[size=14pt]Jonathan gets legal advice on SWF[/size]
By Yusuf Alli, Abuja

President Goodluck Jonathan

President Goodluck Jonathan has secured the green light for the controversial Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF), despite the huge opposition from governors and other stakeholders.

After getting the all-clear legal advice from Attorney-General Mohammad Bello Adoke, Dr Goodluck Jonathan will soon meet governors on the grey areas in the SWF.

The legal advice may be tabled before the National Economic Council, which is being chaired by Vice-President Namadi Sambo, with the 36 governors as members.

But there will be no refund of the $1billion seed capital already deducted from the share of the 36 states in the Federation Account.
Besides, the Federal Government may continue further deductions of the states’ cash from the Federation Account into the SWF.

The legal advice from Attorney-General of the Federation Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) has foreclosed any plan to either dump or make the controversial Fund optional.

It was, however, learnt that the Presidency is trying to woo all the governors, especially those from opposition parties, such as Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Labour Party (LP), All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) and Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) to buy into the SWF.

A top government source said: “The President has got legal advice that his actions and steps on SWF are constitutional and justifiable under any law.  By implication, the Federal Government will not go back on the maintenance of the SWF.

“The option left for any state or any aggrieved party is to go to court to test the constitutionality of the SWF.
“But the President is trying to stave off recourse to legal matter. He believes he could sit down with the governors to resolve grey areas.
“The President is of the opinion that issues arising from the SWF could be managed through peaceful talks, irrespective of the legal advice.
“I think so far, only governors from the opposition parties are strongly against the SWF.

According to a copy of the legal advice obtained by our correspondent, the SWF “may be regarded as promoting a system of deferred distribution of a portion of the Federation Account, which may not necessarily be in conflict with Section 162 of the Constitution”.

The advice reads: “The primary source of the National Assembly’s legislative authority is Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers it to make laws for the ‘peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List.”

Although the establishment of the Fund is not an item specifically listed on the Exclusive Legislative List as to bring it within the legislative competence of the National Assembly, recourse may be to the provisions of Section 16 of the Constitution, which sets out the “Economic objectives” of the Nigerian state as follows:
“In the light of the objectives of the Sovereign Wealth Fund as outlined in Section 3 of the NSIA Act, it can be posited that the said objectives of the Fund are reasonably within the economic objectives of the state.

On the controversial $1billion seed capital deducted from the states’ share of the Federation Account, the legal advice ruled out any refund.
It said: “There are two sources of funding under the Act, namely, the initial seed-money in the sum of US1billion under Section 29 of the Act and subsequent funds from the Federation Account as provided under Section 30 of the Act.

Section 29 of the Act provides that the initial funding of the NSIA shall be the Naira equivalent of $1billion, which is already earmarked pursuant to the decision of the National Economic Council authorising the setting up of the Fund.

“This amount is deemed to have been contributed by the three tiers of government in the proportion of their revenue sharing under the Allocation of Revenue (Federation Account, etc) Act. This is encapsulated in provisions of Section 29(1) of the NSIA Act.”
The Attorney-General of the Federation advised the government to go ahead with the SWF.

He said: “In the light of the legal principles highlighted above, Your Excellency is kindly invited to note that:
•the National Assembly is empowered by Section 4 of the Constitution to legislate on matters on the Exclusive Legislative List and the Concurrent Legislative List;
•while the issue of the establishment of a Sovereign Wealth Fund is not specifically listed on the Exclusive Legislative List or on the Concurrent Legislative List, the objectives of the NSIA Act may be reasonably regarded as coming within the confines of the Economic Objectives of the State as outlined in Section 16 of the Constitution;
•item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List empowers the National Assembly to establish authorities for the Federation or any part thereof for the purpose of enforcing the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy; and
•the Supreme Court had in the past validated an Act of the National Assembly made to actualise the aforesaid Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy;
•the action of the National Assembly in enacting the NSIA Act can therefore be rationalised as being within its legislative competence.
The advice went on: •the major objection of the Governors to the funding arrangement for the NSIA is that it is in conflict with Section 162 of the Constitution, which directs that proceeds in the Federation Account should be distributed to the three tiers of government;
•the funding of the National Sovereign Investment Authority through receipts from the Federation Account as provided in Section 30 of the Act can be rationalised on the basis of the rider to Section 162(3) of the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to prescribe terms and manner to guide the distribution of the proceeds of the Federation Account;
•since the NSIA Act does not seek to permanently deny any of the Federation units of its share of the Federation Account, it may be regarded as promoting a system of deferred distribution of a portion of the Federation Account, which may not necessarily be in conflict with Section 162 of the Constitution; and
•that the present funding arrangement in the NSIA Act can be regarded as complementary to Section 162(3) of the Constitution and not necessarily inconsistent with that provision.

http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/index.php/news/25867-jonathan-gets-legal-advice-on-swf.html

Who cares about that r3tarded son of a gun? Nothing he does is of any significance. He is just a waste of space!

Desola:

Who cares about that r3tarded son of a gun? Nothing he does is of any significance. He is just a waste of space!

I thought that was you, my dear. A real waste of space with nothing to contribute. . . But I still love you sha.