THE BACKGROUND I would ordinarily not have written on a subject that is subjudice, the “trial” of Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, and his Deputy, Dr. Ike Ekweremadu, being before a court of law. However, Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, having come out trenchantly to defend his initiation of these criminal proceedings, citing section 174(1) of the 1999 Constitution, I feel duty bound, in the interest of the public, to do this write up.

He argued forcefully that as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation, it was his prerogative to institute, undertake or discontinue criminal proceedings against any person or authority in Nigeria. He is dead right on this. No one can question this authority. But, what the Attorney General did not tell us is that section 174(1) did not give a blank cheque to him.

His powers to do the above are greatly circumscribed by the provisions of subsection (3) of the same section 174. It states that “in exercising his powers, shall have regard to the “public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process”.

In charging Saraki and Ekweremadu to court for being on the wrong side of his APC ruling party regarding the way and manner they emerged in June, 2015, against the preferred candidates of their party, Lawan and Ndume, which “public interest” was being protected? What is the “interest of justice” in charging the duo simultaneously when a civil case instituted by the same “Unity Forum”.

Complainants, Senators Kabiru Marafa, Abu Ibrahim, Olugnbenga Ashafa, Ajayi Boroffice and Suleiman Hunkuyi, are still pending before the Federal High Court, Abuja?

What is the justice in obviously overreaching the beleaguered numbers three and five men in the country over partisan political in-house matters, when the leadership of the House of Representatives who used Standing Rules that emerged through the same process has never been touched, since they are regarded as party-complaint? How has abuse of court process been prevented when simultaneous criminal charges are being proffered against the duo in favour of other aggrieved members of the same party who are in the good books of the powers that be in the party?

What happens to the doctrine of separation of powers ably espoused by Baron de Moutesque, a great French political theoretician, to the effect that there must be separation of powers between the three arms of government – the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary in such a way that no one arm is so powerful as to act as a terror on another weaker arm?

How come the weighty office of the Attorney General of the Federation has suddenly taken interest (one year later), in an internal matter over which some Senators earlier petitioned and also voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of a civil court? Why Saraki again, the same man being traduced at the Code of Conduct Tribunal over alleged false declaration of assets by the same executive.

NOW THIS

POLITICS GONE HAYWIRE WHAT IS THE PUBLIC INTERES T

When Nigeria is literally on her kneels – Agatu, Shiites, NDA, IPOD, Boko Haram, Nimbo, Aghahewe, Fulani Herdsmen, hunger, squalor, insecurity, free fall of naira, receding human rights, freedoms, and democratic principles, simulated fear, no light, costly fuel, no infrastructure, etc?

The entire brouhaha is hinged high wired politics. Pure and simple. It is a calculated attempt to effect a leadership change of the upper chambers through a non-violent coup that seeks to supplant the independence of the Legislature by a more powerful executive arm. It is nothing but what the Supreme Court in Ojukwu vs. Governor of Lagos State once termed “executive lawlessness”.

I will prefer the term “executive rascality”, or “tyranny of a vocal minority”, (Executive), over an “intimidated, hapless majority” (109 members of the Senate). To be sure, the present crisis has its genesis in the emergence of Saraki of APC and Ekweremadu of PDP, as Senate President and Deputy Senate President, respectively, on 9th June, 2015. On that day, 57 Senators converged on the floor of the red chambers to elect their leadership, sequel to an official proclamation by then newly elected President Mahammadu Buhari, who acted under section 64(3) of the 1999 Constitution.

Whilst the 39 PDP Senators and 51 other APC Senators preferred to obey their party directives to congregate at the International Conference Centre, Abuja, purportedly to “hold a reconciliation meeting” with APC leadership, and the same President Buhari who had already proclaimed the NASS for 10am the same day. There was no counter directive to Alhaji Salisu Maikasuwe, the Clerk of the NASS’s notice for the convocation based on PMB’s dire.

AND THIS

THE “ORIGINAL SIN”

The APC has never forgiven Saraki and Ekweremadu, even though components that founded the party had, only four years earlier, hailed the emergence, in similar circumstances, of Aminu Tambuwal and Emeka Ihedioha, as Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively.

This was clearly against the then preferred candidates of the PDP. Mulikat Akande was preferred as Speaker. Talk about Karma, the law of nature that works immutably, inexorably. What goes around, comes around! Had the PDP wanted the Senate Presidency, they would have obtained it on a platter of gold since they outnumbered APC Senators at the session.

They would have had succor in section 50(1) of the 1999 Constitution which states that members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall elect their leaders from amongst themselves. It did not specify  that the ruling or opposition party must produce a particular head.

There are other issues. Looking at the Senate Standing Orders allegedly “forged”, it is clear that only the 1999 one comes without the phrase, “as amended”, a phrase that runs through those of 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015. People who understand the inner workings of parliament know that effecting amendments which are later subjected to scrutiny by the yet inchoate and incoming Senators – elect is normally carried out by the NASS Bureaucracy, not its leadership.

This is done during the period of interregnum, between explication of the old House by effluxion of time after 4 years (section 64(3), and inauguration of the incoming one. It is inconceivable that people who did not know they will win their elections, let alone contesting for leadership positions, will peer into the future like Nostradamus, to amend the Rules ahead, with a view to having a secret ballot election, rather than an open one, where party Chieftains breath down their necks to control proceedings.

This is the “original sin” of Saraki and Ekweremadu. Indeed, section 3 of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act, LFN, makes it clear that Senators or House of Representative members enjoy absolute immunity for anything said or written in a report, Petition, Bill, Resolution or Motion before the House or any of its Committees.

Thus, if this particular case were devoid of politics and bare-faced witch hunting, the aggrieved Senators would have used the inbuilt conflict – resolution mechanism within the House to the complain to the Ethics and Privileges Committee and get the Rules amended back to what they desired. From what is emanating from the media, Saraki and Ekweremadu complain that the police never even took their statements.

Thus, we are having a case charged to court without the accused’s statements contrary to the provisions of section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and section 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which stipulate such a written statement in the presence of an accused’s legal practitioner.

Those spearheading this crisis forget that it was these same “forged” Rules that were used to clear all the ministers, including the Attorney–General himself, to accommodated a scandalously padded budget, to convoke a Joint sitting of NASS, to welcome South African President Zuma, clear heads of FIR, etc. EFCC’s Chairman is before the Senate now. Do we then consign to the vehicle of historical oblivion and annul (pardon me, IBB), these acts that emanated from the Executive? Tell me, readers.