By Ayodele Oni
Six years after his removal from office, the court of appeal in Abuja has ruled that Ibrahim Magu’s prolonged stay as acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was illegal.
The appellate court declared Magu’s tenure as unlawful, overturning a federal high court judgement that upheld his continued retention in office.
Ibrahim Magu served as the acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from November 9, 2015, until his suspension on July 7, 2020.
President Muhammadu Buhari appointed him on November 9, 2015, following the removal of Ibrahim Lamorde.
The Senate declined to confirm his nomination as the substantive chairman in December 2016 and March 2017, but he continued to serve in an acting capacity.
He left office in July 2020 after his suspension and subsequent investigation by a presidential panel.
A three-member panel of the appellate court delivered the judgement in an appeal filed by Johnmary Jideobi, a lawyer, who had challenged Magu’s continued stay in office after the senate twice rejected his nomination as substantive EFCC chairman.
The respondents in the appeal were the senate, the attorney-general of the federation, the EFCC and Magu.
The appeal arose from a judgement delivered by Ijeoma Ojukwu, a judge of the federal high court in Abuja, on December 4, 2019.
Jideobi had instituted the suit before the federal high court in March 2017, arguing that Magu could not remain indefinitely as acting chairman after the senate had rejected his nomination.
In the 2019 judgement, the judge dismissed suit challenging Magu’s continued stay as acting chairman.
She held that the EFCC Act, especially section 2(3) did not restrict the powers of the president to retain Magu as acting chairman of the commission.
The judge had noted that the lacuna in the law handed the late former President Muhammadu Buhari the “proverbial yam and the knife to do as he pleases, being that there is no specific time stipulated for acting capacity”.
She stated that Order 1(2)1 of the Senate Rule cited by the plaintiff applies only to ministerial appointees and cannot be enforced on the position of the acting chairman of the EFCC.
The judge also added that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to institute the suit.
However, dissatisfied with the decision, Jideobi appealed the lower court’s verdict, where he argued that the chairman of the EFCC has a four-year tenure, renewable once, and that Magu had exceeded the stipulated period without senate confirmation.
He further argued that Magu’s acting appointment had ended by operation of law after the senate rejected his nomination.
Jideobi asked the appellate court to set aside the federal high court judgment and grant the reliefs sought in his original suit.
Discover more from The Source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
