The Senate yesterday said the ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja last week on the forgery case against its principal officers vindicated its position on the matter.
The court presided over by Justice Gabriel Kolawole described the forgery case as an abuse of court process and a decision taken against public interest.
In a statement signed by its spokesman on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, the Senate said the ruling further confirmed that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) an Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, was acting personal and partisan script in filing the charges, while simply abusing his position as the nation’s chief law officer.
The Upper Chamber called on Malami to address the issue of his personal and pecuniary interest in the case as he was a counsel to the aggrieved Senators who decided to externalise the issue of election of the leadership of the Senate after they failed in their bid to get their preferred candidate elected.
The lawmakers noted that “as it has now become obvious from the ruling of Justice Kolawole and in the facts of the matter before the Federal High Court, Malami was the one who advised his clients to report the matter to the police, and now that he has become AGF, he decided to use his constitutional powers to pursue private interest by filing a criminal case in the FCT High Court against the subsisting ruling of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.”
“When the Senate invited the AGF to come and throw light on the forgery case, it was not to challenge his right to file, take over or discontinue any criminal case but for him to explain the issues of conflict of interest, abuse of office, disrespect of a subsisting order of a court and violation of the principle of Separation of Powers which are being raised against him.
“When his supporters jumped up and started abusing the Senate over the invitation, we know our position that an Attorney General, and indeed any public officer for whose office public funds are appropriated can be invited by the Senate and the House of Representatives to explain certain issues, is on firm, constitutional ground. And that is in spite of the fact that the AGF is responsible to the President who appointed him. Now, the revelations from the ruling of the court of competent jurisdiction have shown that this AGF has a lot to explain to the public, if not to the one who appointed him.”
Post a Comment