Ministerial screening: Amaechi fights back
 |
| Mr. Rotimi Amaechi |
written three letters on why the Senate should not stop his
screening as a ministerial nominee.
He said the allegations against him were not only false but
also made malafide with the intent to “solely irritate,
embarrass and tarnish his hard-earned reputation.”
He said he should be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved.
He said since there are pending cases at the Federal High
Court, Abuja and the Court of Appeal, any action by the
Senate will be subjudice. He asked the Senate to preserve its Standing Order which
bars it from dabbling in any matter pending before a court.
Amaechi broke his silence in three separate letters to the
President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki,and Senate
Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions.
The letters were written by his solicitor, Edward E. Pepple.
In the letters, he asked the Senate to “discard” the petition
against him by the Integrity Group and the report of the
Justice G. G. Omereji Judicial Commission of Inquiry.
Citing the case of ex-Vice President Atiku Abubakar,
Amaechi said the Supreme Court had emphasized that an
indictment by the Judicial Commission of Inquiry or
Administrative Panel is not an “indictment” or sufficient for
the purpose of preventing a person from holding a public
office.
The October 12 letter to Saraki (EW/GC/CRA/15/012) reads
in part: “ It has informally come to our client’s attention that
the Judicial Commission of Inquiry set up by the Governor of
Rivers State, Chief/Barr. Nyesom Ezenwo Wike, to judicially
investigate our client and probe into some transactions of the
Rivers State Government undertaken during the tenure of our
client has purportedly come up with a report based on which
the Governor and Government of Rivers State have
supposedly also issued a White Paper, wherein it has
proposed that certain steps and actions should be taken
against our client.
“Of course, this is clearly in defiance of the pending suit at
the Court of Appeal on the issue.
“It is important to mention that our client only became aware
of this situation through a news bulletin aired on both the
Channels Television and the Independent African Television
(AIT). Apart from those, no other form of communication has
been sent to our client, whether directly or indirectly.
“As had been mentioned in our earlier letters, our client is
challenging the competence and validity of the Judicial
Commission of Inquiry and its powers to make any valid or
binding decision or pronouncement as it relates to him. The
matter is pending at the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt
Division, in suit No. CA/PH/342/2015; Between Rt. Hon.
Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi (claimant/appellant) and the
Governor of Rivers State; Attorney General of Rivers State;
Judicial Commission of Inquiry and 7 others (defendants/
respondents).
“On the 14th of July 2015, our client caused to be issued an
originating summons against the Governor of Rivers State,
the Attorney General of Rivers State, the Judicial
Commission of Inquiry and 7 others before the High Court of
Rivers State, presided over by Hon. Justice S.C. Amadi in
suit No. PHC/189/2015 between Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi
Amaechi vs. The Governor Of Rivers State & 9 Others,
wherein he challenged the competence and powers of the
Hon. Justice G.O. Omereji Judicial Commission of Inquiry to
carryout judicial function of investigating him and making
pronouncements thereof, instead of the authorities
established by law to do so. However, Hon Justice S.C.
Amadi on the 20th of August 2015 dismissed the suit on very
spurious and unjustifiable grounds. This led to the appeal
referred to above.
“Much as we do not intend to canvas our arguments at the
Court of Appeal before the Distinguish Senate, it is pertinent
to highlight some salient provisions of the law and
pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on this
issue and the rationale for our client’s challenge of the
competence of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry.
“ The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the
grundnorm upon which every other law derives. Therefore,
any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is to the
extent of the inconsistency void. Section 6 of the Constitution
establishes the judicial powers of a state, which is vested in
the courts, being courts established for a state pursuant to
the Constitution. Section 272 of the Constitution provides for
the jurisdiction of the High Court of a state, in this case,
Rivers State. See the provisions of sections 1, 6, 36, 251 and
272 of the Constitution on the above propositions of the law.
“On the other hand, the summary of the provisions sections 7
(b-f), 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 21 of the Commission of Inquiry
Law (Cap 30), Laws of Rivers State 1999 is to the effect that
the commission under that law has the power to summon,
issue warrants of arrest, impose fines, commit for contempt
and summarily convict and impose terms of imprisonment.
This is contrary to the express provisions of the constitution.
These are obviously powers exercisable by the courts.
“This position of the law has been upheld and reaffirmed
severally by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. In the case of
Doherty V. Balewa (1961-1962) NSCC (page 248) at 257,
lines 35-50, the Supreme Court in a similar situation with the
instant case held as follows:
“The power of the commission to impose imprisonment is
clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 20, and this was
not disputed by the Attorney-General. This must also apply
to the power to impose a fine, which is enforceable by
imprisonment. In these circumstances, we would hold that
Sections 8, 15 and 18 are invalid to the extent that they
purport to empower a commissioner to inflict a punishment
of a fine or imprisonment that the Sections should be ‘read
down’ accordingly.”
