The question that has been at all rage on the fourth estate and that has been dangling from the lips of every well-meaning Nigerian in recent times has been whether or not the self-appointment of Buhari as the minister of petroleum is constitutional. Many are of the opinion that such appointment is at all fours with our constitution as Buhari is a better man to call the tune in the orchestry of the petroleum sector. While this may appear true at first, it is in fact specious and unconstitutional. I'll show you how unconstitutional such appointment is in a bit.

It is a well-established, basic law of the land that the president, while taking a spin in the presidential caroche, CANNOT take up any other EXECUTIVE OFFICE or paid employment. This position is roundly underpinned by and expressly enshrined under SECTION 138 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED which provides to wit:
"the president shall not, during his tenure of office, hold any OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICE(emphasis mine) or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever".

The office of a minister is an executive office which is saddled with executive responsibilities by the combine effect of Section 147 and 148 of the 1999 constitution. Ministers are executives and that doesn't argue the toss. And as such, it is patently wrong and unconstitutional for the president to hold the executive office of the minister of petroleum while serving as the president as the constitution clearly provides that "he CANNOT, during his tenure of office, hold any OTHER 'EXECUTIVE OFFICE'.." Being the minister of petroleum amounts to holding another executive office which runs fowl to the constitution. If the constitution is the supreme law, the fons et origio and the barometer in which all actions of the president are measured, it follows that the president must dance to the drum and song the constitution beats and sings whether the melody be mellifluous or not. Because for one the constitution is derived from the will of the people in whom politcal sovereignty resides and he is constitutionally bound not to ride rough-shod over the spirit of the constitution pursuant to Section 1(3) of the 1999 constitution.

In conclusion, the self-appointment of Buhari as the minister of petroleum is an unconstitional act as Section 138 of the constitution doesn't brook the president to hold any other executive office while in office.

By Epaul.
(a 300L Law Student of the Delta State University)

Zombies think otherwise.

Besides, Mr. B00HARI is Mr. Integrity and he has been divinely ordained to head the ministry.

Yes, It's unconstitutional, But do you think B00HARI respects the Constitution??... Once a dictator, always a dictator.

hmmm

Someone should help tell the Petroleum Minister that fuel is selling between N120-N150/litre o!

His first assignment is to seal all the stations that are selling above the approved pump price followed by reducing the pump price to reflect global trends.

What were you expecting from a chronic dullard?



Lalasticlala

He made himself minister of petroleum? I see the dullard is breaking new grounds.

SeverusSnape:
Zombies think otherwise.

Besides, Mr. B00HARI is Mr. Integrity and he has been divinely ordained to head the ministry.

Yes, It's unconstitutional, But do you think B00HARI respects the Constitution??... Once a dictator, always a dictator.

Sad, ours is a political clime rifed with blind support for political parties without regards for accountability and constitutionality.

Epaul, I think you're a bit mistaken here. I'll be right back to show you a proof. Hang on.

Ramwab94:
Epaul, I think you're a bit mistaken here. I'll be right back to show you a proof. Hang on.

it would be nice if we could have a purely intellectual argument premised on constitutional provisions instead of the usual 'Buhari-is-a-better-man-for-the-Job', 'other-petroleum-ministers-were-inherently-corrupt' flimflam without recourse to constitutionalism that the APC big fishes on this section occassionally spew out. Waiting.
Cc: Obailala.

Epaul:
it would be nice if we could have a purely intellectual argument premised on constitutional provisions instead of the usual 'Buhari-is-a-better-man-for-the-Job', 'other-petroleum-ministers-were-inherently-corrupt' flimflam without recourse to constitutionalism that the APC big fishes on this section occassionally spew out. Waiting.
Cc: Obailala.

APC authorized that he becomes the Substantial Minister of Petroluem

175:



APC authorized that he becomes the Substantial Minister of Petroluem

Funny but that's sadly the problem with the Nigerian politics which is built around loyalty to party and has constantly witnessed a flagrant disregard for the rule of law(constitutionalism) by the very political silver-tails who are elected to uphold the law. It's above my ken why a president of nation would violent a prohibitive section of our supposed supreme constitution and everybody is keeping mum about it.

