faceURfront:


No sir, they can't. After a second rejection, such a person stands rejected. He can only continue to be what he is now..."acting".

While he has all the powers a substantive chairman will have, he will just go down in history as an acting EFCC chairman. Psychologically, it will hit a feather or two off his ego.

Pavore9:


Nice photography.

deomelo:
Ode, Magu is still the head of EFCC..

Midex88:
Senate President Bukola Saraki yesterday explained the controversial refusal of the Senate to confirm Mr. Ibrahim Magu as the substantive chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Saraki said that Magu’s appointment may have been confirmed but for the failure of the Presidency to explore the established channel of lobby.

Besides, he said that “political solution” should have been applied after the Senate rejected nomination twice.

The Senate President spoke at the orientation programme organised for Senators-elect and House of Representatives members-elect ahead of the inauguration of Ninth National Assembly in Abuja.
Saraki attempted to parry questions on why the National Assembly did not go to court for a definite pronouncement on the failed confirmation of Magu’s appointment as EFCC’s substantive chairman.

He was forced to respond when the question was asked repeatedly.

Saraki said that it is left to the Executive arm of government to find a replacement of any ministerial nominee rejected by the Senate.

Talking specifically on Magu’s nomination, he said that there was no doubt that the Senate has the power to confirm or reject his nomination.

On why the Senate did not go to court for a pronouncement on whether the Senate has the power to confirm the EFCC chairman, he said that there were over 12 court cases pending on the issue.

Saraki, who said that some of the cases had been pending in court for over two years, added that he cannot explain why the cases have not been decided.

He, however, noted that “in cases like the EFCC chairman, there is always the need for political solution and dialogue to solve such issue. But to say whether the Senate has the power to confirm, the Senate has power to confirm. The power of confirmation is there even in America which we copy.

“When the Executive makes appointment, there is issue of lobby. This is why we want a particular nominee. It is done even in America.”
On the election of presiding officers of the Ninth National Assembly, Saraki advised senators-elect and members-elect that they should be in the chamber on the day of inauguration.

He insisted that the inauguration and election of presiding officers only take place on the floor of the two chambers of the National Assembly.

The Clerk to the National Assembly, Mohammed Sani-Omolori, who opened the orientation, gave an overview of the National Assembly, including structure, functions and inter-parliamentary relations.

In the course of his presentation, Sani-Omolori said that one of the functions of the Senate is the confirmation of nominees from the executive arm of government.

The power of confirmation of nominees prompted questions on the confirmation of Magu and why he is still serving as Acting Chairman of EFCC when he was denied confirmation.

Sani-Omolori said that he was not in a position to answer political questions and referred the question on Magu to Saraki.

Saraki noted that the options are that the President can lobby the legislature or present someone else at the event of rejection of a nominee.

Saraki said: “The point I am making is that we should not make too much news on the process of electing a presiding officers. What is important is for the members of the Senate to decide who is the best to lead them so that they can have stability.”

On non-confirmation of Magu, Saraki said: “The truth really is that the issue of confirmation whether ministerial or other appointments, is done by the entire Senate. Generally, we have an unwritten practice that we would get the input of senators from the state where the appointee hails from before we start the screening process in the Senate. By the powers of the Senate, if such a nominee is rejected, then it is upon the executive to find a new replacement. The issue really is that the Senate has the powers to reject a ministerial nominee.

In the case of the appointment of the chairman of the EFCC, the powers of the Senate are very clear in the constitution. For any nominee, we are guided by the constitution. It is an appointment made by Mr. President, subject to the confirmation of the Senate, which means the Senate has the powers to either say yes or say no.

“In a situation where the Senate rejects, it is up to the executive at that time to send in a replacement or in some cases, when we have appointment rejected and the executive will re-present before the Senate but if the senators again, took a decision to reject the nominee, the appointment stands rejected.


“On getting judicial interpretations of their roles, there are 17 cases in court that have been on now for two years and for one reason or the other, those cases have not moved. I cannot explain what happened. They are cases that have to deal with asking the courts to give judicial interpretations to who has the powers to do one thing or the other. I am sure by the time the judiciary gives the interpretations, there is no doubt about it that it will be clear that it is the Senate that has the powers

“In things like this in a democracy, there must be a political solution, there must be dialogue. I think that is the most important thing. The Senate has the power of confirmation. It is how to manage those issues that are the challenges. There will be many like that in the Ninth Assembly. The question is how the executive and the legislators will work together and find a solution. It is how the relationship between the two arms of government.

“There is also a wrong perception that the leadership of the Senate has those powers. The powers of the presiding officers are in the members. It is the members that decide the leadership of the National Assembly. Most of the decisions especially confirmation, are usually taken by the members. In other countries, the executive there are seen to be lobbying the legislators. When they have a candidate, they will go and lobby to get in their preferred choice appointed.”

https://www.google.com/amp/thenationonlineng.net/why-we-didnt-confirm-magu-by-saraki/amp/

Niorte:
What is the essence of rejecting a nominee when he still remains in that office for over 6 months?

