Executive order on financial autonomy for state judiciary, legislature is faulty says Ekweremadu
The Executive Order No. 10 of 2020 granting financial autonomy to State Judiciary and Legislature is faulty, former Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, has indicated.
He, however, noted that the intent might be good, the action was unnecessary and unconstitutional.
This was contained in a Press Statement that was signed by his media adviser Uche Anichukwu and was made available to The Guardian yesterday in Abuja.
Ekweremadu punctured arguments of the proponents of the controversial Control of Infections Disease Bill 2020 and the National Health Emergency Bill 2020, saying they negated the Constitution and could not possibly succeed as currently drafted.
He faulted the restrictions of movements and other rights declared by the Federal Government and several states in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that while they were “absolutely necessary”, they “failed the constitutionalism test” and could only be overlooked on the grounds of Doctrine of Necessity.
Ekweremadu spoke his views while fielding questions on “Political Voices”, a current affairs programme.
“There has been a lot of misconception regarding that Executive Order. In the first place, it was quite unnecessary.
“We, the members of the 8th Assembly, passed the amendment to the Constitution to grant financial autonomy to the State Judiciary and Legislature because we believed that for the sake of their independence, they should be on the First Line Charge of the states Consolidated Revenue Account.
He said when they passed them, President dutifully signed them into law (over a year ago).
“That should have been the end of it because the amendments are self-executing. We expected that having done that, the states should go-ahead to work out the modalities. But that didn’t happen.
“So, the President now set up a committee headed by the Attorney-General of the Federation to work out the modalities for implementation. I think it was at that point that they deemed it necessary to come up with an Executive Order to strengthen the implementation.
He observed that l they have simply mutilated those provisions of the Constitution as amended.m adding that they are adding some aspects suggesting to the states how to manage their funds because part of that Executive Order is that in the next three years, the judiciary in the states should dedicate part of the monies coming to them to capital projects for the State Judiciary.
“It went ahead to suggest that if the governors fail to remit these monies to State Judiciary and State Legislature, then the President could direct that these monies be transferred straight from the Federation Account to the State Judiciary and Legislature. This in itself was not part of what we amended in the Constitution and it is not part of the Constitution”, he stated.”
On the way forward, Ekweremadu advised the Governors to approach the President and point out those mistakes so that he could withdraw the executive order.
“And unfortunately, if they go to court, the implication is that the application of that amendment regarding financial independence of the State Judiciary and State Assembly will be put on hold because so long as they are in court those provisions will not be implemented.
“So, it something the Governors and the Attorney General and the President need to settle amicably”, he admonished.
He said the Emergency Bill Won’t Pass as Presented.
Ekweremadu also allayed concerns over the infectious disease Bills before the National Assembly.
He stated: “Let me use this opportunity to reassure Nigerians that the bill as presently presented will not be passed by the National Assembly. A lot of parliamentarians have lined up to oppose it.
“Parliament is essentially a market place of ideas. And like every other market, if you come to the market with a product that is not very good, you are not likely going to sell it. So, my colleagues in both chambers are entitled to presenting the Bills, but whether that will succeed or not is another kettle of fish.
“Looking at that Bill, which is intended to deal with dangerous or infectious diseases, it appears to me that the Bill is even more dangerous than the diseases they.”
“He said a cursory look at some parts of the Bill, it says if you have any problem with the order or actions of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control, NCDC, have to appeal to the Minister and whatever the Minister says will be final.
He indicated that Section 4 (8) of the Constitution says that no attempt should be made by the National Assembly or any State Assembly make nay law that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, you must right to go to court if you have any issues.
To that extant, he said that Bill is null and void, unacceptable, and unconstitutional”.
He also cited infringements on democratic freedoms, such as freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom to own properties, among others.
“To that extent, the Bill is unconstitutional because it gives the agency the right to breach those rights take over people’s properties, prevent from moving around, other infringements on rights and the Constitution provides that if any law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, that law is null and void to the extent of those inconsistencies.
“As I said, my colleagues have the right to present the Bill, but I can assure Nigerians that that Bill will not be passed as it is presently”, he added.
He observed that the COVID-19 restrictions are necessary but unconstitutional
While commending the Federal Government and many states for their commendable efforts in handling the COVID-19 pandemic, the lawmaker representing Enugu West Senatorial District, wondered why the Federal Government failed to invoke Section 305 of the Constitution.
“I think the pandemic itself is an emergency situation that requires an emergency response. But some of the things we have done can only be accommodated under the Doctrine of Necessity because we have done things that are infringements to our own Constitution.
“Let me make myself clear, the response itself and actions taken by the Federal Government and the stakes have taken were absolutely necessary.”
For him, legally speaking, they failed the test of constitutionality because a lot of human rights contained in the Constitution have been infringed. That was why I said they could only be accommodated under the doctrine of necessity.
“We have seen shutdowns. We have seen the closure of state borders. Those things are certainly not in tandem with a democratic society because if we weigh them strictly against the Constitution, nobody can be stopped from moving from one part of the country to the other. You cannot stop people from going to church or going to market.
“But the Constitution envisaged such situations and provided for them. If you go to Section 45, you would see that human rights could be legally abridged if there is a State of Emergency properly declared by the President. These are the provisions the Constitution has made to manage a situation like COVID-19, which we could have followed.
“So, I expected the President to take advantage of Section 305 of the Constitution, which deals with emergency powers or the State of Emergency. The President could have simply declared the State of Emergency and send the gazette containing the emergency to the National Assembly. The National Assembly is enjoined to accept or reject it within fourteen days. But until that happens, the Proclamation takes effect.
“A Governor can also ask the President, through a resolution of the State House of Assembly, to declare a State of Emergency in a state or any part thereof.
All said, this is not a time to be legalistic, but going forward we should know that if we make laws for ourselves, we need to obey the law.
“Over all, so far so good. The governments at the centre and in many of the states have done well in managing the pandemic” Ekweremadu concluded.
No comments yet