The Senate recently passed a resolution after purportedly relying on Section 157(1) of the 1999 Constitution to authorize President Bola Tinubu to dismiss the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Mr Danladi Umar.

The resolution followed the adoption of a motion sponsored by Senator Bamidele Opeyemi (APC-Ekiti).

“The Senate is aware of the overwhelming allegations against the Chairman. Mr President, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, has forwarded Mr Abdullahi Usman Bello’s name to the Senate for confirmation as the new chairman of the tribunal. The Senate plenary on Thursday, July 4, 2024, confirmed Bello’s appointment, thus necessitating the erstwhile chairman to vacate the office for the new Chairman to assume duties officially,” Senator Bamidele said.

The Chief Whip of the Senate, Mohammed Tahir Monguno, explained that the resolution was backed by 72 senators who registered their support at plenary and ten others engaged in committee meetings, making 82 senators.

• ICPC tracks N21 billion constituency projects in Kaduna
• NPC, foundation canvass policy for productivity in civil service

However, a fact-check conducted by PR Nigeria found some lapses in the processes followed by the Senate to clear the road for the removal of the CCT boss.

The medium reviewed Section 157(1) of the 1999 Constitution to assess the constitutional basis cited by the Senate. This section pertains specifically to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and not the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), which are distinct entities.

Section 157(1) states: “Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, a person holding any of the offices to which this section applies may only be removed from that office by the President acting on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senate…”

Subsection (2) further clarifies that this applies to specific positions, including those in the “Code of Conduct Bureau, Federal Civil Service Commission, Independent National Electoral Commission, and other executive bodies,” explicitly omitting the CCT, which operates within the judicial branch of government.

The Fact-Check revealed that instead of Section 157, the removal of the chairman or members of the CCT is governed by Paragraph 17(3) of the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution as amended. This provision states: “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 a two-thirds majority of each House of the National Assembly praying that he be so removed…. for contravention of this Code.”

Thus, the President can only remove such officials based on an address supported by a two-thirds majority from both Houses of the National Assembly (Senate and House of Representatives).

Another error on new appointment

The Fact-Check also showed that the senators equally misrepresented Mr Abdullahi Usman Bello’s appointment. Mr. Bello was appointed as Chairman of the CCB based on his qualifications as a forensic accountant and was cleared for that role by the Senate.

The appointment of the CCT Chairman is detailed in Paragraph 15 of the 5th Schedule to the Constitution: “The Chairman shall be a person who has held or is qualified to hold office as a Judge of a superior court of record in Nigeria… The President shall appoint the Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Tribunal on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC).” Therefore, this cannot apply to Bello, who lacks the requisite judicial qualifications.

The Senators, therefore, erred in their assertion that their actions would facilitate Mr Abdullahi Usman Bello’s appointment as the new Chairman of the CCT. They overlooked that Bello currently serves as Chairman of the CCB, as President Tinubu recommended and by which the Senate themselves cleared him for that purpose.

Speaking to PRNigeria, a legal practitioner Yunus AbdulSalam, SAN, said: “The fact that the import of Section 157(2) of the Constitution eluded our lawmakers in the Senate is alarming and reflects poorly on our constitutional democracy. It sadly highlights a troubling lack of diligence and meticulous scrutiny in their legislative processes.”