SENATORS are angry over the refusal of the presidency to
subject nominees into appointive offices to screening and confirmation
processes before they are asked to assume office, with many of them declaring
that what is fast becoming a fad under the Muhammadu Buhari-led administration
is an affront on the legislature.
The lawmakers, who spoke under strict condition of
anonymity, insisted that the decision by President Muhammadu Buhari to name
some appointees without a recourse to the Senate was not only a violation of
the laws, but also a way of tying the hands of the Senate in confirming such
appointments.
President Buhari had named the chairman of the
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in acting capacity, besides
the appointment of the board of the Asset Management Company of Nigeria (AMCON)
and the chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) before referring
them to Senate for confirmation.
The president also named appointees to the National
Communications Commission (NCC) without confirmation by the Senate.
Presidential Adviser on Media and Publicity, Femi
Adesina, two weeks ago, said the letter requesting the confirmation of AMCON
appointees had been prepared in readiness for dispatch to the Senate.
Sources in the Senate, however, said the lawmakers were
angry that their powers to dispassionately assess the nominees were being
eroded, as the appointees had already assumed office, started drawing salaries
and allowances and had also started implementing policies.
“It is wrong for an appointee, who is supposed to be
confirmed by the Senate before appointment, to assume office and then come for
confirmation. In such situation, the man is already enjoying the pecks of
office and the confirmation is being made to look like a fiat accomplished,”
one of the senators said.
The lawmaker said the general opinion among his
colleagues was to lay ambush for those who had assumed duties before their
confirmation by the Senate.
“Notwithstanding the argument being held on to by the
Presidency, the fact is that the Senate was not set up as a rubberstamp
institution.
“The Senate should be in a position to confirm or reject
a nominee and it is absurd for the nominee to appear before the Senate for
confirmation with all the paraphernalia of the office he is seeking,” another
senator said.
“You don’t see this in the United States of America from
where we borrow our democracy. Appointees are grilled by the Senate and the
chamber reserves the right to reject anyone without ruffling feathers.
“In our case, however, once any of these nominees is
rejected, the media would shout it that Senate removes Buhari’s nominee. It’s
unprecedented and uncalled for,” another senator said on Tuesday.
A senator further said the appointments by Buhari
amounted to a violation of the constitution, since the appointees had resumed
office and started acting before their appointments were confirmed by the
Senate.
According to him, the constitution provided that the
appointments shall be subject to Senate confirmation, adding that it was absurd
that some of the appointees had started spending money from the office before
their confirmation.
“What we are seeing concerning these appointments amount
to an offence and gross breach of the constitution. I am aware that senators
are peeved by this conduct and there is the thinking that some of those who
have assumed office might have disqualified themselves.
“The lawmakers consider the development as an abuse of
their respect for Buhari and that the act is undermining the Senate,” a senator
in the know said.
Another senator said tough questions actually await any
nominee who assume office before clearance by the Senate, adding that the
lawmakers would be tempted to ask why they needed Senate confirmation after
they had assumed duty.
“They will also be asked what legal grounds they relied
on to assume duty when the Senate was yet to confirm them,” a source in the
legislature said on
Tribune
0 comments:
Post a Comment