as an Institution, is not a party to the case before the court and that Bureaucracy was not in any way contemplated by the provisions of section 60 of the constitution on amendment procedure of the senate standing rules.

The Attorney General literally rebuffed efforts by members of the Senate Committee to box him into a corner on the case as Senators one after the other, asked him to explain whether or not his action was in public interest or in the interest of justice and abuse of office.

Members of the Committee too, appeared divided over the matter as some did not turn up, while some of those in attendance spoke discordantly.

Earlier, the Committee Chairman, Senator David Umaru had alleged that going by the action taken by the Attorney General, the Executive arm of government had breached the principle of separation of powers by way of interfering in the affairs of the legislature.

He said the issue of amendment of Senate Standing Orders was an internal affairs of the senate, wondering how a family matter could suddenly become an issue of litigation.