House of Representatives rejects executive order

The Nigerian House of representatives has urged President Muhammadu Buhari not to implement the Executive Order signed last week to strengthen the government’s fight against corruption.

The Order was to give the government power to confiscate stolen assets of suspected individuals believed to have acquire through corruption.

The House and the Senate also invited the Attorney General of the Federation and the Minister of Justice and the Chairman Nigerian Law Reform Commission to appear before the lawmakers to brief them on all the Executive Order by the Buhari-led administration.

These were contained in the motion adopted before the lawmakers under matters of urgent public importance on the urgent need to investigate the constitutional compliance of all subsidiary legislations and executive orders.

Leading a debate on the motion, Mr. Nicholas Ossai from Delta State argued that the Executive Order contravenes some sections of the Nigeria constitution, and a replication of some Acts of parliament.

“The Executive order 6 is the attempt by the executive arm to suppress the powers of the legislature to make laws and the judiciary to interpret the laws.  It also defeated the concept of separation of powers among the three tiers of government, check and balance as well as representative government.” Mr. Osai stressed.

Speaking against the motion, Professor Mojeed Alabi, from Osun State and Mr. Sadiq Ibrahim from Adamawa State, insisted that the President has the constitutional power to pass any Executive Order.

The lawmakers questioned why the legislature did not object to the previous orders pointing out the possibility of attempt to sabotage the government’s anti-corruption policy.

“The President has every right to pass any order that will improve on the governance. This executive order is the sixth since the beginning of this administration, why is it that we objected only this one, while we applauded the other five?” Mr. Sadiq reiterated.

Some lawmakers who spoke against the motion explained that the order was to serve as deterrence and to legalise any action that could facilitate and expedite the war against corruption.