The legal dimensions of ‘Padding-Gate’ (I)

To millions of Nigerians still reeling from the shocking revelations of serial padding of the national budget for over a decade, the most gratuitous insult that could be added to their sense of injury and injustice is the insinuation by no less a person than the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the effect […]

To millions of Nigerians still reeling from the shocking revelations of serial padding of the national budget for over a decade, the most gratuitous insult that could be added to their sense of injury and injustice is the insinuation by no less a person than the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the effect that the most despicable and ignoble act did not constitute a criminal offence. The same narrative was shared by Hon. Ado Doguwa, one of the Principal Officers of the House in an interview aired by Channels Television yesterday.
In spite of our collective indignation, however, we must also concede that ‘law’ is universally recognized as an ass and the pendulum of justice could swing either way depending on the quality of the case, our lawyers, and the context in which justice is applied. To contemplate otherwise is to subject the law profession itself to peril. It is what makes the law profession so fascinating.
And that is why, even as we huddle in disbelief at the audacity of our lawmakers to mock our collective sensibilities, we must also remain sober in the realization that a massive gap still exists between our collective outrage at their perfidy, and our minimum expectations for justice over the shameless fleecing of our national treasury by the tiny minority of kleptomaniacs who claim to be our representatives for over a decade.
And that is why, even as laughable as the claim may appear to some, there is some element of logic in the suggestion by Speaker Dogara that he does not consider the act of ‘padding’ the Appropriation Bill to be a crime. He should know because he is also a lawyer. It is now up to our laws and the robust arguments of our finest lawyers to disprove him. His perspective is not to be sniggered at. In America, serial killers have been known to escape justice on the grounds of temporary insanity! Without the qualities demonstrated by the late Johnnie Cochran and Rober Shapiro, it is doubtful if O.J. Simpson would have escaped conviction for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown over twenty years ago. Respect for even the most improbable argument is an essential part of the mystique of law and its application.
It is not surprising that the seeming arrogance of the principal officers of the House on this matter has generating a lot of interest among lawyers. What follows, for example, is the perspective of Barrister Abubakar D. Sani titled “ALLEGED ‘PADDING’ OF BUDGET 2016 AND DOGARA/JIBRIN FACE-OFF – ANY PROSPECT OF CRIMINAL PROCECUTION?” The contribution was his reaction to the piece I wrote on the same subject last week. Enjoy!
The ongoing feud between the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the erstwhile Chairman of the House Appropriation Committee, Hon. Abdulmumuni Jibrin over allegations (and counter-allegations) of padding the 2016 budget has degenerated to the extent that each side is reportedly threatening to invite the EFCC, ICPC and DSS to investigate the other with the ultimate possibility of criminal prosecution.
In my opinion, the situation, once again, exposes the seeming widespread ignorance of the legal status of legislators, including the proceedings of the institution(s) itself, vis-avis the criminal (and even civil) justice system. While there is no doubt that law enforcement agents such as the DSS, ICPC, EFCC, etc., can investigate anyone, including legislators, it is also clear that, by virtue of the Sections 3, 23 & 30 of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act, Cap. L. 12, LFN 2004, all legislators enjoy limited immunity from criminal and civil process while they hold that status.
In this regard, it is important to outline the aforesaid provisions of the said law herein, as follows:
“3. Immunity from proceedings.
No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of a Legislative House:
a.    In respect of words spoken before that House or a Committee thereof;
b.    In respect of words written in a report to that House or to any Committee or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by him therein”.

“23. Restriction on evidence as to certain matters.
No evidence relating to any of the following matters, that is to say –
a.    Debates or other proceedings in a Legislative House;
b.    The contents of the minutes of evidence taken or any documents laid before a Committee of a Legislative House or any proceedings or examinations held before any such Committee, by  a member of officer of the House or any shorthand writer employed to take minutes of such evidence or proceedings or in respect of any of the matters specified in paragraph (b) of this section, by any person who was a witness before the Committee, shall be admissible in any proceedings before a court or person authorized by law to take evidence unless the court or such last mentioned person is satisfied that permission has been given by the President or Speaker, as the case may be, of the House or the Chairman of the Committee (as the case may require) for such evidence to be given”.

“30.    Courts not to exercise jurisdiction over acts of President, Speaker or Officer.
Neither the President or Speaker, as the case may be, of a Legislative House nor any officer of a Legislative House shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested in him by or under this Act or the standing orders of the Legislative House, or by the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied).
To be continued next week