By Saratu Tobi
The on-going spat between the House of Representatives and Petroleum Minister, Diezani Allison-Madueke, has moved from head-hunting legislative harassment to the realm of judicial adjudication on the constitutionality of arbitrary blanket subordination of a minister’s status under the Executive arm to oversight functions of the Legislature. This is a welcome option for a mature and independent overview of the peculiar targeting of Diezani by the Tambuwal-led House of Representatives, in a manner indicative of political malice against the minister. Not even the speaker can convincingly project the serial-summoning of one particular minister as being solely motivated by legislative interest. So it is not only in the interest of the minister but also to preserve the credibility of the constitutional provisions for separation of powers, that such lacuna for unleashing legislative powers against perceived political soft targets by partisan legislators be excised.
This much-needed sanitization of the oversight functions of the legislature by definitive judicial determination of their necessary scope and limits is the main objective of the latest suit against the legislature’s stalking of Diezani under the guise of exercising oversight functions to fight corruption. The LamidoSanusi saga provided a high-definition insight into the conspiracy behind the APC campaign of calumny and the permissive latitude extended to Sanusi by the committee of the House over the bogus 49/20/12 billion dollar missing oil proceeds. Despite the monumental failure of that sleaze, the House has persisted by opening yet another front in its anti-Diezani agenda. Its latest resolution to investigate Shell and the minister over yet another “alleged illegal” sale of Oil Mining License 29, proves beyond any doubt the malice of the House.
Specifically, the judicial challenge of the recourse to oversight power of the legislature for political persecution of the Executive initiated in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/346/2014 emphasizes “that by law, the respondents are enjoined to seek the consent of the President before ordering the applicants to tender the official unpublished papers, books, and records” and further that “all the documents being requested of the applicants by the respondents are unpublished official records, and the respondents in all their invitations have never shown to the applicants, any such evidence of presidential consent, after numerous demands made by the applicants that they do so.”
The suit cited Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and Section 8 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap. L12 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010 and sought ‘‘an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from summoning them or any agencies under their supervision or control, to appear before them for the purpose of giving evidence which relate to the unpublished official records of the Applicants without the consent of the President.’’
The suit also prayed the court to declare that the respondents lacked the power “to conduct investigation into allegations of fraud, corruption or other criminal activities said to have occurred in the agencies under the applicants’ supervision or control when such probe or investigation is not for the purpose of enabling the respondents make laws or correct any defect in existing laws.”
Thus, due process that upholds the principle of separation of powers in the exercise of legislative functions over the Executive is a necessity predicated on the cited relevant Sections 88 and 89 which established a process for access and retrieval of certain documentary information within the Executive.
No less important in the reformatory objectives of the suit is the focus on the ultimate purpose of legislative inquiries, probes and hearings as defined by the constitution which is categorically tied to “the purpose of enabling the respondents make laws or correct any defect in existing laws.” Respecting this provision governing legislative probes will surely restore purpose and sanity to the prevailing predatory political predilection of legislative oversight functions and public hearings, particularly in respect of Diezani and NNPC. There will be need for more circumspection and pre-validation of the concocted allegations that usually form the basis for vexatious summons, hearings and other vindictive legislative “oversight” activities. Above all, it shall be made known to all and sundry how the subject matter relates to law-making or law-amending duties of the legislature, effectively relieving the legislature of its self-imposed ill-suited role of accuser, investigator and judge in its dubious anti-corruption posture, now seen in its true colours.
It is hoped that the motivations behind the minister/NNPC’s move to restore due process, law and order into the exercise of legislative oversight over the Executive will meet with the noble arbitration and wise adjudication expected of the judiciary as it stands between the other two estates of the realm in moderating a workable interrelationship for the success of democracy.
Tobi wrote from Kaduna
Blueprint Newspapers on WhatsAp-Join now!