John Ameh and Leke Baiyewu, Abuja
Some senators at the plenary on
Thursday, called for the impeachment of President Muhammadu Buhari for
allowing the withdrawal of $496m from the Excess Crude Account to
purchase military aircraft without National Assembly’s approval.
Most of the lawmakers, who spoke on the
withdrawal and spending pointed out that the President had breached
Section 80 of the 1999 Constitution, while a few disagreed.
The 12 Super Tucano aircraft ordered from the United States would be delivered in 2020.
The Senate President, Bukola Saraki, had
on Wednesday read a letter from Buhari in which he admitted that the
money had been withdrawn and paid to the US ahead of the legislative
approval. This, he said, was done to beat the deadline for the arms
deal.
On Tuesday, the letter was slated for
consideration and referral to the relevant committee but Senator Mathew
Uroghide, who had protested against the expenditure on Wednesday, moved a
motion for Buhari’s impeachment for violation of the constitution.
Uroghide, who is the Chairman of the
Committee on Public Accounts, specifically urged Saraki to allow the
Senate to invoke Section 143 of the Constitution against the President.
He said, “Any amount of money that has
to be spent from the Federation Account, must be appropriated by the
National Assembly. This one has not been appropriated by the National
Assembly and therefore breaches the provisions of the constitution.
“The Senate is not unmindful of the fact
that the objective of this expenditure has been well established, but
the procedure for this expenditure is wrong. There ought to have been
appropriation before this money was spent.”
Uroghide added, “There are serious
consequences for the violation of our constitution. As a consequence,
the only thing that we can draw from on this is that, we call on you
(Saraki) to invoke Section 143 of the Constitution. What it means is
that this matter does not need to be investigated; it is clear that this
offence has been committed by Mr. President.”
Seconding the motion, Senator Chukwuka
Utazi stated that it was time for the legislature to be decisive. He
noted that Sections 80 and 81 of the constitution stated the powers of
the legislature on spending by the executive and how the executive
should manage its finances.
Utazi added, “There is no other name to
call this except an impeachable offence and we cannot allow that. We
cannot stay here and this Assembly and Nigerians will be taken for
granted. It should not be so. I rise and support the motion.”
Also speaking, Senator Shehu Sani has described the expenditure as “a gross abuse of the constitution.”
While Sani stated that he was not in
support of the impeachment call, he asked that the payment be refunded
and the transaction be started afresh to allow due process.
But Senator Abu Ibrahim described the
impeachment call as “a PDP conspiracy.” Ibrahim challenged the
opposition lawmakers to name any state governor in the PDP who benefited
from the previous withdrawals from the ECA and sought the approval of
the state House of Assembly before spending the money.
Senator Samuel Anyanwu, however,
countered Ibrahim, stating that the matter was about respect for
government’s institutions and not about party politics.
The Deputy Majority Leader, Senator Bala
Ibn Na’Allah, however, argued that the executive might have considered
Section 83(1-2) of the constitution, which allows the President to make
extra-budgetary spending in an emergency situation.
N’allah said, “In view of the
controversy that this has generated, my advice is that since we have the
Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, issues of this
nature can be referred to that committee. Let them look at it properly
and advise the Senate on the way forward.”
Saraki, in his ruling, noted there were
two issues: the spate of insecurity and the flawed process through which
the government wanted to tackle it.
The Senate President sought the permission of the lawmakers to refer the probe to the Committee, which was unanimously granted.
But the House of Representatives was
undecided on Thursday whether to approve a $496.3m request by President
Buhari to purchase 12 units of Tucano aircraft from the US.
The House referred the request to its
Committee on Rules/Business to look into it and guide the members
properly on the way forward.
The House, in keeping with its Tuesday resolution to debate the matter before taking a stance, had listed it on Thursday.
But, as the Speaker, Mr. Yakubu Dogara,
called on the Acting Leader of the House, Mr. Mohammed Monguno, to move a
motion for the debate, some members kicked against it.
The motion sought to include the $496.3m in the 2018 Appropriation Bill still pending before the National Assembly.
It was the Chairman, Committee on
Ethics/Privileges, Mr. Nicholas Ossai, who raised a point of order to
observe that by the procedure of the House, the request was belated
because Buhari had already spent the money.
Ossai quoted Section 80 (2) of the 1999
Constitution (as amended) to remind members that no funds could be
withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation, “except
in the manner approved by the National Assembly.”
He argued, “This motion is not relevant
because this money has been spent. This matter cannot be discussed at
all. This matter ought to have been thrown away and I urge the House
that this motion should be withdrawn.”
However, there were other members, who
attempted to protest loudly, saying that the House should at least
debate the letter and either approve or reject it.
For instance, the Chief Whip of the
House, Mr. Alhassan Ado-Doguwa, observed that the House would still be
in order by debating the motion.
Some members like the Deputy Minority
Leader, Mr. Chukwuka Onyema; Mr. Gabriel Onyenwife; Mr. Agbedi Fredie;
and Mr. Sergious Ose-Ogun, backed Ossai.
They said the request was “belated” and
trying to bend the House rules to accommodate the $496.3m either by a
motion or a fresh money bill, would amount to self-indictment by the
legislature.
The Speaker, Mr. Yakubu Dogara, intervened to rule that in view of the divergent opinions, the debate should be suspended.
