These have not been the best of times for Senator Elisha Cliff Abbo
(Adamawa South), an otherwise sedate but highly fecund personality, who
has been in the eye of the storm since a video in which he was seen
slapping a woman attendant in a shop in Abuja went viral, sparking
countrywide contempt.
The incident, which purportedly happened many months before the
inauguration of the 9th Senate of which he is a first-time member, has
become a cause of action in a Magistrate Court, Zuba, where he was
charged with assault by the Police but granted N5 million bail and two
sureties in like sum, consequent upon his not-guilty plea.
The arraignment of Abbo by the Police is in apple-pie order. The State
should henceforth be ready to do this and, across-the-board. Abbo’s
public apology had enabled the Police to establish a prima facie case
against him. But his non-guilty plea to the offence presupposed that he
had justifications for his action.
Therefore, while the senator is in Court to defend the case against him,
every other extra-judicial intercession becomes restrained and subject
to the Court’s verdict in the matter; otherwise, such intercessions
are sub-judice as their outcomes could be prejudicial to the court’s
judgment.
It is therefore logical to surmise, for instance, that the Senate that
set up a seven-member ad hoc committee, headed by Senator Sam Egwu, to
investigate the incident on the basis of alleged misconduct of a member,
is on a mission of incursion into a matter that is already before a
court of competent jurisdiction.
The Egwu-led Committee had adverted the attention of the Senate to this
fact in plenary, last week, during which it explained that the judicial
intercession had placed a constraint on Abbo from speaking to the
committee without delving into the _res_ of the matter. The Committee
had thus been unable to make progress and had requested for time
extension in the circumstance.
It was, however, curious that the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, had
only acceded to a week’s extension, which was not in any way salutary,
insisting that the committee’s mandate was to look into the aspect of
misconduct and not the criminal content of the incident. Lawan’s
position presents a conundrum that the ad hoc committee must deal before
the new deadline handed down to it.
How the ad hoc committee will unknot the puzzle remains itself a puzzle.
Senator Abbo, who understands the law and his rights as enshrined in the
Constitution as well as the rules in the Standing Orders of the Senate
2015 (as amended), does not look like someone who will cave in to covert
and overt intimidation and shenanigans by the Committee to make him
speak on a matter that was already before the court.
Therefore, the point is, how will the ad hoc committee infer or reach a
decision from findings that are made without hearing directly from the
Senator during the committee’s investigation? Will that not vitiate
the principle of fair hearing (if Abbo is not heard because of the
concern of sub-judice) upon which the committee’s decision can be
reviewed and nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction?
The Senate President should be guided to act prudently lest he runs the
risk of being accused of witch-hunt on the basis of two propositions:
one, that Abbo is a member of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party
(PDP) and thus should be sacrificed; and, two, that Abbo nominated
Senator Ali Ndume for the position of Senate President in spite of huge
pressure from certain powerful quarters not to do so against his
(Lawan’s) nomination and, therefore, he should be dealt with.
But it is instructive to point out, however, that the 9th Senate, which
has the powers to investigate and discipline its members for a
misconduct that brings it to disrepute, is, indeed, investigating a
misconduct that happened in the life of the 8th Senate when the 9th
Senate had yet to be inaugurated and Abbo had yet to become its bona
fide member.
This then raises the question of whether or not this Senate can extend
its jurisdiction to investigate a member’s conduct that happened in
the past when it had yet to come into existence. If that retroactive
power is exercisable by the 9th Senate, then it means that a whole lot
of misconduct by some or many or even all members before they became
senators can be dug up and dealt with in the guise of investigation to
achieve some political ends.
I doubt if this is what the 9th Senate under Lawan wants to bog itself
down with. If that is not the intention of the leadership of the 9th
Senate, it should then be content with its strategic decision to set up
the ad hoc committee in deference to the hue and cry by Nigerians. By
setting up the ad hoc committee, the leadership had succeeded in
deflecting the avalanche of public criticisms directed at the
institution of the Senate, even though the exercise was anchored on some
public misconception about the incident that happened in the past and
the position of the protagonist as an incumbent member of the Senate.
The utility of the strategic intervention of the Senate in setting up
the ad hoc committee should suffice in the circumstance while the Court
is allowed to deal with the overarching criminal aspect of the incident
that has yet to be statute-barred. The suggestion by the Senate
President that the ad hoc committee should sidestep the criminal aspect
and engage with the aspect of misconduct is quixotic. Why the fixation
to do that?
The Senate leadership already stands commended for calming frayed nerves
through the emplacement of the committee. It should not slip into
internal politicking and politics of bias that manifested at the maiden
sitting of the committee when Oluremi Tinubu (APC) threatened Abbo with
the powers of the committee to recommend for his suspension. That was
too sophomoric and imprudent.
Abbo’s riposte, amid the psychological pressures and social tension,
that the fact that he was before the committee did not amount to waiving
of his rights as a senator was precise; and, it resonated well with
those who appreciated the sentiments and the context of the politicking
and shenanigans that had coalesced with hidden personal bile, perhaps,
to settle some political scores.
It is also a no-brainer that in the ad-hoc committee that comprises two
women – Tinubu and Uche Ekwunife (PDP) – feminist sentiments would
naturally weigh against Abbo. This is just a proposition in the
circumstance where advocacy for protection of female gender against
perceived male brutalities is a factor that weighs heavily on the scale.
Abbo’s good fortune is that the other members are male.
Besides, there are other considerations that will kick in to influence
recommendations after findings have been made; that is, after the ad hoc
committee had been able to do its proper investigation. Against this
backdrop, Abbo becomes a circumstantial captive in the “court” of
his colleagues. Regardless that his conduct is the gravamen under the
focus of the ad hoc committee, it does not disrobe him of his rights as
a senator.
Abbo also enjoys the protection of the Court while, in the long run, he
remains bound by whatever the decisions of the Courts are even on
appeal. Indeed, how the entire process will unravel depends on how the
Senate is able to manage the tension between the exercise of its powers
and tenor of its investigation vis-a-vis the subsistence of judicial
intercession into the same.
The Senate is hereby summoned to a duty of prudence in its so-called
investigation, knowing full well that a precedent is being set that can
produce a boomerang effect concerning the past misconduct of others,
while the Court is not influenced in its determination of the matter.
· OJEIFO, AN ABUJA-BASED JOURNALIST, CONTRIBUTED THIS PIECE VIA
OJWONDERNGR@YAHOO.COM
Sufuyan Ojeifo
Editor- in- Chief
The Congresswatch Magazine
+234 8034727013 +234 8023024800
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [1]