On Wednesday, during a closed-door session, the Nigerian Senate approved the removal of Danladi Umar as the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
The embattled chairman’s sack has sparked a wave of controversy, with legal scholars questioning the legality of the Senate’s action.
Dr. Wahab Shittu, SAN, a prominent law scholar, in an interview with Vanguard, dismissed the Senate’s decision as illegal and unconstitutional.
According to Shittu, “Section 17 (3) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides that “A person holding the office of Chairman or member of the Code of Conduct Tribunal shall not be removed from his office or appointment by the President except upon an address supported by two- thirds majority of each House of the National Assembly praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office in question (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body) or for misconduct or for contravention of this Code.
“The powers of removal of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal under the above provision is vested in the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who is to act based on a two-thirds majority decision of each House of the National Assembly supporting the move. In other words, the power of removal is vested in the President subject to the recommendation of both the House of Representatives and the Senate exercisable by a two-thirds majority of their votes.
“The question that arises is whether in the present circumstances, the Senate is entitled to act to finality without carrying along its counterpart—the House of Representatives and without reference to the President? In my view, it will amount to putting the cart before the horse or acting in defiance of presidential powers.
“The Senate is entitled to take that decision but it can only be finalized by carrying along its counterpart—House of Representatives together with reference to the President. The removal authority is actually the president while the two chambers of the National Assembly is the recommender.
“The implication is that no removal can be constitutional without the input of both chambers of the National Assembly and the President. In other words, while it will appear that the Senate acted within constitutional limit of 157(1) of the Constitution to the extent that the incumbent was removed for misconduct, it is important to stress that section 157 (1) of the 1999 Constitution relied upon by the Senate to sack the Code of Conduct Tribunal is inapplicable. He can not be sacked without the input of the House of Representatives and the President as contained in Section 17(3) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.” (Vanguard)
