‘Forgery of Senate rules, a treasonable act’

As reactions continue to trail the arraignment of the President of Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki and his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, a rights activist and convener of Movement for the Voice of Democracy (MOVERS), Mr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, has said the offences for which the leaders of the upper chamber of the National Assembly are being tried is treasonable.

In an interview with The Guardian on the matter, Okonkwo said the trial does not amount to interference by the Federal Government in the affairs of the lawmakers “the most important thing Nigerians fail to understand is the origin of that senate rules. Where is the origin? It is derived from the constitution, and if anything is derived from the constitution, it cannot be a private property. The critical thing is that the power to make rules by the senate is derived from the constitution. And that document is like altering the constitution.

So it is a very serious issue. That is one good job that I would congratulate the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami for acting boldly. But I am not happy that he did not go to the senate to answer the summons on him. There he would have told the senate that it cannot commit treason against the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Reminded that the previous alteration for the standing Rule in 2003, 2007 and 2011 respectively, followed similar process, the rights activist said: “The fundamental issue in this matter is that the standing rules of the senate are made pursuant to the constitution. The constitution gave them powers to make the rules; it is just like the rules of the court. Before you can inaugurate the rules of court under the headship of the judiciary, you must find a committee to scrutinize it before it is adopted. It follows due process. So, it is different from the proceedings of the senate, which is a private domestic affair of the senate. They can decide to abrogate their proceedings and you cannot adjudicate on that issue. But for them to change the rules of 2011, the amendment is not a domestic affair of the senate. It is a highly constitutional issue and it is treasonable felony.”

He rejected that having canvassed the alleged amendment in the plenary ousts the jurisdiction of the court as in the case of late Abraham Adesanya, contending that in the present circumstances there was nothing to vote. It is not the same thing as the issue that was canvassed on the floor. It is not the same thing as senator Abraham Adesanya’s case, when after participating in a debate he went back to challenge it in court. There was nothing to vote for. This is treason; treason is when you want to subjugate or surreptitiously undermine the instrument of power, which is the constitution. It is much more grievous than when you come to vote you have a first bite and second bite.”

On the fact that the amendments so made, pertaining to the method of voting does not offend the constitution or the Electoral Act, Okonkwo said, “One thing we are losing sight of is that the powers of the senate to make laws or conduct proceedings are different from the powers donated to the senators in the constitution for the procedure of conducting business; it is a right derived under the constitution and the AGF have a duty to protect the constitution.”

He maintained that the recourse to the court “is about the only reasonable thing this AGF has done right so far since they started. I give him kudos for that.”

On the public perception that the trial was motivated to heap a moral burden on the senate leadership, the 2003 Anambra State governorship candidate of Nigeria Advance Party (NAP), stressed that: “it is for Nigerians to decide; in Nigeria we have no moral code. Everybody is clinging on to the provisions of the constitution that unless you are proven guilty by a court of law you don’t have any moral burden. It is our own cross let us carry it.”

Responding to the attempt by the prosecution to tempt the court into levying draconian bail conditions on the accused persons, Okonkwo said: “Our constitution and the laws and protocols of trial allow a judge the discretion to grant bail on certain conditions. That discretion must be used judicially and judiciously. If you want to question the discretion of a judge, then you question the integrity of the court via Section 6, so it is the discretion of the judge, and that is why when you have a counsel, or conducting the case yourself, you must find a way to align yourself with the pathways to exercise that special favour in your own favour. It is not a hard and fast rule. The law is not a respecter of office or persons.”

Given that the alleged forgery took place more than one year into the life of the eighth plenary, does it not buttress the assertion that the Federal Government was out to nail Saraki and Ekweremadu at all costs? “You must take away the Federal Government out of this. The sentiment we have in this country is that we don’t fight straight; the provision of section 174 of the constitution is sacred and sacrosanct. The powers of the AGF, is not something that is at the discretion of the president, because we are a willy-nilly nation that has no principles. You can see what happened in England, the minister of finance of the government in power disagreed with his prime minister and voted for Britain to exit from the EU. So there must be ideology, even judicial officers should have ideology.”