Incremental legislative tyranny

• Amendment of CCB, CCT Act in perspectives

By SUNDAY ODIBASHI

THE amendment of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) Act, a fortnight ago, by the National Assembly has generated new questions over the country’s democratic transition within the framework of separation of powers and checks and balances between the arms of government.

The amendment of the bill reflected hypothesis of a country on a transition within a transition. Apparently, the lawmakers took a step further on the demilitarization of the body politic towards advancement of democracy. Thus, within the science of politics, it was, a right action, however, in a wrong direction.

The passage of the Code of Conduct (amendment) Bill, 2016, by National Assembly seemingly dissected the fusion of enforcement and justice administration powers in the executive within the basics of presidential system.

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) constitute an item enlisted in the Federal Executive Bodies in the constitution. Further extant laws clearly spelt out its responsibilities and powers. Moreover, the legislation on the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) complemented the powers of justice administration of the CCB. Accordingly, concentrating both structures involved in crime detection, prosecution of suspects, and at the same time, sitting in judgment and delivering judgment in the executive, is a recipe to autocracy and overwhelming influence of the executive. It is, therefore, not most likely that there will be objectivity and independence in the activities of both bodies. So, there was need for the amendment.

The National Assembly seems to have made improper amendment of the Act in subtly taking over the powers of the President. The lawmakers tacitly transferred the autocracy from the executive to the legislature. The House of Representatives had earlier passed the bill into law on May 31, 2016, while the Senate complemented the legislation on October 27, 2016.

The amendment stipulates that the CCB must first invite the person suspected of false declaration of assets for clarification before prosecuting the person at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

The President of the Senate, Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki, strongly made this argument on his first day of arraignment at the CCT on charges of false declaration of assets.

The National Assembly had amended Section 4 (2) of the Act to substitute the word “President” with “the National Assembly” as the authority that appoints members of staff of the Bureau and exercise disciplinary control over them.

‎Section 1 (4) was deleted and replaced with: “The Chairman and members shall serve for a term of five years subject to renewal for one further term only.

“(E) Upon complaint(s) of any breach or where it appears to the Bureau that there is a breach of the provision of this Act, any person concerned shall be given particulars of such non-compliance or breaches to explain before any reference to the Tribunal.”

The responsibility to make appointments into public institutions remains solely with the President. So, that is a flaw in the amendment by the National Assembly which historic duty of screening and approving appointments by the president remain unaltered.

It was expected that the legislators would have considered taking the CCT to the judiciary and redefine its status either as a regular court of law or an ad hoc court as in the case of Elections Petitions Tribunal. The issue of staffing and discipline would have also been transferred to the judiciary, not the legislature.

Accordingly, the separation of the CCB which could still remain as an executive body, from the CCT which could have assumed new status in the judiciary, would have been apposite to create a balance in that aspect of corrective enforcement and justice administration.

Perhaps, the amendment requires further amendment by the lawmakers. Some stakeholders are already expressing the phobia that the federal lawmakers are indirectly making laws to create illegal immunity for themselves.