Tobi Soniyi
24 June 2011
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Dimeji Bankole has said no court in the country has the jurisdiction to try him for his actions while exercising his powers as speaker of the lower chamber.
Citing the provisions of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act and the National Assembly Service Commission Act, the former speaker insisted that his actions while in office were beyond the scrutiny of anybody, including the courts.
In an application to quash the charges of illegally obtaining N38 billion loans levelled against him before an Abuja High Court, Bankole, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) Thursday, said there was no shred of evidence to sustain the 17-count charge.
Awomolo argued that the occupier of the office of the speaker could not be answerable for duties, functions outside the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, and Legislative Houses (Power and Privileges) Act 2011.
He said that his client, Bankole, was not a member of staff of the National Assembly and that no law could make the speaker a staff member of the House.
According to him, Section 51 of the constitution created the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly and other staff … whereas Section 318 defined public service of the Federation to include clerk or other staff members of the National Assembly.
Section 9 of the National Assembly Service Commission defined officers of the National Assembly to include:
a) Clerk of National Assembly;
b) Deputy Clerk of National Assembly; etc.
Awomolo submitted that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, by law, was not subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of exercise of any power conferred on or vested in him, under the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or the standing order of the Legislative House.
He further argued that the speaker as an officer of the House was immune from civil or criminal proceedings in respect of matters spoken or written or a decision taken by the House in plenary or executive sessions or committee stages of the business of the House.
He cited Sections 3 and 30 of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act.
Section 3 of the Act states: “No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of a Legislative House –
(a) in respect of words spoken before that House or a committee thereof; or
(b) in respect of words written in a report to that House or to any committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by him therein.”
He submitted that the rationale for legislative officers’ immunity was founded in public policy.
He said: “The reason is not because the speaker has any privilege to make mistake or be corrupt or to do wrong. It is so that he should be able to do his duty with complete independence from fear.”
He also stated that the exercise of powers by the speaker was like that of a judicial officer in exercise of the functions of his office.
He said: “The applicant in exercise of his official function as Speaker of the House of Representatives cannot and is not criminally liable and this court cannot exercise jurisdiction in all the 17 counts against him as they relate to Legislature and the principle of supremacy of parliament remains inviolate. This is in recognition of exercise of public powers and duties which are peculiar with the executive, legislature and the judiciary.”
In an application to quash the charges of illegally obtaining N38 billion loans levelled against him before an Abuja High Court, Bankole, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), said there was no shred of evidence to sustain the 17-count charge.
He consequently asked the court to direct the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mrs. Farida Waziri, to publicly apologise to him for public humiliation, denial of personal liberty, unlawful detention and discomfort to his person and family since Sunday, June 5, 2011.
He punctured the entire charges one after the other claiming that the EFCC was acting under the mis-apprehension of the law or was merely persecuting the former speaker.
He asked the court to quash the charges also on the ground that EFCC had neither statutory nor constitutional power to issue authority to a private prosecutor, to prosecute offences created by or under the Penal Code Act in any court of law, without the fiat of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) first being sought and obtained and usage of the powers as a vindictive weapon against the applicant.
He also wanted the court to issue an order condemning EFCC for abuse of court process, malicious and reckless use of prosecutorial power of the AGF when it had no power or authority to appropriate the constitutional powers of Attorney-General.
He said: “The commission knew the position of the law but used it as a vindictive weapon to destroy the applicants’ political career.”
According to him, no court has jurisdiction to try the speaker of the House or subject him to jurisdiction in all matters which related to, connected with and arose from any exercise of his official functions.
Bankole argued that in the exercise of his duties in matters relating to his office as Speaker of the House, he could not be prosecuted for the acts, decisions and resolutions of the House, taken at its executive or committee sessions because the principle of vicarious liability was unknown to criminal law in Nigeria.
EFCC had accused Bankole and his former deputy, Usman Nafada, of using the accounts of the House in First Bank and United Bank for Africa Plc.to obtain loans illegally.
But he said that it was a pity that the EFCC did not understand the criminal laws it was supposed to enforce, claiming that neither him nor any principal officer of the House was a signatory to the accounts in question.
He also accused the commission of being ignorant of how the House worked.
He said he was not the accounting officer rather the Clerk of the House at the material time was Mr Mohammed Ataba Sani Omolori, who is listed as the 3rd prosecution witness.
According to him, the clerk is the chief administrative officer, the chief legislative officer and the accounting officer of the House.
He explained that all contracts awarded by the House which were less than N50 million were approved and given effect by the Management Committee under the chairmanship of the Clerk of the House.
All contracts and finances requiring over N50 million, he said, were recommended by the management committee to the House Committee and the Committee of Principal Officers under his (Bankole) chairmanship and when approved, it was given effect to by the management under the control of the clerk of the House.
He said in March 2010, the House at its executive session resolved to enhance the “running cost” of all the 360 members, except the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker.
At the executive session, he said, the House formed a 37-man committee which reviewed the package of the running cost and it was presented to the House at an executive session where it was approved.
He also said it was the accounting officer of the House who advised that the shortfall in fund be met by loans to be taken from a commercial bank to meet the funds required.
The former speaker explained that the loans were negotiated by the management of the House and the disbursement was effected by the same management into the accounts of all the 360 members.
He said: “There is no evidence that the money received as loan was the property of the Federal Government of Nigeria. It was at best the money of the House of Representatives. The persons entitled to it were the 360 members less the 1st and 2nd accused (Bankole and Nafada). All the persons who were entitled to the money got it. So where is the theft coming from.”
He gave other reasons why the charges must be quashed. They are: That there was no scintilla of evidence contained or shown in the proof of evidence capable of warranting the inference or conclusion that the applicant was at any time entrusted with the House of Representatives Account No. 0039007000018 with the United Bank for Africa Plc. as alleged in counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the charge or at all.
He also claimed that there was no scintilla of evidence shown in the proof of evidence capable of leading to the conclusion that he breached the provisions of Section 311 of the Penal Code Act in the manner alleged in counts 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the charge or at all.
He faulted EFCC when it accused him of “dishonestly” using account No. 00390070000018 to obtain a loan as alleged in counts 2-6 of the charge and at the same time be charged with misappropriating the sums alleged in counts 7-17 of the charge by referring to the loan as “property of the Federal Government of Nigeria” because an alleged illegal loan facility from a commercial bank, could not at the same time be the property of the Federal Government of Nigeria, capable of being misappropriated or stolen.
He said: “The allegations of ‘dishonestly disbursing’ the amounts in counts 13-17 of the charge are unknown to any written law and are thus unsustainable.”
AllAfrica – All the Time