Hushibanjo has been cashing out from Hushmagu for a long time

allthingsgood:


The difference is that we operate separation of powers. Legislature don't have right to sack the president's appointee. Just as president does not ask them to sack their own committee members.
Besides the Senate had ulterior motives for trying to get rid of magu. Not to mention there were two different reports on magu at the time

'legislatures don't have right to sack the president's appointees' why does the constitution envisage scrutiny from the legislatures If they don't have right to say no?
Nigeria been a country with so much partisanship don't allow for rule of law to prevail. I tell you if malami was a member of the PDP you would have still made this assertions of having ulterior motives just as the then senate was led by the PDP. The only reason the president looked into the matter was because it was coming from his confidant which aught not be so. Institutions are kept to be respected because power is transient, today it's magu tomorrow it might be someone else.

I wish Magu will be imprisoned in the heart of Sambisa forest.

The supposed man of god, forgot that God can remove Magu from office when He wants to.

Osinbajo definitely received money from Magu. The question should be how much

allthingsgood:
Given the circumstances at that time when the Senate tried to play politics using magu as bait, osinbajo was right to reject their antics
Imagine if buhari allowed Senate to control efcc, that would be an even worse fate.

It wasn't politics but no due diligence on the part of the presidency. The rag tag presidency then was appointing dead people into offices or have you forgotten?

They were just bringing people in without background checks.

LibertyRep:
They're just hypocrites, all of them.

When the Saraki led Senate rejected him twice based on the report of the DSS and his antecedents, was the Senate not blackmailed and called unprinted names.

What has changed now that has suddenly turned Magu, a poster boy to an overnight villain?

That's to show you how corrupt this country is. The agency that gave senate the report then were Nigerian agency. But it was ignored for whatever reason. Sarki didn't write that report as some will have us believe, DSS did.

allthingsgood:


The difference is that we operate separation of powers. The legislature doesn't have the right to sack the president's appointee. Just as the president does not ask them to sack their own committee members.
Besides the Senate had ulterior motives for trying to get rid of Magu. Not to mention there were two different reports on Magu at the time

What were the ulterior motives? If as a nation we are to overlook security reports, then why should we be wasting money keeping those agencies?

Osinbanjo can say anything once they give him trader money to go share.

idahme:


'legislatures don't have right to sack the president's appointees' why does the constitution envisage scrutiny from the legislatures If they don't have right to say no?
Nigeria been a country with so much partisanship don't allow for rule of law to prevail. I tell you if malami was a member of the PDP you would have still made this assertions of having ulterior motives just as the then senate was led by the PDP. The only reason the president looked into the matter was because it was coming from his confidant which aught not be so. Institutions are kept to be respected because power is transient, today it's magu tomorrow it might be someone else.

Show me the section of the constitution that gives legislature the right to sack a presidential appointee

allthingsgood:


Show me the section of the constitution that gives legislature the right to sack a presidential appointee

I see u are on a one road to heaven, there may be no need to butress my point any further becuase nigerian laws are inherently incoherent. But on a final note Section 2(3) of the EFCC act gives credence to the powers of confirmation confirmation by the national assembly in regards the headship of the EFCC, section 147 as well as the inconsistencies of Section 171 which EFCC is not expressely should had amounted to judicial interpretation to void the section2(3) o f the EFCC act in order to realize the powers of Section1(3) of the constitution. This can only by done by a court of competent jurisdiction, in this case they're Supreme Court until then the status quo remains.If someone does not have the powers don't send for confirmation, that's why u see the chap acting for God knows how long. Same acts this guy was jettisoned by the national assembly is same acts the president suspended his services after five years .lets allow due process of the law to take effect... Finally if u don't see reasons , this is my last reply.

idahme:


I see u are on a one road to heaven, there may be no need to butress my point any further becuase nigerian laws are inherently incoherent. But on a final note Section 2(3) of the EFCC act gives credence to the powers of confirmation confirmation by the national assembly in regards the headship of the EFCC, section 147 as well as the inconsistencies of Section 171 which EFCC is not expressely should had amounted to judicial interpretation to void the section2(3) o f the EFCC act in order to realize the powers of Section1(3) of the constitution. This can only by done by a court of competent jurisdiction, in this case they're Supreme Court until then the status quo remains.If someone does not have the powers don't send for confirmation, that's why u see the chap acting for God knows how long. Same acts this guy was jettisoned by the national assembly is same acts the president suspended his services after five years .lets allow due process of the law to take effect... Finally if u don't see reasons , this is my last reply.

U really have said nothing in your long epistle. It's the president's exclusive right to hire and fire for good reason bad reason or even no reason at all, not Senate or any other arm of govt ok. Constitution is very clear on that.