An Abuja Federal High Court has validated the rejection of the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ibrahim Magu, by the Senate.
The Senate had rejected the confirmation of Magu as chairman of Anti-graft agency due to security reports from the Department of State Services.
The Senate spokesman, Senator Abdulahi Sabi, revealed the judgement of the Court while addressing journalists after the plenary session on Thursday.
The judgment made available to journalists by the Senate’s spokesman, was delivered by Justice J.T. Osgood.
It stated that there is no doubt that the National Assembly is bound by the provision of the EFCC Act with respect to the appointment of the chairman of the EFCC by the President.
The judge added that the Senate is conferred with the authority to ensure the choice of only suitable and credible persons for appointment as EFCC boss.
The judgement, which was delivered on January 15 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/59/2017, said the suit is liable to be struck out for lack of standing but the court will consider the merit of the issue raised determination by the plaintiff.
According to the judgement, the suit was filled by Oluwatosin Ojaomo, in which the Senate President, National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria were respondents.
The judgement reads in part: “There is no doubt that the 1st Defendant is bound by the provisions of the EFCC Act with respect to the appointment of the chairman of the EFCC by the President.
“It should be realized that the provision of section 2(3) of the EFCC Act empowers the Senate, headed by the 1st Defendant, to confirm an appointee to the office of the chairman of EFCC by the President.
“The Senate is thus invested with Authority to ensure the choice of only suitable and credible person for the appointment of EFCC of that office. The submission of the plaintiff however gives the impression that the Senate only exist to rubber stamp the president’s appointment of a chairman. Such view runs counter to proper intendement of section2(3) of the EFCC Act and is misconceived.”