Court judgment is of no legal value on Magu’s appointment – Falana

A senior advocate and human rights activist, Femi Falani says the recent judgment by court affirming Nigerian Senate’s power to confirm or reject a nominee was of no legal value.

The Presidency insistence on keeping the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu, despite the rejection of his candidature twice by the Senate has been the crux of the legal battle.

According to Falana, the case of the plaintiff was struck out by the Federal High Court for want of locus standi. “It is trite law that once a case is dismissed or struck out by a court for any reason whatsoever, it cannot be relied upon to assert any right or exercise any power. Accordingly, the view expressed by the learned trial judge on the power of the Senate to confirm or reject a person nominated for the post of the chairman of the EFCC by the President pursuant to section 2 of the EFCC act, is of no legal value as the case had been struck out by his Lordship in the same ruling.”

He added that contrary to the notion celebrated by the senate, the applicant did not ask the court to remove Magu and therefore “no such order was made by the court”

An Abuja Division of the Federal High Court gave the ruling to a suit filed by a private lawyer, Oluwatosin Ojaomo.

Ojaoma had in his suit demanded the determination of two issues by the court: namely whether the senate had powers to reject a validly nominated candidate for the position of EFCC chairman, by the presidency.

ALSO SEE: How Magu’s attempt to arrest Kyari turned out; Buhari reacts

He also asked the court to determine if the senate was not bound by the provisions of the EFCC act 2 (3) to confirm any candidate nominated by the presidency for the said position.

On the one hand, the court held that against the arguments proffered by the applicants, the senate’s position was not a rubber stamp meant only to affirm any decision of the presidency, but that the senate indeed had powers to either affirm or reject a candidate from the presidency.

However, the court in its other opinion on the matter noted that fundamental to its determination of the suit is the need to first ascertain if the applicant had the “locus standi” to file the application in the first instance.