Epaul:
it would be nice if we could have a purely intellectual argument premised on constitutional provisions instead of the usual 'Buhari-is-a-better-man-for-the-Job', 'other-petroleum-ministers-were-inherently-corrupt' flimflam without recourse to constitutionalism that the APC big fishes on this section occassionally spew out. Waiting.
Cc: Obailala.

Like I mentioned in my earlier submission, I am not an expert in constitutional matters and I therefore do not know the answer to the question of constitutionality. However I raised my own question, is it constitutionally within the President's powers to merger or scrap ministries?.... IF the answer is YES, then I dont think it would be beyond PMB's powers to decided not to appoint a senior minister of petroleum or to annex the petroleum ministry with the presidency. The above was my simple assumption.

Kudos for you have done a brilliant research up there to confirm the unconstitutionality of the president occupying 2 offices, it's always lovely when people argue with hard facts like this to shut their opponents down. However, taking a look at the constitutional provision, I think it would be a very simple case for the presidency to wriggle itself out of without breaking any law, and you wouldnt expect the presidency not to be aware of this.

obailala:
Like I mentioned in my earlier submission, I am not an expert in constitutional matters and I therefore do not know the answer to the question of constitutionality. However I raised my own question, is it constitutionally within the President's powers to merger or scrap ministries?.... IF the answer is YES, then I dont think it would be beyond PMB's powers to decided not to appoint a senior minister of petroleum or to annex the petroleum ministry with the presidency. The above was my simple assumption.

Kudos for you have done a brilliant research up there to confirm the unconstitutionality of the president occupying 2 offices, it's always lovely when people argue with hard facts like this to shut their opponents down. However, taking a look at the constitutional provision, I think it would be a very simple case for the presidency to wriggle itself out of without breaking any law, and you wouldnt expect the presidency not to be aware of this.

ok. I would have ordinarily left your post unreplied since you've honestly fessed up you are not in the loop about constitutionality. But for the fact i love your thought process, i'd answer your question.

As to the question of whether or not the president has the power 'to merger or scrap ministeries'? Yes the president has the power to merger or scrap ministeries. This is because by virtue of the combine effect of Section 5(1)(a), Section 130 and Section 147(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended, the president is constitutionally vested with broad executive powers. For example Section 5(1)(a) of the 1999 constitution provides
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of the Federation shall be vested in the President and may subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Ministers of the Government of the Federation or officers in the public service of the Federation”
while section 147(1) provides that
"There shall be such offices of Ministers of the Government of the Federation as may be established by the President."
By virtue of Section 147 of the 1999 constitution it means the various ministries are tied to the apron string of the president who can appoint or sack the ministers of the various ministries. And as such the president can either merger, scrap or fashion out ministeries as may he may deem necessary for the effective implementation of it's policy. But it must be noted, however, here that the broad executive power of the president to either merge or scrap ministries it's not absolute as such executive power of the president takes the biscuit under the constitution in certain respect like under section 138 of the 1999 constitution which we would consider later. Having this in mind, let's look at your second question which appears like a claim even though you conceded it was an assumption.

Whether or not the president can annex ministries to the office of the presidency since he has the power to merger or scrap ministeries? Capital No! The import of Section 138 is that the president is constitutionally not brooked to annex ministries to his office. He can only merge or scrap ministries pursuant to section 5(1)(a) and 130 of the constitution. This is because annexing a ministry to the office of the presidency amounts to the president holding ANOTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICE as ministries are EXECUTIVE institutions and such is very unconstitutional. The position that the president cannot hold another executive office is expressly laid down under section 138 of the constitution which is a prohibitive section. The said section provides to wit:
"the president shall not, during his tenure of office, hold any OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICE(emphasis mine) or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever". Why does Section 138 prohibit the president for holding another executive office or any paid employment? It is simple. Those who framed our written constitution contemplated that the duties and functions of the president are onerous and it would amount to too much work-load for president to combine two offices at the same time. Another chief reason is to shield the president from distraction that comes with steering one too many affairs. It is for pretty much the same reason the president is immuned against litigation in his personal capacity pursuant to Section 308 of the 1999 constitution.

