Follow Us on Google
Whether President Muhammadu Buhari deliberately engulfs himself in needless controversy, or controversy is deliberately thrust on him by those within and outside his party APC), there is no doubt that any given time, the man has more than enough to cope with. Not the least is the latest row over whether he could be summoned by the National Assembly or not.
It all began when the House of Representatives adopted a motion summoning him to appear for necessary information on the state of security (actually, state of insecurity) in the country. To show it meant business, the National Assembly dispatched both Senate President Lawan and House Speaker Gbajabiamila to Aso Rock to deliver their summons. Both men came out to assure Nigerians Buhari had agreed to show up, a relief of their apprehension which must warranted the verbal emissaries in the first place. The implication was that Buhari fully understood what was expected of him and would fully co-operate by appearing yesterday.
The first hint of a looming unnecessary controversy came in an on-line newspaper exclusive report on Tuesday night that APC governors had prevailed on Buhari not to appear before National Assembly or respective state assembly might similarly be summoning a state governor on any pressing issue. That being the case, an excuse as indicated by Attorney-General, Abubakar Malami that the information National Assembly was seeking was the exclusive authority of (any) President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was no surprise.
Inevitably, controversy ensued. Does the National Assembly have the power to summon Buhari? If not, why did Buhari agree to that demand in the first place? If National Assembly has no such power, why did the chamber embark on such political grandstanding of summoning Buhari? Why did National Assembly not assure itself with appropriate legal opinion on its power under the constitution to compell not only Buhari’s appearance but also the disclosure of the information demanded? If the National Assembly obtained the necessary legal opinion on its power to summon Buhari, should such opinion not now be tested at the Supreme Court, for clear-court determination on any ambiguity in Nigeria’s constitution on the limit of the powers of National Assembly?
By the way, so much is being made of relevant sections of the constitution purportedly empowering the National Assembly to summon “ANYBODY.” Really? Under the Shehu Shagari administration, the Senate, under Joseph Wayas as president summoned the then Daily Times editor, Tony Momoh over a publication. Momoh defied and successfully challenged the validity of the summon at a Lagos High Court. Never since then has the National Assembly summoned any journalist. Similarly, following his criticisms of the outrageous earnings of National Assembly members, Itse Sagay, chairman of Presidential Advisory Council against corruption, was rather petulantly summoned by the National Assembly. Sagay called their bluff and dared National Assembly to test their power by prosecuting him in a law court. Again, that was the end of the matter. So much therefore on the power of National Assembly under the constitution to summon any person
Admittedly, in these matters, Buhari may fall into the category of anybody or any person liable to be capably summoned by National Assembly. He is an elected public office holder accountable to Nigerians, perhaps including, through the National Assembly. That is why the National Assembly should have been able to seek interpretation of its power, at a Constitutional Court (Supreme Court) to summon a sitting President. Every political issue or constitutional matter should not be reduced to shameful desperation or blackmail of plot of APC faction against Buhari orPDP against APC government or the seeking of regime change, as Plateau governor Simon Lalong would put it. Till today, disputed sections of American constitution are regularly dragged to Supreme Court for interpretation. In Nigeria’s case, any of the disputants — President Buhari or the National Assembly — should be free to approach Supreme Court for a once and for all interpretation of the powers of National Assembly to summon a sitting president and on what issue if such powers exist.
So doing, we shall gradually be developing our constitution and the beneficiary will not just be President Buhari or National Assembly but Nigeria as a country, Nigerians as a people, future Nigerians and National Assembly, all in the interest of political stability. Nigeria is not a personal or group property but a common wealth belonging to Nigerians now and in the future. It is essential for either Buhari or National Assembly for either side to establish the limit of the power of each other. In particular, it will be crass abdication of responsibility for National Assembly not to approach Supreme Court on this matter. On the other hand, if National Assembly proves unnecessarily obstructionist by tampering with or delaying defence vote, Buhari himself should head for Supreme Court to assert his immunity against being summoned by National Assembly for what he claims to be unlawful disclosure of military/security operations.
