Opinion: Why Senator Bukola Saraki Should NOT Resign

by Law Mefor

It is no longer news that the Supreme Court judgment on the appeal of the Senate Presi­dent, Senator Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki, to stop his trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), was not favourable to him. What is news now is some curi­ous calls going out for him to step down from his number three seat to face his trial at the Tribunal. On the face value, the calls may appear innocuous, and could have been even germane if this case is a regu­lar one.

The apex court last Friday dis­missed Senator Saraki’s appeal against the competence and con­stitution of the CCT to try him for the 13-count charge of false asset declaration. Those pushing for his resignation are saying that the issue has reached a critical stage where Senator Saraki’s corruption trial is questioning the Senate’s integrity and Nigeria’s pride. For them, therefore, the Senate under Senator Saraki is fast losing cred­ibility. There is now a need to inter­rogate this claim.

The issue is public perception and the discerning members of the public know that Senator Sa­raki’s trial is a ploy to hound him out of the seat of the senate presi­dent, which he occupies against the APC directive and preference for Senator Ahmed Lawan. The trial is, as such, primarily, not about fight against corruption and that is what has made the case to lose favour and public sympathy. It also raises doubt over the objectiv­ity and sincerity of the corruption fight.

It began with the way and man­ner Senator Saraki’s trial was com­menced, which left so much to be desired. Yes, in law it is said, Nul­lum tempus non ocurit regi – time does not run against the crown (government). What this simply implies is that if one has any case to answer, he shouldn’t ever fool himself that passage of time would cover it. It is good for the system that once one runs afoul of the law, it would always haunt one. But in­fractions should never be used as a political tool and brought up only when there are political vendettas to settle.

While the Senate President, Senator Bukola Saraki, had stated and maintained that he is ready to submit himself to due process of the law on any issue concerning him, he also believed that he had an inalienable right to resort to the same judiciary for protection when he feels his fundamental rights are infringed upon. That was why he approached the Supreme Court in the first place.

What armed Senator Saraki was the Code of Conduct Act 2001, Article 3 (b) which provides for the Bureau to first confront the asset declarant before referring the matter to its Code of Conduct Tri­bunal. This, Senator Saraki said, wasn’t done, which prompted him to seek other legal avenues for the protection of his rights. Question is: why rush to trial without follow­ing due process as stipulated in the code of Conduct Bureau Act?

As consequence, some have rightly called the trial political persecution rather than a fight against corruption, and an affront on the legislature. Since the re­turn to democratic governance in 1999, the legislature has been sub­jected to executive highhanded­ness, leading to what has come to be known as ‘Banana Peels’ in the National Assembly, with the in­duced instability through bribery and corruption producing 5 Sen­ate Presidents in 4 years under the Obasanjo Presidency.

Senator Saraki’s political perse­cution is obviously arising from the election of principal officers of the National Assembly in June, 2015, which saw to his ascension to the number three position in the land against the wishes of his Po­litical Party. Are such people say­ing the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which gave Senators Bukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu the inalienable rights to be elected as Senate President and Deputy respectively by their colleagues should be sacrificed on the altar of the so-called Party su­premacy?

The advocates of Party Suprem­acy over the Constitution (which is the grund norm) should first amend the Constitution; Chapter 5, which states in section 50 (1): “There shall be: (a) a President and a Deputy President of the Senate, who shall be elected by the mem­bers of that House from among themselves”. Beyond doubt, the Constitution never contemplated the roles of political party caucuses or party executives in the elections of presiding officers.

Politics is all about consensus and should not be reduced to concentric circles of conspiracies. So far, Senator Saraki has demon­strated to be a good party man and has eased through all the requests of the APC government to Senate, sometimes against popular wish­es of the Senators. An example should be the approval of Lai Mo­hammed as Minister, which voice vote was openly against. Senator Saraki pushes through such execu­tive requests to give Mr. President the necessary support to hit the ground running and gain traction. He deserves to be given some res­pite to do his job without trepida­tion.

Legislative independence is what is stake here once again. The rapprochements achieved between the legislature and executive since the Yar’Adua/Jonathan days may be eroded once again and such has adverse consequences for the pol­ity. Commendably, the Senators appear resolved to protect the Sen­ate as an institution and its leader­ship. In doing this, a great majority of the Senators gave Senator Saraki vote of confidence when the trial began and accompanied him to the Code of Conduct Tribunal and are set to continue in like manner. It means the Senate will necessar­ily be shut down occasionally in solidarity and a demonstration of legislative Independence.

To these Senators, Senator Sa­raki’s resignation cannot even be contemplated given the political nature of the trial. Putting it be­yond dispute that it is all political witch-hunt, the spokesman of the APC in Lagos State, confirmed what some of us have tried to prove – Senator Saraki’s trial is not a fight against corruption; it is a fight for his seat. The APC spokesman stat­ed clearly that the APC would stop at nothing until they retrieve what he proclaimed as “stolen mandates held by Senator Saraki and Ekwer­emadu”.

Imagine his chilling, imperious words; “Again if Bukola Senator Saraki feels his hands are tightly glued to the exalted seat of the Senate Presidency and therefore cannot be removed, APC may be compelled to tear or cut his hands off, so that the National Assembly can move forward. No man is an island, and none can claim that he is the final word in APC .I shed no tears for Senator Saraki”.

Such alarming words coming from the APC official quarters even though unofficially, is for the Party’s fear of what has come to be known as ‘tambuwalization’, as many APC chieftains believe Sena­tor Saraki and even Speaker Yaku­bu Dogara are pro-PDP and could still decamp. Yet, the same APC welcomed Aminu Waziri Tambu­wal into its fold and shielded him to retain his position as Speaker even though the APC was a mi­nority Party then.

What is more, if all one’s oppo­nents or the Government need to do to hound anybody out of an elected or appointed position is to raise an allegation and the individ­ual resigns to clear his name, then, there is a grave danger; for the target of such traducers may not be fact-finding but to remove the person from the seat, as is manifest in Senator Saraki’s trial. In such in­stances, where the allegations are politically motivated, the primary aim cannot be fight against cor­ruption but to corruptly take the individual off his elective position. Since this is the case here, Senator Saraki would be doing our democ­racy a disservice by resigning as that will further make the legisla­ture vulnerable and pliable.

Senator Saraki’s trial should be seen for what it is – political trial. Many have argued that it does not matter whether or not his case has gone stale since it was about assets they said he falsely declared 14 years ago. Yes, the wheel of justice grinds slowly and time does not run out on criminal matters. Yet, there are questions that Code of Conduct Bureau has to answer. Between the times Senator Saraki made his first asset declaration 14 years ago and the last one he made as Senate President, he had made asset declarations about 5 times. What did the Bureau do with the information he had been supplying them all the while? Can the Bureau rightly claim that it took it 13 years to verify Senator Saraki’s claims? If indeed it did take them 13 years to carry out simply asset verification, of what value is such institution to the fight against corruption? Is the leadership of the Bureau not sup­posed to be disbanded for derelic­tion of duty and incompetence?

More importantly, if the Bureau had all the facts all the while and sat on it, what moral right does its Tribunal (as constituted) still have to preside over the matter? Can such Tribunal still serve justice in this matter? More questions and no answers

Law Mefor is a political analyst. He tweets from @lawmefor1.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.