Earlier in an October 9 letter to Saraki and the Senate
Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions (EW/
GC/CRA/15/011), Amaechi said the petition against him by
Integrity Group was heinous.
He said: Sir, following the receipt of the letter for and on
behalf of the Distinguished Senate (Committee on Ethics,
Privileges and Public Petitions)which was graciously served
on our client today (9th October, 2015) with a copy of the
petition, accordingly inviting him to appear before the
committee, we wish to furnish you and the committee with
some further and better particulars, hence this letter.
“ We make bold to say that as grievous, heinous and
worrisome as the contents of the petition may seem on the
face value, it is as malicious, dubious and libelous as it is
falsehood.
“As we had stated in our earlier letter, whereas our client is
very desirous of defending himself of these allegations made
against him, we are sincerely afraid that he is, in this case,
constrained and unable to do so before the distinguished
Senate at this moment. This is because the subject matter of
the petition is subjudice, being issues pending and subsisting
before courts of competent jurisdiction. The cases include:
1. Suit No: CA/PH/342/2015; Between Rt. Hon. Chibuike
Rotimi Amaechi (claimant/ appellant) and the Governor
of Rivers State; Attorney General of Rivers State; Judicial
Commission of Inquiry and 7 others (defendants/
respondents), pending at the Court of Appeal, Port
Harcourt Division. (ANNEXURE 1)
2. Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/2677/15; between Advante
Consulting & Mgt Co Ltd; Result Import Export Co Ltd;
Capital Index Ltd (plaintiffs) and Livingstone Wechie (for
and on behalf of the Integrity Group), The Sun Publishing
Ltd, Leaders and Company Ltd and Guardian
Newspapers Ltd (defendants), pending at the High Court
of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. (ANNEXURE 2)
“Sir, at the Court of Appeal, our client is challenging the
competence and validity of the Judicial Commission of
Inquiry and its powers to make any valid or binding decision
or pronouncement against him.
“The issues for determination before the Court of Appeal
therefore relate and pertain to the ‘wrongful allegations of
corruption and corrupt practices’ levelled against our clients
and the unlawful and unconstitutional procedure adopted by
his accusers and indicters (which in this case includes the
Governor and Government of Rivers State, the Petitioner, Mr.
Livingstone Wechie, and the Judicial Commission of Inquiry)
in what may seem as an attempt at establishing the
‘purported wrongful doings’ against our client.
“On the 14th of July 2015, our client issued an originating
summons against the Governor of Rivers State, the Attorney
General of Rivers State, the Judicial Commission of Inquiry
and 7 others before the High Court of Rivers State, presided
over by Hon. Justice S.C. Amadi in suit No. PHC/189/2015
Between Tr. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi vs. The Governor
of Rivers State & 9 others, wherein he challenged the
competence and powers of the Hon. Justice G.O. Omereji
Judicial Commission of Inquiry to carry out judicial functions
of investigating him and making pronouncements thereof.
However, Hon Justice S.C. Amadi on the 20th of August
2015 dismissed the suit on very spurious and unjustifiable
grounds. This led to the appeal referred to above.
“ In suit No. FCT/HC/CV/2677/15 that is before the High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the issues relate
directly and specifically to the contents and subject of this
petition. The petitioner, Mr. Livingstone Wechie, between 3rd
and 4th August, 2015, using the title ‘Looting of Rivers State
Treasury’ caused to be published the same contents of this
petition in some national newspapers (Thisday, The
Guardian, Daily Sun, The Nation, etc), wherein he published
that our client and Messers Advante Consulting &Mgt Co Ltd;
Result Import Export Co. Ltd; Capital Index Ltd were involved
in corrupt practices.
“He did, as in this present petition, also allege that the said
companies were fraudulent and not registered with the
Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC). Aggrieved by the
libelous publications, these juristic persons (the companies)
approached the court to challenge the veracity of the
contents and subject matter of this petition and to seek
damages for libel against the petitioner for the falsehoods
published and circulated against them and our client. Find
attached the bundle of court processes; including Writ of
Summons, Statement of Claim, Order for Substituted Service
on Mr. Livingstone and other defendants, etc.