Does it reduce his privileges and salary?

Nigerian constitution is too weak

jomoh:


This man is shamelessly corrupt and he’s not even hiding it.

So Magu was rejected because the presidency refused to lobby the senate.

Imagine what they have turned a serious matter of national importance to.

deomelo:
Ode, Magu is still the head of EFCC..

jomoh:


This man is shamelessly corrupt and he’s not even hiding it.

So Magu was rejected because the presidency refused to lobby the senate.

Imagine what they have turned a serious matter of national importance to.

Anigreat:




Simply because Mugu is a bastard

OGHENAOGIE:
is lobbying a crime it depends on Wat u tag lobbying to Mean...moreso is it saraki dat rejected magu or d senators

tony9k:



Lobby does not necessarily imply financial gratification

jomoh:


Lobbying is a relative word and in this case it is corruption. Magu was rejected on alleged CRIMINAL indictment and they want to sweep it away with political lobbying. That is corruption.

So Saraki is what? A councilor?



Corruption does not necessarily imply financial gratification either.

You two don’t seem to understand.

You reject someone for whatever reason but you expect lobby before you can confirm the same person. Does it mean the basis on which you rejected the person wasn’t tangible enough.

He was rejected on alleged indictment on corruption, does it mean the alleged corruption tag was truly a setup like the presidency claimed at that time all in a bid to get the presidency to lobby and negotiate either for financial gratification or otherwise. Which ever it is, it is still corruption.

helinues:


With new senate leaders under Apc, anything is possible

The bottom line is Saraki will be missing at the 9th senate

deomelo:
Ode, Magu is still the head of EFCC..

OGHENAOGIE:
the question is it saraki dat rejected him or d senators..cos saraki doesn't vote in legislative proceedings...he preside...he vote wen dee is a tie...at least I was witness to hw dogara step down his speaker seat for lasun to preside simply because he was d sponsor of dat bill and he wanted it to see d light of d day so he had to be on d floor to defend it well...lets call a spade a spade...saraki will not force d entire senators to vote in a particular way...i remember how in 2011 a particular minister was not liked by his three senators from taraba and on d day he was screened not even one of d opposition senators support for his nomination to be valid...de all rejected...i was shock dat day...who ll u blame David mark whose duty is to ask dos in favor say i or nay...

jomoh:



You’re already countering yourself and Saraki.


If Saraki doesn’t vote then why ask for lobby? Let’s now assume he was speaking on behalf of the senators, is it not shameful that they’re attempting to use lobbying to wave criminal indictment?


How does lobbying the senators intend to change the fact that Magu was indicted on criminal corruption except that the criminal corruption was a hoax designed to force the Executive to lobby them.

Just like Saraki should’ve kept quiet if truly he has shame and has no say over the decision of the senators, you too shouldn't have leap to his defense cos there’s no point in defending what cannot be defended.

RichBoy247:


Sorry, no lobby. Buhari does not bribe like Obasanjo and Goatluck Jonaddaft. Now, Magu would be confirmed while you are sleeping under your bed. Magu will also arrest you very soon for the over one billion naira loan that you and Abdul Fatah Ahmed the useless state governor you put there collected from the Bank to prosecute the last elections which you lost. So, be prepared like Fayose, Magu is coming for you. Now it is payback time.

faceURfront:


No sir, they can't. After a second rejection, such a person stands rejected. He can only continue to be what he is now..."acting".

While he has all the powers a substantive chairman will have, he will just go down in history as an acting EFCC chairman. Psychologically, it will hit a feather or two off his ego.

jomoh:


Lobbying is a relative word and in this case it is corruption. Magu was rejected on alleged CRIMINAL indictment and they want to sweep it away with political lobbying. That is corruption.

So Saraki is what? A councilor?



Corruption does not necessarily imply financial gratification either.

You two don’t seem to understand.

You reject someone for whatever reason but you expect lobby before you can confirm the same person. Does it mean the basis on which you rejected the person wasn’t tangible enough.

He was rejected on alleged indictment on corruption, does it mean the alleged corruption tag was truly a setup like the presidency claimed at that time all in a bid to get the presidency to lobby and negotiate either for financial gratification or otherwise. Which ever it is, it is still corruption.

Mrmoore14:
if you try to convince someone to see reasons why things should be done in ur way is called wat, the presidency should've been able to set a committee and trash the issue of magu with the Nass by rejecting if is corrupt or not and tru that means dey are lobbying for the confirmation but their egocentric nature didn't allow them... make una try dey understand eh

OGHENAOGIE:
who is defending who here am only correcting d error of u guys who choose to see saraki as Satan...forgetin dat he can't rail road 108 members in one directions...if u no understand goodbye

micontysneh:

Only because you don’t know. Acting isn’t chairman.

faceURfront:


No sir, they can't. After a second rejection, such a person stands rejected. He can only continue to be what he is now..."acting".

While he has all the powers a substantive chairman will have, he will just go down in history as an acting EFCC chairman. Psychologically, it will hit a feather or two off his ego.

tony9k:



Lobby does not necessarily imply financial gratification