Appointment of service chiefs

By the existing procedure, the president merely announces the officers into their positions without recourse to the National Assembly for ratification, which is contrary to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and that of the Armed Forces Act of 2004.  The ruling was sequel to a suit asking the Federal High Court to decide on […]

By the existing procedure, the president merely announces the officers into their positions without recourse to the National Assembly for ratification, which is contrary to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and that of the Armed Forces Act of 2004.  The ruling was sequel to a suit asking the Federal High Court to decide on the legality of appointment of service chiefs that contravened the specific provisions of Section 218 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 18 of the Armed Forces Act, Cap 20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004 both of which stipulate that such appointments be approved by the National Assembly.
Following the ruling, the House of Representatives launched an investigation into the discrepancies between S.18 (1) of the Armed Forces Act 2004 which requires the appointments to be approved by the National Assembly and the revised edition of the same Act published in the LFN 2011, that does not contain such requirement but has been the enabling document guiding the appointment of service chiefs since. Indeed in the revised provisions of 2011, requirement of approval was replaced with a phrase that states that ‘’the president may, after consultations with the Minister of Defence, appoint such officers as he thinks fit’’. The replacement of the approval power of the National Assembly with ‘’consultation with the defence minister,’’ as contained in the revised edition of the LFN 2011, in the choice of service chiefs amounts to illegally ousting the legislature from its legitimate and constitutional duty of checking the actions of the executive.
Clearly, as currently couched, the revised provisions in the hands of a president with inordinate motives, could be used to make appointments that could be injurious to the polity, or be deployed as a means of favouritism capable of politicising posts that require utmost de-politicisation. The ruling cannot be more propitious and opportune. It is apt and timely and its enforcement will ensure the tenet of separation of powers between the executive and the legislature inherent in Nigeria’s democracy in order to forestall a predilection to unlawful power grab through encroachment by one arm on another’s powers.
In a similar vein, the prompt action taken by the House of Representatives by instituting an investigation into the matter is proper, and illustrates a responsiveness to duty of ensuring that the executive does not ride roughshod over the nation’s laws, especially as it relates to the all-important issue of appointment of top military posts which deserves thorough scrutiny from the National Assembly as the constitution provides.
It is perplexing that the executive branch allowed itself to be persuaded into using a process that is patently at variance with the provisions of the constitution in the appointment of service chiefs. The fact that it is so, makes it difficult to assume that the office of the Attorney General of the Federation is performing its advisory role appropriately.
The Judiciary Committee of the House charged with looking into how the National Assembly’s duty of approval and ratification of appointments of service chiefs came to be usurped and replaced with mere “consultation with the minister of defence’’ should therefore discharge its assignment with dispatch in order for the situation to be corrected. In every democratic dispensation, making laws and amending them is the work of the legislature; it should not be different in the case of Nigeria. The executive should learn to respect explicit constitutional provisions aimed at enshrining best practises, order and good governance.