Expectedly, that may bazzar for counsel on both sides. So let it be as long as monumental legal/constitutional points are determined beyond any doubt in the future.
Other News
On his part, President Buhari must firm up on controversies surrounding him or which others either innocently or mischievously build round him. It is safe to assume that in summoning him, members of (his) APC in National Assembly were acting innocently by impressing angry Nigerians on the question of insecurity in the country. In which case, Buhari was not necessarily on trial and if he was not going to oblige them by appearing at the National Assembly, this should have been instantly made clear to them, rather than eventually reducing them to simpletons. Perhaps, Buhari was in doubt of the power of National Assembly to summon him.. That being so, he (Buhari) was not bound to positively respond to the demand of National Assembly that he (should) appear for necessary information on security situation in the country. It was within reasonable limit if Buhari requested Senate President and House Speaker for forty-eight hours for his response.
Who could be luckier than President Buhari to be blessed with three powerful legal minds for necessary advice within six hours on the legality or otherwise of the summon of National Assembly to be addressed on the security situation in the country. Vice-President Yemi Osibajo, Attorney-General Abubakar Malami and Chairman Presidential Advisory Council on Anti-Corruption, Itse Sagay are such that collectively or individually, could produce, within hours, such legal opinion acceptable to any court in Nigeria.
Even if Buhari was still not satisfied, he could seek further legal advice outside government on his immunity from being summoned by National Assembly and such would not be unprecedented. During the constitutional crisis over the controversial `964 federal elections, (the then) President Nnamdi Azikiwe, sought the legal advice of attorney-general Taslim Elias on his (Zik’s) power to assume executive authority and order fresh elections. Elias was blunt such move would be unconstitutional. Zik still proceeded to seek legal opinion outside government from Professor Gower of University of Lagos, who also upheld attorney-general Elias’ legal opinion that Zik had no such power. For a third opinion, Zik sought the legal view of Dan Ibekwe, attorney-general of the defunct eastern region, who concurred with the legal view of his two colleagues that Zik, (specifically ceremonial President) had no such authority. But all withindays if not hours.
When did Buhari make up his mind not to appear before National Assembly or when did he decide to flaunt his immunity against appearing at the National Assembly? Whichever was the case, it was wrong to initially give national assembly members the impression to be expected to brief them on a matter on which he later turned round to claim exclusivity and/or secrecy.
By the way, critics must not be led astray. Buhari, in his objection to being summoned, was tactful. He does not appear to be disputing National Assembly’ power to summon him at all, as a matter of authority. Instead, the argument is against being demanded or even forced to disclose information on military operations. Two different specific issues. It is also not clear if Buhari’s refusal to disclose information on military operations would also and finally put paid to all demands for sacking service chiefs.
On the other hand, there is nothing iron clad about not giving information on military operations. In the United States for example, on matters like information on military operations or intelligence gathering, members of the relevant committees in both houses of Congress are not necessarily completely kept in the dark especially in grave occasions. At that stage, these members of relevant committees in Congress are invited to White House in Washington for appropriate briefings by the American President. There is every time, mutual co-operation between Congress and the Presidency.
In Nigeria’s case, it is a poor picture, with the erroneous impression that the request to be briefed is necessarily erosion of President Buhari’s power or authority. Instead, the issues at stake is the security of ordinary Nigerians in different parts of the country. Whatever the constitutional provisions or even the limits of either National Assembly or even President Buhari himself, no power struggle is involved and a way should be worked out to involve both the executive and National Assembly. Borrowing a leaf from United States, members of relevant committees in National Assembly could be invited to Aso Rock for proper briefing. These are armed forces committee, national security or intelligence committee, etc.
And the final point. Attorney-General Mallami’s flaunting president Buhari’s immunity at the last minute is more of a pre-emptive strike to forestal possible criticisms against potential public reaction against APC governors reported to have, in the first place, dissuaded Buhari from keeping his date at the National Assembly, lest state governors be similarly summoned one after another by their state assemblies.
