It is no longer news that the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar<\/p>\n
Malami (SAN), has proffered forgery charges against the leadership of the<\/p>\n
Senate. Forgery is a very serious allegation. This presupposes that the<\/p>\n
accused persons in this case conspired to forge the Rules of the Senate.<\/p>\n
To make such an outlandish claim against the leadership of the highest<\/p>\n
lawmaking body, the National Assembly, would require that the attorney<\/p>\n
general has done his homework well and his case is not just unassailable<\/p>\n
but that it would be a matter of National Security not to fully prosecute<\/p>\n
the case. Any other suggestion with less weight, would have incalculable<\/p>\n
ramification for the development of our democracy, good governance and the<\/p>\n
perception of Nigeria in the eye of the international community. But can<\/p>\n
this be the case?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s examine the issues for a moment. Part 2 of the 1999 Constitution<\/p>\n
Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution clearly provides for our government to<\/p>\n
be based on three separated but equal arms of government on whom power is<\/p>\n
shared in such a manner that neither of the other or a combination can<\/p>\n
intimidate, influence or supervise the other in the running of its<\/p>\n
internal affairs but must necessarily in the spirit of co-equality work<\/p>\n
together to ensure the rule of law.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Section 60 of the constitution provides that \u201cSubject to the provisions of<\/p>\n
this Constitution, the Senate or the House of Representatives shall have<\/p>\n
power to regulate its own procedure, including the procedure for summoning<\/p>\n
and recess of the House.\u201d The Constitution again declares under section 64<\/p>\n
as follows \u201c64. (1) The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each<\/p>\n
stand dissolved at the expiration of a period of four years commencing<\/p>\n
from the date of the first sitting of the House.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The implication of these two provisions for the purposes of this article<\/p>\n
will be examined as if they refer only to the Senate. It will be apparent<\/p>\n
on the face of the provisions that the Senate Rules are made by the Senate<\/p>\n
for itself. It will also be easy to conclude that by the combined effects<\/p>\n
of the two provisions, the rules of a new Senate are not dependent on how<\/p>\n
consistent it is with the outgoing Senate. This is because aside the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 64 of the Constitution which borrows from the<\/p>\n
practice of the parliament of the United Kingdom, the implication of<\/p>\n
dissolution of parliament is that the old parliament ceases to exist<\/p>\n
(dissolves), which in this case under our constitution has been defined as<\/p>\n
(after 4 years). Meaning that every activities not concluded by the<\/p>\n
outgoing Senate becomes annulled.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The implication includes that the in-coming Senate becomes a fresh Senate<\/p>\n
that starts afresh. This new Senate\u2019s power to make Rules for itself is<\/p>\n
not dependent on having and indeed adopting the former Senate Rules. The<\/p>\n
former Senate Rules is only helpful as a guide at best or a template. This<\/p>\n
template is either amended, adopted, approved by the incoming Senate for<\/p>\n
itself.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The question then that arises is that under what Rules is the election and<\/p>\n
swearing in of Senators-elect based. In order to answer this question,<\/p>\n
let\u2019s examine and understand the process of inauguration of a new Senate.<\/p>\n
Having established that by the provisions of the constitution, a former<\/p>\n
senate dissolves into non existence, it goes without saying that the rules<\/p>\n
to be adopted for the proclamation of a new Senate and the election of<\/p>\n
members can only be based on the culture, custom and usage of the Senate.<\/p>\n
This position becomes even tenable with the fact that until sworn-in,<\/p>\n
members remain by the Constitution, merely senators-elect with no<\/p>\n
authority to adopt, apply or in anyway authorize anything whatsoever until<\/p>\n
sworn in. In this case, only the clerk of the National Assembly who is the<\/p>\n
harbinger of the rules and is in-charge of the conduct of the proceeding<\/p>\n
can determine the procedure to be adopted. I can’t recall any objection by<\/p>\n
any senator-elect to the process or the rules adopted on the day by the<\/p>\n
Clerk of the National Assembly in swearing in and through the election<\/p>\n
process.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
According to the AGF, his decision has been based on the petition from<\/p>\n
certain senators and the\u00a0 report of the police investigation. The petition<\/p>\n
and the report put together claim that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 as<\/p>\n
amended upon which the Senate leadership election was based is not<\/p>\n
authentic but forged.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
But is this conclusion grounded in fact and in law?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In fact, it is hardly plausible putting together the ingredients of<\/p>\n
forgery into play, the practicability of the so called conspiracy to<\/p>\n
forgery would have taken place effectively. To start with, these questions<\/p>\n
must be answered positively. If there is forgery of the 2015 Rules it<\/p>\n
presupposes that there is an original, the AG must have this original from<\/p>\n
which he must have determined that indeed forgery has occurred.\u00a0 Two, if<\/p>\n
the clerk who is the bearer of the rules has not alleged forgery and the<\/p>\n
Senate in chamber has adopted and ratified their rules as authentic, can<\/p>\n
the courts hold otherwise in view of the separation of powers and non<\/p>\n
interference on each other’s turf? Can the AGF based on any other report<\/p>\n
craft a charge of forgery? If the charge is based on the old 2011 rules,<\/p>\n
how is it that Saraki who was neither the keeper of nor a principal<\/p>\n
officer of the 2011 assembly be held responsible in law?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
While we had earlier established the fact that no arm of government<\/p>\n
including the Executive has supervisory role over another arm, a fact<\/p>\n
strongly highlighted under section 30 and 32 of the Legislative Houses<\/p>\n
(Powers & Privileges) Act. LFN 2010 CAP 234 which limits the powers of the<\/p>\n
executive and the judiciary to pry into the activities of the legislative<\/p>\n
houses, one is hard pressed to understand the grounding of the Attorney<\/p>\n
General\u2019s position. It is arguable and almost very easily, except for the<\/p>\n
pedigree attached to the AGF office to suggest that the AGF may have in<\/p>\n
this case over-reached himself and severely damaged his own pedigree<\/p>\n
almost irredeemably as his position is hardly tenable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I hope we are not making a caricature of our democracy and damaging our<\/p>\n
people\u2019s right and opportunity to live in a thriving democracy. The AGF<\/p>\n
must ensure he has done his homework well as this from afar smell of<\/p>\n
gibberish.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Amaku is Senior Special Assistant to Senate President<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It is no longer news that the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), has proffered forgery charges against the leadership of the Senate. Forgery is a very serious…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":48290,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51076","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-opinions"],"yoast_head":"\n