By Segun Balogun
The letter written by the Attorney General of Lagos State, Supo Sasore, advising all ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) in the state not to appear today before the 7-man ad hoc committee investigating financial allegations made against the executive government of Lagos State met the fury of the lawmakers yesterday.
This has prompted the House to summon Mr. Sasore to appear before it today.
The probe committee is expecting the MDAs to present requested documents relevant to its assignment today but the attorney general, in his letter that was read at the plenary session of the House yesterday, advised the MDAs "that they are under a legal duty not to acquiesce in actions that may undermine the process of the Court of Appeal".
The continued sitting of the probe panel amounts to contempt of the court to the fact that there is an appeal suit and a pending motion for injunction on the investigation saga, as explained in the letter, which was written on the advice of Bamidele Aturu, a lawyer, to the attorney general.
Mr. Aturu in a letter written to the attorney general on May 6 asked the attorney general "to use your good offices to prevail upon the defendant (House of Assembly), if need be, by using your constitutional power, to ensure that [the defendant] does not do anything to frustrate the appeal and motion for injunction pending before the Court of Appeal".
Mr. Sasore, based on Mr. Aturu's advice, asked the probe committee to "await the outcome of the appeal case and the motion for injunction before the court of appeal".
Background
A Lagos High Court presided by Justice Abiru had on March 16, in the case Richard Akinola vs Lagos House of Assembly, dissolved a 5-man committee set up by the House to investigate allegations levelled against the executive government by The True Face of Lagos group because the House did not follow due process.
In its next sitting after the judgment, the House dissolved the committee but upon another allegation made by the same group, another 7-man committee was constituted.
An appeal was however filed by Mr. Akionla, even though he won at the High Court and a yet-to-be-granted injunction to stop the new committee was sought.
Bone of contention
As explained in his letter, Mr. Aturu, who is Mr. Akionla's lawyer, said they have gone to the Appeal Court because the High Court refused to construe the provision of section 128(a) and 128(b) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as requested.
"In other words, the court did not agree with us that the power of the defendant to conduct investigation under section 128 must be predicated on the existence of a pending bill to make a new law or correct defects in existing law relating to the subject matter of investigation," he said.
Rising to oppose Mr. Aturu's claim, Sanai Agunbiade (Ikorodu constituency), who is a member of the probe committee, said the claim is only true for Section 128(a). He said Section 128(b) empowers the House to also hold investigation in order to expose corruption.
Mr. Agunbiade also said that the ministry of works and infrastructure had already obliged the probe panel the requested documents.
"I don't think there is anything in law or common sense that will stop the House from investigating allegations of corruption," said Adeyemi Ikuforiji, the Speaker of the House.
"The attorney general, who I have a lot of respect for as a complete gentleman, got it all wrong. He should be brought to this House [Tuesday] to explain what we don't already know".
Next
