Falana
Activist cum legal luminary, Femi Falana on Sunday called on the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, not to support the proposed amendment of the Code of Conduct Bereau, CCB, and Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT, Acts by the Senate.
Falana in a letter dated April 15, 2016 to the Speaker described the proposed amendment by the Senate as illegal and unconstitutional.
The Senior Advocate contended that where the constitution already made provisions for an Act, such new provisions would be regarded as invalid, duplication and inoperative.
Falana said the CCB and CCT Act could only be amended when the constitution had been amended first.
The lawyer gave three reasons why the amendment proposed by Senator Peter Nwaoboshi was unconstitutional.
He said: “First, to the extent that the proposed amendment is designed to serve the interests of an individual, it is a violation of section 4 (2) of the Constitution, which has empowered the National Assembly to make laws ‘for the peace, order and good government of the federation or any part thereof,
“Second, notwithstanding that the Senate president has decided not to preside over the plenary in the Senate, whenever the bill is being debated, the whole exercise is a clear violation of Paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers enshrined in Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, which stipulates that ‘a public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his duties and responsibilities’.
“Third, Section 3 of the Act, which the National Assembly seeks to amend, has become spent. Senator Nwaoboshi was reported to have said that he was proposing an amendment to Section 3 of the Act to provide ‘for an opportunity for the person whose rights and obligations may be affected to make representations to the administering authority before that authority makes the decision affecting that person’.
“With respect, Section 3 of the Act is in pari materia with Paragraph 3 (e) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the constitution. To that extent, Section 3 of the Act is inoperative and invalid in every material particular. In Attorney-General of Abia v Attorney-General of the Federation (2001) 17 WRN 1, the Supreme Court held: ‘Where the provision in the Act is within the legislative powers of the National Assembly, but the constitution is found to have already made the same or similar provision, then the new provision will be regarded as invalid for duplication and or inconsistency and therefore inoperative. The same fate will befall any provision of the Act which seeks to enlarge, curtail or alter any existing provision of the Constitution. The provision or provisions will be treated as unconstitutional and therefore null and void.”
Commentaires