By Omonyi Salaudeen

N the opinion of Yusuf Ali (SAN), the executive does not have the monopoly of knowledge to know what is good for the country. Making reference to sections 80 and 81, he argues that the Constitution does not envisage a rubber stamp legislature.

There is controversy as to whether or not the National Assembly has the right to tamper with the items of the budget submitted by the executive. What is your position on this?

By my own understanding, what people call budget is what is called money bill under the constitution. This usually comes like a bill just in the same way all are submitted before the National Assembly. The whole essence of a legislature going through a bill is to look at it. If they agree with the way everything is presented, they pass it. If they do not, they can thinker with it like any other law. That is why the normal bills are open to public hearing except the budget. We must not take a position that only the executive knows what is best for the country. Don’t forget that the people in the National Assembly were equally elected by their own constituents too.

So, they also have the interest of their own people, knowing what they need. If you are elected to the National Assembly and what is important to your own constituent is not contained in a particular budget, I form the impression that members in the legislature can look and say this is what my constituent wants and not what is contained in the budget. Remember that even when the budget is passed, it is still a proposal until it is assented to. It is when it is assented to that it becomes an Act. I do not belong to a school of thought that believes that the National Assembly should be just a rubber stamp. I don’t think that is the spirit behind the Constitution that gives the National Assembly power under sections 80 and 81 that any money bill must be appropriated by the legislature.

Without the National Assembly appropriating it, you cannot spend the money. You cannot spend money from consolidated revenue fund until it is appropriated by the National Assembly. Then, the National Assembly is not expected to be a rubber stamp because you have to look at the spirit of the constitution.  We must look at where we copied our constitution from. There has never been a time anybody questioned the power of the Congress to look at a bill. That is why you hear sometimes that they lock down the government. It happened during Obama’s time when there was disagreement on some projects in the budget. I don’t think the National Assembly should be a rubber stamp legislature. It is a different thing if what you bring into the budget is not in the national interest. If as a legislator, I say this is what my people need, how can you say that is not right?

To avoid such needless controversy, what if they involve the relevant ministries instead of infusing their own items into the budget directly?

I don’t think they need to go through the relevant ministries before they can consider a law. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion. I am also entitled to my own. What I don’t support is for people to infuse things in the budget just for selfish reasons. But if it is a project that will benefit their people, I don’t see anything wrong in it. In fact, that is the whole essence of being a legislator. You can’t fold your arms and then your constituent will be suffering. If the executive does not see the need, you that is closer to the people can canvass it. Even when it comes to the amendment of the constitution itself, they play an active role. You cannot say they must approve it the way it is brought. I can’t see such limitation is the wordings of the constitution. All these things are based on individual’s interpretation.  And I think until the highest court makes a final pronouncement before some of these issues can be laid to rest.

You seem to have been vindicated by your position that the anti-graft agencies are doing media trial particularly with the recent acquittal of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, of false asset declaration by the Code of Conduct Tribunal. But the Federal Government is still going ahead to appeal the case.

(Cuts in)… It is their right to do so. For me, I don’t have problem with that as long as the rule of law is being followed. It is within their right to pursue whatever is legally available. What I have problem with is using extra legal means to prosecute a suspect. 

Is there a way a victim of such celebrated trial can seek a redress?

Our law is weak in that area. This kind of experience will teach all of us to ensure that victims of unwarranted criminal trial have some succor under the law. For me, I think we are getting to a point where we should have something like that not for victims of crime but for people who are wrongly tried by the state.

What then would be the public perception of individuals who have undergone such trial?

It is obvious. Unfortunately, here is a country where people hear just one side of the story.  And that is the danger in media trial. I just want to imagine the trauma such individuals and members of their family would go through.  And that is why some of us campaign against media trial. Let us be sure because once you damage the image of a man, it is difficult to build.

Related News

But there is an argument that the fact that a person is discharged and acquitted by the court does not necessarily mean that the person is innocent of the crime he is being accused of. What is your take on that?

That is a moral judgment. The only system we know is a court making a pronouncement. And that is why the law says it is better for nine guilty men to go free rather than convict an innocent person. Don’t forget that the whole process of court is an imperfect institution. So, it is a possibility. It is also a possibility that somebody who has been convicted is wrongly convicted too.  He may not have committed the offence. There are cases in history where people have been convicted and sent to jail or executed only to know years later that he was not the one who committed the offence. How do you atone for somebody who has been wrongly executed for an offence he never committed? That is why the law says that it is better for nine guilty men to go scot-free rather than convict an innocent person wrongly.

What about the issue of Nigerian factor in all of these arguments?

We are all Nigerians, we are all Nigerians. The day an average person comes to his senses to know that all these things are wrong, the day things will change. Unfortunately, things are never wrong unless it happens from the other side. And nothing is ever right except it comes from your own end. As long as we can live with corruption committed by somebody who is our friend, church man or mosque man, we will be dancing in a circle.

What is the way to get out of the media trial?

One, there should be a proper reorientation of our security agencies. At the first point of call, I think they should stop going to the media. The media too must exercise a lot of restraints. An allegation is made and then you see the banner headlines everywhere. That is why people are hysterical when the court does not find favour with your perception. There must be something in our law that says if a crime is wrongly advertised against a person and that person is not involved in any crime, that agency must be indemnified.

That also boils down to the capacity of the agencies to investigate. Not so?

In other climes, you may not hear that somebody is being investigated until he is taken to court. I have said it before that there is a need to build human capital in all these agencies.

Could it have been better if persons other than the police are considered to head agency like the EFCC?

I believe that men of character cannot only be found in the police. I think the chairmanship of the EFCC should be thrown open to any eligible Nigerian who is found worthy of character and who has basic anti-corruption instinct and credentials not necessarily somebody who had served in the police or any of the forces. You can hardly act outside your background. And that is why I think the chairmanship of the EFCC should be liberalized. We have so many Nigerians of good integrity that can do the work pretty well; after all, you as the chairman, you are not supposed to be carrying gun. I think any Nigerian of credible anti-corruption instinct can adequately do the work. So, maybe we need to amend the EFCC Act so that the confinement of the chairmanship to the police officer can be removed.