The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday dismissed requests to remove Mr Ibrahim Magu as the acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, even though it faulted his unending stay in office in acting capacity.
Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu delivered separate judgments in five separate suits instituted in 2017 to seek judicial pronouncement on Magu’s continued stay in office since 2015 without Senate confirmation.
The judge declined to sack Magu as prayed in three of the suits where the plaintiffs contended that Magu was not fit to continue to remain in office as EFCC chairman either in acting or substantive capacity, having been rejected by the Senate on two different occasions.
The judge also rejected two other suits in which the plaintiffs contended that Senate confirmation was not required for the President to appoint Magu as the EFCC chairman.
In her judgments on the suits seeking Magu’s removal, the judge held that a person could continue to act as the EFCC’s chairman at the pleasure of the President because there was a lacuna in the law which failed to spell out a time limit for an acting tenure.
Read Also:
She held that Section 2(3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, which provides that members and the chairman of the anti-graft agency could only be appointed by the President subject to the confirmation by the Senate, left a lacuna on how long a person could occupy the office of the commission’s chairman in an acting capacity.
She held that the time limit for the acting tenure, having not been provided by the EFCC Act, the court could not import it from the Civil Service Rules.
“As the law stands today, in my humble view, the period of the tenure of the acting chairman of the EFCC lies with the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to decide,” Justice Ojukwu ruled.
She however dismissed Magu’s contention that his appointment by the President did not require Senate’s confirmation.
“Without sentiment, the acting tenure is not meant to last as long as the substantive office.The acting tenure is not meant to be used to install the person in perpetuity or use that window of the lacuna to install the person in substantive capacity.”
She said in view of the provision of Section 2(3) of the EFCC Act, and Section 171 of the Constitution, “it would be an aberration for this court to hold that the appointment of the EFCC chairman does need senate confirmation.”
The judge held, “Senate confirmation is compulsorily required. Senate confirmation is to ensure the checks and balances needed in our democracy.”
She held that contrary to the argument by Magu’s lawyer, Mr Wahab Shittu, the EFCC was not an “extra-ministerial body” like those created under Section 153 of the Nigerian constitution in which the appointment of their members and chairmen by the President did not require Senate confirmation.