In conclusion, the president is like Adam in eden. Of all the ministries he can merger or scrap but of the merger of a ministry to his office he cannot pursuant to Section 138 of the 1999 constitution.

Epaul:
ok. I would have ordinarily left your post unreplied since you've honestly fessed up you are not in the loop about constitutionality. But for the fact i love your thought process, i'd answer your question.

As to the question of whether or not the president has the power 'to merger or scrap ministeries'? Yes the president has the power to merger or scrap ministeries. This is because by virtue of the combine effect of Section 5(1)(a) and Section 130 of the 1999 constitution as amended, the president is constitutionally vested with broad executive powers. For example Section 5(1)(a) of the 1999 constitution provides
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of the Federation shall be vested in the President and may subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Ministers of the Government of the Federation or officers in the public service of the Federation”
And by virtue of Section 147 of the 1999 constitution it means the various ministries are tied to the apron string of the president who can appoint or sack the ministers of the various ministries. And as such the president can either merger, scrap or fashion out ministeries as may he may deem necessary for the effective implementation of it's policy. But it must be noted, however, here that the broad executive power of the president to either merge or scrap ministries it's not absolute as such executive power of the president takes the biscuit under the constitution in certain respect like under section 138 of the 1999 constitution which we would consider later. Having this in mind, let's look at your second question which appears like a claim even though you conceded it was an assumption.

Whether or not the president can annex ministries to the office of the presidency since he has the power to merger or scrap ministeries? Capital No! The import of Section 138 is that the president is constitutionally not brooked to annex ministries to his office. He can only merge or scrap ministries pursuant to section 5(1)(a) and 130 of the constitution. This is because annexing a ministry to the office of the presidency amounts to the president holding ANOTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICE as ministries are EXECUTIVE institutions and such is very unconstitutional. The position that the president cannot hold another executive office is expressly laid down under section 138 of the constitution which is a prohibitive section. The said section provides to wit:
"the president shall not, during his tenure of office, hold any OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICE(emphasis mine) or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever". Why does Section 138 prohibit the president for holding another executive office or any paid employment? It is simple. Those who framed our written constitution contemplated that the duties and functions of the president are onerous and it would amount to too much work-load for president to combine two offices at the same time. Another chief reason is to shield the president from distraction that comes with steering one too many affairs. It is for pretty much the same reason the president is immuned against litigation in his personal capacity pursuant to Section 308 of the 1999 constitution.

In conclusion, the president is like Adam in eden. Of all the ministries he can merger or scrap but of the merger of a ministry to his office he cannot pursuant to Section 138 of the 1999 constitution.

i will like to use your article elsewhere .... permission granted ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a legal note, the president is not the Minister of petroleum resources....... do you know why the president is not a minster simply; because he was not sworn in/appointed as one according to the constitution.....
If you sue him you lose

adaweezy:

i will like to use your article elsewhere .... permission granted ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a legal note, the president is not the Minister of petroleum resources....... do you know why the president is not a minster simply; because he was not sworn in/appointed as one according to the constitution.....
If you sue him you lose

Granted sir provided you acknowledge me as the original writer. You could add your name as a co-writer or editor if you deem fit.

Pretty clever argument. But don't you think it makes it even more unconstitutional - that not only did Buhari take up another executive office contrary to section 138 of the constitution but he flagrantly didn't show up at the red-chamber for senate approval contrary to section 147 of the constitution even after unconstitutionally taking the chair of the petroleum ministry?

Epaul:
Granted sir provided you acknowledge me as the original writer. You could add your name as co-writer if you deem fit.

Pretty clever argument. But don't you think it makes it even more unconstitutional - that not only did Buhari take up another executive office contrary to section 138 of the constitution but he flagrantly didn't show up at the red-chamber for senate approval contrary to section 147 of the constitution after taking the chair of the petroleum ministry?

"
you dont get You cant put something on nothing and expect it to stand, it would definitely fall. UAC vs McFoy per Lord Denning
Buhari would not be using the office of the Minister or its seal..........In the eyes of the Law Buhari is no Minister just a president using his unlimited discretion

Double post

adaweezy:
"
you dont get You cant put something on nothing and expect it to stand, it would definitely fall. UAC vs McFoy per Lord Denning
Buhari would not be using the office of the Minister or its seal..........In the eyes of the Law Buhari is no Minister just a president using his unlimited discretion

on the contrary there is something to put something on in the instant case. Buhari unconstitutionally announced himself as minister of petroleum as evidenced in the below source http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/190809-buhari-appoints-petroleum-minister-to-name-other-ministers-wednesday.html. Then, he went on to boycot being screened by the senate as provided under section 147(2). And you are saying in the eyes of the law, Buhari will not be regarded as a minister but one using his discretionary powers to chair a ministry since his self-appointment wasn't approved by the senate? That's utter flimflam. What is the annexation of the petroleum ministry to the office of the presidency if not an eloquent attempt by Buhari to hold the office of the minister of petroleum which is a clear violation of our constitution? Who will be chairing the said ministry? You? Is it not buhari? What does that make him? A pastor? C'mon when one chairs a ministry one becomes the minister of that ministry. And that's plain enough. Let's not use technicalities of the law to obviate justice. That "technicalities of the law should not be allowed to operate in defeat of a course of justice." has been given clap and dance in the case of Attorney-General of Bendel State V P.L.A. Aideyan.

The fact that Buhari announced himself as minister of petroleum without regard to the supreme law of the land is something to put something on. Will it amount to 'nothing in the eyes of the law' if Buhari makes you a minister of aviation without recourse to the constitution? Wouldn't that amount to an unconstitutional act which is 'something in the eyes of the law? Yes it would.

Futhermore, let me ask you a question. if buhari appoints a minister without the minister appearing before the red-house for confirmation, wouldn't such appointment be unconstitutional? Will you say the president is only exercising his discretional power to appoint the minister and that because the minister will not use the seal of his ministry, he wouldn't be a minister as it were? Wouldn't that be absurd? Sadly, that's clearly what you are trying shove down our throats.

Let me reiterate here that the annexation of the ministry of petroleum to the office of the presidency is very unconstitutional which ever way we choose to look at it.

But of course i'll fail if i sue him given that the court is sold into into money.

so sue him.

Epaul:
on the contrary there is something to put something on in the instant case. Buhari unconstitutionally announced himself as minister of petroleum as evidenced in the below source http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/190809-buhari-appoints-petroleum-minister-to-name-other-ministers-wednesday.html. Then, he went on to boycot being screened by the senate as provided under section 147(2). And you are saying in the eyes of the law, Buhari will not be regarded as a minister but one using his discretionary powers to chair a ministry since his self-appointment wasn't approved by the senate? That's utter flimflam. What is the annexation of the petroleum ministry to the office of the presidency if not an eloquent attempt by Buhari to hold the office of the minister of petroleum which is a clear violation of our constitution? Who will be chairing the said ministry? You? Is it not buhari? What does that make him? A pastor? C'mon when one chairs a ministry one becomes the minister of that ministry. And that's plain enough. Let's not use technicalities of the law to obviate justice. That "technicalities of the law should not be allowed to operate in defeat of a course of justice." has been given clap and dance in the case of [s]Attorney-General of Bendel State V P.L.A. Aideyan. [/s]

The fact that Buhari announced himself as minister of petroleum with regard to the supreme law of the land is something to put something on. Will it amount to 'nothing in the eyes of the law' if Buhari makes you a minister aviation without recourse to the constitution? Wouldn't that amount to an unconstitutional act which is 'something in the eyes of the law? Yes it would.

Futhermore, let me ask you a question. if buhari appoints a minister without the minister appearing before the red-house for confirmation, wouldn't such appointment be unconstitutional? Will you say the president is only exercising his discretional power to appoint the minister and that because the minister will not use the seal of his ministry, he wouldn't be a minister as it were? Wouldn't that be absurd? Sadly, that's clearly what you are trying shove down our throats.

Let me reiterate here that the annexation of the ministry of petroleum to the office of the presidency is very unconstitutional which ever way we choose to look at it.

But of course i'll fail if i sue him given that the court is sold into into money.

Strickethrough out, this is not a TECHNICALITY but substantive procedures.
you dont get it do you THERE IS NO OFFICIAL MINISTER FOR PETROLEUM....... do you understand.... According to the Federal government gazette No Petroleum minister exists for the time being..
He oversees it but he he is no minister
Nemo dat quod non habet........

adaweezy:

Strickethrough out, this is not a TECHNICALITY but substantive procedures.
you dont get it do you THERE IS NO OFFICIAL MINISTER FOR PETROLEUM....... do you understand.... According to the Federal government gazette No Petroleum minister exists for the time being..
He oversees it but he he is no minister
Nemo dat quod non habet........

clearly you are the one who don't get it and has been making claims without fact or evidence to underpin them.

If Buhari is not the official minister of petroleum as you purported what then is this http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/11/breaking-buhari-names-self-minister-of-petroleum/ and http://saharareporters.com/2015/09/29/president-buhari-appoints-self-petroleum-minister? What does naming self as minister of petroleum mean to you? An unofficial titular appointment without real ministerial power? Oga isn't it clear from those sources that BUHARI APPOINTED HIMSELF AS MINISTER OF PETROLEUM and that doesn't argue the toss? Buhari is not merely over-seeing the ministry for the time being. Buhari is the minister of petroleum, a fact the president himself acknowledged. Wonder where you got your skewed fact that Buhari is merely over-seeing the petroleum ministry for the time being.

Mind producing a copy of or a link to the Federal government gazette that states that no Petroleum minister exists for the time being?

Epaul:
clearly you are the one who don't get it and has been making claims without fact or evidence to underpin them.

If Buhari is not the official minister of petroleum as you purported what then is this [b]http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/11/breaking-buhari-names-self-minister-of-petroleum/ and http://saharareporters.com/2015/09/29/president-buhari-appoints-self-petroleum-minister? [/b]What does naming self as minister of petroleum mean to you? Unofficial titular appointment?

Mind producing a copy of or a link to the Federal government gazette that states that no Petroleum minister exists for the time being?

'
How many gazzetes are online?? Go to the Federal secretariat Abuja and purchase them....
Besides Media Reports are not Judicial authorities or legally binding... As a law student you should know that eg case studt
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/11/breaking-news-supreme-court-halts-sarakis-trial-at-cct/ was that what happened ?? or what will be written in the law reports ?

constitution ko, prostitution ni

adaweezy:
'
How many gazzetes are online?? Go to the Federal secretariat Abuja and purchase them....
Besides Media Reports are not Judicial authorities or legally binding... As a law student you should know that eg case studt
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/11/breaking-news-supreme-court-halts-sarakis-trial-at-cct/ was that what happened ?? or what will be written in the law reports ?

lol. Guess you have purchased your own copy of the gazzete from the Federal secretariat Abuja for you to have been in the swim that there is no official minister of petroleum. So, kindly take a snap-shot of the page and upload it for all and sundry to see. By the way, when i see a doctored gazzete i can tell.

Lol. Oga i never cited those sources as legal authorities. I sure know what legal authorities are. Don't school your grand-mum. I only cited those sources as veritable evidence to the fact that Buhari appointed himself as the minister of petroleum. What other ways can one gets to keep abreast with the happenings around the corridor of power except through the media? Maybe you should tell us since you are a P.A to Lai mohammed. I didn't put up one source but two. So are you telling the whole world to disregard two estates of news report simply because you think they are skewed without providing any evidence to prove it. In law "He that alleges must prove" - "Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio". So, the onus of proving to us that those sources are flawed lies on you.

Epaul:
lol. Guess you have purchased your own copy of the gazzete from the Federal secretariat Abuja for you to have been in the swim that there is no official minister of petroleum. So, kindly take a snap-shot of the page and upload it for all and sundry to see. By the way, when i see a doctored gazzete i can tell.

Lol. Oga i never cited those sources as legal authorities. I sure know what legal authorities are. Don't school your grand-mum. I only cited those sources as veritable evidence to the fact that Buhari appointed himself as the minister of petroleum. What other ways can one gets to keep abreast with the happenings around the corridor of power except through the media? Maybe you should tell us since you are a P.A to Lai mohammed. I didn't put up one source but two.[s] So are you telling the whole world to disregard two estates of news report simply because you think they are skewed without providing any evidence to prove it.[/s] In law "He that alleges must prove" - "Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio". So, the onus of proving to us that those sources are flawed lies on you.

cool Lai's PA
I am not saying he whole world should, you are an aspiring lawyer you should know that we are talking about what the judiciary will recognize...brandish newspapers before a judge na........
You haven't even done Evidence

Epaul:
lol. Guess you have purchased your own copy of the gazzete from the Federal secretariat Abuja for you to have been in the swim that there is no official minister of petroleum. So, kindly take a snap-shot of the page and upload it for all and sundry to see. By the way, when i see a doctored gazzete i can tell.

Lol. Oga i never cited those sources as legal authorities. I sure know what legal authorities are. Don't school your grand-mum. I only cited those sources as veritable evidence to the fact that Buhari appointed himself as the minister of petroleum. What other ways can one gets to keep abreast with the happenings around the corridor of power except through the media? Maybe you should tell us since you are a P.A to Lai mohammed. I didn't put up one source but two. So are you telling the whole world to disregard two estates of news report simply because you think they are skewed without providing any evidence to prove it. In law "He that alleges must prove" - "Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio". So, the onus of proving to us that those sources are flawed lies on you.

You are the one that wants to sue not me.........
I have nothing to prove here

adaweezy:

cool Lai's PA
I am not saying he whole world should, you are an aspiring lawyer you should know that we are talking about what the judiciary we recognize...brandish newspapers before a judge na........
You haven't even done Evidence

Well, I'm in anywhere but a court-room typing this. Newspaper and links will suffice on here. You don't expect me to reveal the ace up my sleeves. Wait till we hit the court-room. I just might have an audio-tape stashed away somewhere. Lol.

Funny you. Though i've not done evidence yet, i have gleaned through a law of evidence textbook when i was in 100L. At least I know a thing or two about evidence. Are you already a practising lawyer because you clearly argue real good?

Epaul:
Well, I'm in anywhere but a court-room typing this. Newspaper and links will suffice on here. You don't expect me to reveal the ace up my sleeves. Wait till we hit the court-room. I just might have an audio-tape stashed somewhere. Lol.

Funny you. Though i've not done evidence yet, i have gleaned through a law of evidence textbook when i was in 100L. At least I know a thing or two about evidence. Are you already a practising lawyer because you clearly argue real good?

But why did you bring Procedural law up when we are arguing about substantive law....?
and you know evidence......Evidence is easy the first time you read it then it gets complicated depending on your lecturers ? And who's says an Audio tape is admissible ? besides an audio evidence will not be accepted reason; you dont sign formal contracts/agreements by Audio except when stipulated.
No am not a practising lawyer/lawyer........

adaweezy:

You are the one that wants to sue not me.........
I have nothing to prove here

The fact in issue is a different one. Don't be too suave. You alleged that the media sources i pole-vaulted to underpin my claim that buhari actually appointed self as minister of petroleum were all skewed. So, the burden of proving they were skewed lies on you and not on me denying they are not skewed.

Epaul:
The fact in issue is a different one. Don't be too suave. You alleged that the media sources i pole-vaulted to underpin my claim that buhari actually appointed self as minister of petroleum were all skewed. So, the burden of proving they were skewed lies on you and not on me denying they are not skewed.

Didnt say skewed ... Just said they are not Judicial authorities.

Epaul:
ok. I would have ordinarily left your post unreplied since you've honestly fessed up you are not in the loop about constitutionality. But for the fact i love your thought process, i'd answer your question.

As to the question of whether or not the president has the power 'to merger or scrap ministeries'? Yes the president has the power to merger or scrap ministeries. This is because by virtue of the combine effect of Section 5(1)(a), Section 130 and Section 147(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended, the president is constitutionally vested with broad executive powers. For example Section 5(1)(a) of the 1999 constitution provides
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of the Federation shall be vested in the President and may subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Ministers of the Government of the Federation or officers in the public service of the Federation”
while section 147(1) provides that
"There shall be such offices of Ministers of the Government of the Federation as may be established by the President."
By virtue of Section 147 of the 1999 constitution it means the various ministries are tied to the apron string of the president who can appoint or sack the ministers of the various ministries. And as such the president can either merger, scrap or fashion out ministeries as may he may deem necessary for the effective implementation of it's policy. But it must be noted, however, here that the broad executive power of the president to either merge or scrap ministries it's not absolute as such executive power of the president takes the biscuit under the constitution in certain respect like under section 138 of the 1999 constitution which we would consider later. Having this in mind, let's look at your second question which appears like a claim even though you conceded it was an assumption.

Whether or not the president can annex ministries to the office of the presidency since he has the power to merger or scrap ministeries? Capital No! The import of Section 138 is that the president is constitutionally not brooked to annex ministries to his office. He can only merge or scrap ministries pursuant to section 5(1)(a) and 130 of the constitution. This is because annexing a ministry to the office of the presidency amounts to the president holding ANOTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICE as ministries are EXECUTIVE institutions and such is very unconstitutional. The position that the president cannot hold another executive office is expressly laid down under section 138 of the constitution which is a prohibitive section. The said section provides to wit:
"the president shall not, during his tenure of office, hold any OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICE(emphasis mine) or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever". Why does Section 138 prohibit the president for holding another executive office or any paid employment? It is simple. Those who framed our written constitution contemplated that the duties and functions of the president are onerous and it would amount to too much work-load for president to combine two offices at the same time. Another chief reason is to shield the president from distraction that comes with steering one too many affairs. It is for pretty much the same reason the president is immuned against litigation in his personal capacity pursuant to Section 308 of the 1999 constitution.

In conclusion, the president is like Adam in eden. Of all the ministries he can merger or scrap but of the merger of a ministry to his office he cannot pursuant to Section 138 of the 1999 constitution.

Bros the essence of constitution is for use by humans of average intellect not for most Nigerians and Buhari included. Mahammudu Buhari is a man who does not know the day joined the Nigerian army. What a duck.

adaweezy:

But why did you bring Procedural law up when we are arguing about substantive law....?
and you know evidence......Evidence is easy the first time you read it then it gets complicated depending on your lecturers ? And who's says an Audio tape is admissible ? besides an audio evidence will not be accepted reason; you dont sign formal contracts/agreements by Audio except when stipulated.
No am not a practising lawyer/lawyer........

I brought it up because i saw a need. Since you have done evidence, where is the snap-shot of the page of the gazzete that evidenced that Buhari is not the official minister of petroleum? We are still waiting Oga. Until you do, i'm not going to reply you again. As an evidence student one should have expected you will be arguing with facts instead of churning out mere claims.

Wanna hit my books. Got lectures tomorrow. Good night.