Withdraw your summons or I fight you legally – Sagay dares Senate

Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Professor Itse Sagay (SAN), has written to the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, asking that the Senate resolution summoning him to appear before it be withdrawn.

He further said should the Senate fail to do so, he would challenge the summons in court once they were served on him. He explained that though he was yet to be served with any summons from the Senate, he was willing to join issues with the red chamber over what he considers a potential violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression.

The PACAC Chairman noted that the National Assembly was empowered by Section 88 (1) and (2) of the Constitution to conduct investigations into the affairs of the Federal Government, with a view to promoting good governance and curbing corruption. He, however, argued that such powers were not limitless.

Sagay cited a number of cases to support his position.
“In Innocent Adikwu v. Federal House of Representatives (1982) 3 NCLR 394 at 416, the applicant, a journalist, was summoned by the respondent to disclose the source of a report published by him. The plaintiff challenged the order of the defendant,” wrote Mr. Sagay.

“To set aside, the summons served on the applicant, noted Sagay in the letter, the Lagos High Court examined the limit of the investigative powers of the respondent under section 82 of the 1979 Constitution.
He also referred to the case of the Senate vs. John Momoh (1983) at the Federal Court of Appeal, which held that the Section 82 of the 1979 Constitution was not designed to enable the legislature to usurp the general investigative functions of the executive nor the adjudicative functions of the judiciary.

“Section 82 of the 1979 Constitution enables either House to exercise power only on any matter or thing with respect to which it has the power to make laws and ‘the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry, or government department charged or intended to be charged with the duty of or responsibility for’ – ‘executing or administering laws enacted by the National Assembly’ and ‘disbursing and administering monies appropriated or to be appropriated by the National Assembly’.

“In other words, the section does not constitute the House as a universal ‘ombudsman’ inviting and scrutinizing the conduct of every member of the public for purposes of exposing corruption, inefficiency or waste,” the Federal Court of Appeal held. On the basis of the cases cited, Sagay said he was convinced that the Senate lacks the power to summon him to justify his condemnation of the illegal actions of its members.

The letter reads in part: “As you are no doubt aware, Section 88 of the Constitution, under which you have purportedly summoned me, is subject to other provisions of the Constitution, including Section 39 thereof.
“In other words, my freedom of expression cannot be abridged or violated in the course of exercising the oversight functions of the Senate.

“Senate cannot be the accuser, prosecutor, and judge in its own case. However, any aggrieved member of the Senate has the liberty to sue me for defamation in a competent court of jurisdiction.
“Consequently, I urge you to withdraw the resolution summoning me to appear before the Senate. If you fail to accede to my request I will not hesitate to challenge the legal validity of the summons, once it is served on me,” Sagay concluded.