What lawyers say about Magu’s rejection by Senate

Yusuf Ali (SAN)

The Constitution is very clear on matters needing Senate’s confirmation. The president has the prerogative to nominate whoever he feels as long as they meet the criteria. Senate also has powers to confirm them based on its own criteria. So if the senate rejects somebody’s appointment, it is within their powers to do so and there is nothing anybody can do about it. However the president can renominate the same person again and the senate can also reject him and it continues over and over.

Abeny Mohammed (SAN)

The reason given by the senate for rejecting Magu, which is that it has a security report on him is ‘nebulous’. It was not based upon other reasons such as age, qualification etc. so I don’t want to comment further on it.

Paul Erokoro (SAN)

Since the Senate has rejected him it is now left for the president to nominate another person. There is no constitutional implication. The Senate has the powers for confirmation of certain categories of appointees. Once they reject any, there is nothing any one can do about that. The president has to nominate another person; if he chooses to re-nominate the same person, all good.

Emeka Ngige (SAN)

The implication is that he is not a substantive chairman of the EFCC. That is all. I have seen a situation where an acting chairman or director general remained in that capacity from the administration of Yar’Adua to Buhari. 

There is no provision in law that a person cannot act if not confirmed.

However, it is in the interest of the executive arm to resolve this. First by going back to look at the ‘security report’ relied upon by the Senate in rejecting him. If the report is false they can write back to the Senate to say so and thereafter present him again.

There is an error on the procedure adopted by the Senate in rejecting him. I am not sure Magu appeared before the Senate for the purpose of the screening. They should have conducted a public hearing before retiring in chambers to decide.

As far as I am concerned the so-called rejection is not transparent and it is unlawful. We must always be seen to do things in accordance with due process.