Lawyer sues Buhari, Osinbajo over public assets declaration, fuel shortages
A lawyer and rights activist, Kabir Akingbolu has in two separate suits sued President Muhammadu Buhari and his vice, Yemi Osinbajo at the Federal High Court, Lagos for failing to make public their assets declaration as well as curbing the perennial fuel shortages.
The applicant is contending that by declaring their assets secretly, Buhari and Osinbajo have violated Section 172 and Section 11 (1) and (2) of the Code of Conduct for public officers under the fifth schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Apart from Buhari and Osinbajo, other defendants in the suit are the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).
Buhari and Osinbajo had declared their assets to the CCB secretly, a development which drew public condemnation, with many insisting that it was a sharp departure from the anti-corruption posture of the president and his vice. Akingbolu, who formulated three questions for the court’s determination, is asking an order declaring that it was mandatory for the CCB to publicly publish the assets of Buhari and Osinbajo.
He is also seeking a declaration that the secret declaration of assets by Buhari and Osinbajo was unconstitutional, and an order mandating them to publicly declare their assets in line with the Code of Conduct for public officers under the fifth schedule to the Constitution. Akingbolu in the other suit said President Buhari failed to make adequate provision for the production and supply of petroleum products to all citizens at a regulated price.
The applicant also listed the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as the second defendant. The lawyer stressed that considering the nature and extent of inconveniences which the citizens of the country were being subjected to by the lack of petroleum products, especially the Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), the failure of Buhari, as the Chief Executive Officer of the country, to act by making the products sufficiently available, was capable of causing breach of peace and serious discomfiture for the citizenry.
He formulated four questions for the court’s determination and argued that the failure of the president to address the scarcity was a breach of the oath of office which was administered on him on May 29, 2015 and a violation of the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 130 (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.