The Senate, CCT and the politics of Saraki’s trial By Reuben Abati

The present Senate serving the Nigerian people runs the risk of being remembered as the worst since 1999.  Public Relations Consultants and media officials of this particular Senate have done their part flooding both the print and the online media with details of how productive the Bukola Saraki-led Senate has been, and they have been quite aggressive in telling us about 30 important Bills which when passed, will change the face of Nigeria and deliver change.

The Senate according to one report has considered over 125 bills, debated over 48 motions, and passed three bills. But nobody is apparently impressed. During the Jonathan administration, the Senate was the better regarded of the two legislative chambers. While members of the House of Representatives in the Seventh Assembly behaved as if they were a band of students’ unionists, the then Red Chamber projected an image of maturity and temperance, even if it was also self-serving! With the 8th Assembly, the House of Representatives, apart from the shameful resort to physical combat over the distribution of “juicy” committees in November 2015, has shown itself to be better organized than the present Senate. The critical difference is that of leadership. It is one of management. It is a matter of weight and politics. 

President Buhari is not sincere with corruption fight – Sagay

Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, headed President Muhammadu Buhari’s advisory committee on anti-corruption. He speaks with OLAKUNLE TAIWO on the legal implications of the Kogi governorship election, why some key institutions are corrupt, the president’s integrity and his anti-graft crusade, among others. Excerpts:

AS a constitutional lawyer, what do you think would have been the right thing to do in Kogi when the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate, Prince Audu Abubakar, died before the declaration of the results of the election?

You know the issue is new and there was no provision for such at all in the constitution, but somehow the decision should have been at the discretion of the Attorney-General of the Federation or the prerogative of the court to actually decide which way to go. It was like a lacuna or lawless case, where anybody can just act the way he feels, because there was no provision for it. So, both parties can do what they like and that is just it. Sincerely, there is an extent to which the case can be prosecuted legally, because having no provision for it, it has created a loophole for anybody to act anyhow. We will just be making noise. Therefore, in such a case, the judiciary or anybody can be influenced.

How do you mean sir?