“Mr. President, this suit is still pending and subsisting at the
High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The court
in order to come to the conclusion that the contents of that
publication are false and libelous, for which damages should
be paid must make findings and resolve some issues,
including for instance:
1. whether or not our client was involved in any form of
corrupt practices as alleged, be it stealing, unlawful
enrichment and laundering of public funds through the
plaintiffs in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/2677/15
2. whether or not the companies (Plaintiffs in suit No:
FCT/HC/CV/2677/15) are registered with CAC, fake or
authentic;
iii. whether or not there are glaring cases of corruption,
criminal breach of trust, unlawful enrichment and wanton
conversion of funds as it relates to the transactions between
the Rivers State Government under our client and the
plaintiffs in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/2677/15.
1. whether or not our client approved the sale of the Gas
Turbines to NG Power-HPS Limited, and if he did,
whether it was for the said amount and whether the
proceeds were diverted by our client
2. whether or not there was any transactions between the
Rivers State Government under our client and the
plaintiffs in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/2677/15, and if so,
whether there was any corrupt practices in the said
transactions.
“ Mr. President, we have no doubt that the Senate being an
Arm of Government established under the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria verily appreciates the general
principle of the rule of law, hence the invitation extended to
our client to respond to the petition.
“Whereas we appreciate the commitment of the Senate to be
fair and just, especially in offering our client an opportunity to
state his side of the matter, however we need to state, and
most regrettably too, that our client is unable to comment or
respond in specific terms to the allegations contained in the
said petition, as that would amount to commenting on the
subject matter before the court of law.
“Sir, we are afraid that there is no way the distinguished
Senate can effectively, successfully and conclusively
investigate and determine the allegations in this petition
without making findings, decisions and pronouncements, one
way or another, on the issues listed below, which would be
substantially the same issues that the court needs to
resolve.
“Some of the issues that this Senate would have to resolve
for instance will include:
1. whether or not our client was involved in any form of
corrupt practices as alleged, be it stealing, unlawful
enrichment and laundering of public funds through the
Plaintiffs in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/2677/15;
2. whether or not the companies (plaintiffs in suit No: FCT/
HC/CV/2677/15) are registered with CAC, fake or
authentic;
iii. whether or not there are glaring cases of corruption,
criminal breach of trust, unlawful enrichment and wanton
conversion of funds as it relates to the transactions between
the Rivers State Government under our client and the
plaintiffs in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/2677/15;
1. whether or not our client approved the sale of the Gas
Turbines NG Power-HPS Limited, and if he did, whether it
was for the said amount and whether the proceeds were
diverted by our client;
2. whether or not there was any transactions between the
Rivers State Government under our client and the
plaintiffs in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/2677/15, and if so,
whether there was any corrupt practices in the said
transactions; and several others.
“Just as the general principle of law is that commentaries
and other forms or outside-the-courtroom discussions
should not be encouraged or engaged in relation to the
subject matter of any judicial litigation, so as not to
prejudice and prejudge a matter before a court, we have also
realized that this distinguished Senate has not only adopted
this principle of law, but has also made it a written code in its
Rules and Standing Orders, which is the compass for the
proceedings of the Senate.
“The Senate by so doing has debarred distinguished Senators
from considering matters which are rightly or wrongly
subjudice for the sake of ensuring the much-desired
separation of powers and preventing possible loopholes that
may exist or be created in an attempt at short-circuiting the
process of justice and circumventing the stringent
application of the laws of our land.
“Mr. President, needless to emphasise that it is one of the
cardinal pillars of fair hearing that an accused person is
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Again, this
position is strengthened and reinforced by section 36 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as
Amended) (hereafter simply referred as the Constitution).
“As our client has indicated, the allegations are not only
false, they are also made mala fide with the intent to solely
irritate, embarrass and tarnish the hard-earned reputation of
our client and maliciously represent him as a person not fit
and proper to occupy public office.
14. Sir, this intention is borne out clearly from the conduct
and restless activities of the petitioner who has expressly
stated in his petition to the Senate that he had written
same petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt
Practices and other related offence Commission (ICPC),
the two foremost institutions in the country vested with
the authority to prosecute financial and corrupt practices
related offences. Except to speculate that the petitioner
has no confidence in both the EFCC and ICPC, one would
have thought that the petitioner should have awaited the
outcome of the investigation of his allegations by these
institutions. He did not do so because he has one goal,
one mission: to malign and discredit the person of our
client before the Nigerian people.
“Mr. President, we wish to resist the temptation of delving
into the subject matter so as not to fall foul of the law and
prejudice the case before the court.
“ In the circumstances, we most respectfully urge the Senate
to invoke its powers and the Rules and Standing Orders to
protect our client from commenting on the subject matter of
the petition and any issues relating to or arising from the
judicial commission of injury and/or the purported White
Paper issued thereto.”
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments......