“If allowed, this Order will confer limitless powers on Mr. President, whose administration’s penchant for violation of rules and order already suggests a readiness for autocracy and a drive towards fascism.
“In a democracy, the role of the executive arm of government is to enforce court orders/judgments handed down based on the interpretation of existing laws. Any suggestion to the contrary, as clearly intended by this Executive Order, is totally an aberration and inconsistent with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“We invite Nigerians and the international community to note the deliberate attempts by the Buhari administration to side-step the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), usurp the powers of the legislature, the judiciary and impose an autocratic regime on our nation.
“The PDP therefore charges the judiciary and the legislature to save our dear nation and her people from an imminent fascism by rejecting this obnoxious Executive Order.
“Nigeria is a democratic state run by the dictates of the law and the constitution and not by the rule of the thumb of any elected officer.
“Already, our lawyers are considering a legal action against the Federal Government on the illegality of Mr. President’s action in the interest of Nigeria and Nigerians,” said the PDP.

Looking at the new Order, the Second Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Monday Onyekachi Ubani, told Sunday Sun that the 1999 Constitution has no provision for Executive Orders, which has the force of law

He said: “Under our laws, I don’t think there is any provision that says the president can issue an Executive Order, which has the force of law. In our democracy, if there is any policy or anything that the president wants to have the force of law, he must take that particular matter before the National Assembly for proper enactment and then it becomes a law. Executive Orders are just like resolutions; their binding force is something that needs to be interrogated. We should be able to test these things in court. The best thing to do is that if the president now wants to rule by Executive Orders, bypassing the National Assembly, people who are concerned should bring this matter before the judiciary to know whether such Executive Orders have the force of law.”

Ubani, who chairs the committee on Access to Justice, Judiciary and Electoral Process at the African Bar Association, expressed his support for the war against corruption, but noted that the rule of law should be followed in dealing with issues of corruption.
“I am not against the fight against corruption. But we have a constitution where respect to rights is provided, including right to own property, right to liberty and all that. These are constitutional rights.
So, if constitutional rights do exist, there is no other law let alone Executive Order that can take away that right. So, if anyone is suspected and has not been convicted and you freeze his account or seize his property, then that is another thing we need to check.”
He said that there are extant laws in the country, which allow for the temporary forfeiture of assets suspected to be proceeds of crime and wondered why the president had to issue the Executive Order.

“The reality today is that if anyone is accused of crime under the EFCC and ICPC Acts, his property can only suffer what we call interim forfeiture pending the time he is convicted. That will suffice, so I don’t understand the purpose of this Executive Order. Is it trying to replace the enactment of substantive laws by the legislature? Is it trying to aid the ones already in existence by making ancillary provisions for them? So, we need to understand the context under which the Executive Order was made. Laws are laws; executive orders are executive orders; constitutional rights are constitutional rights. Now, the position of the law is that constitutional rights cannot be taken away by any law let alone executive order. In the ranking of laws, the constitution is number one, National Assembly Act is number two; executive order is not legislative order. So, for whatever it is, it cannot rank over legislative acts. An Executive Order cannot run superior to the enactment of an act. It cannot also run contrary to a constitutional right,” he said.

But former Minister of Transport and chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Ebenezer Babatope, in a sharp disagreement with Sagay, maintained that the order could lead to the tyranny of the executive and ultimately destroy the tenets of democracy by way of muzzling the opposition.

He said: “I have been searching my law books as a lawyer and I have been questioning whether the President of America, Nigeria or anywhere has power to put aside what the court of law will decide or debar the court of law from operating. If you say the man can come out, start questioning people and seizing property here and there, then you are putting powers of life and death on him.
“There must be the right of persons accused to go to court and challenge such powers because such powers are not only tyrannical, but also an abuse of the law process. So, I don’t think what is being arrogated to Buhari should be allowed to stay. If it stays, it can be used by any person to destroy political opponents.”

According to him, the power to order the seizure of any asset resides with the court of law.
“To seize persons’ property, the court of law must pronounce such fundamental matter before anything can be done,” he noted.
This position, he said, was without prejudice to the relevant sections of the Constitution relating to the powers of the president.
“I agree that the power is contained in the constitution, but to seize person’s property arbitrarily without a court order is injurious to democracy that we are operating. At this time when we are preparing for a crucial election, he can use it against anybody. The timing is very bad because the president who is imbued with such power can use such power against his political opponents, including those of his party who may not want to support him for anything,” he added.

In view of the closeness of the next general election, Babatope questioned the propriety of the Executive Order, saying: “At what time do you want to start trying people for corruption when you have been there for three and a half years and you did not do anything like that? According to what we are saying now, presidential election is coming very early next year – January or February. I think preparation is just being made to injure the opposition and also injure those who may wish to question him from re-contesting within his own party.”

In acknowledging the abundance of laws that deal on the subject matter, Abuja-based Abubakar Sani said, “We have enough provisions under existing statutes for dealing with the subject matter of the order. Two of them are Sections 29 and 34 of the EFCC Act. So, what’s new? Besides, the validity of the order is open to question, given that, unlike those provisions of the EFCC Act, it purports to empower law enforcement agencies to interfere with a person’s right to property, which is guaranteed under Section 44 of the Constitution without recourse to a court of law. This is obviously worrisome and is of dubious validity.”

“I don’t know what that order has come to change because extant laws are there. I don’t know whether there is a lacuna in the laws that will warrant such order.”
Sani alleged that the APC-led government is desperate as the election draws closer and is therefore trying to shore up its position ahead of the forthcoming election.

“Buhari is loosing his allies and it has to do with his style. His action is unconstitutional,” Sani declared.