Twists in CCB/CCT Act amendment

The House of Representatives recently approved certain amendments to the CCT/CCB Act. JOSHUA EGBODO takes a look at issues surrounding the proposal and expected outcome of the bill

When the Senate earlier made attempt at altering the Act establishing the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), the move was sternly resisted, especially by the organised labour and civil societies. That was so, because of the timing.

It was in the wake of trial before the CCT, of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki who, till today is still facing the Justice Danladi Umar-led Tribunal.
Specifically, the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana openly condemned the Senate over the action. The NLC President, Comrade Ayuba Wabba while reacting said “In the past one week, the Senate initiated a process for the amendment of the Act establishing the CCB and the CCT. It cited as reasons for the amendment, the need to give every public officer (appearing before the tribunal) a fair hearing, justice and equity (in line with the provisions of Section 36[2] [a] of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the need to remove from political control, the two bodies which now play a critical role in the administration of criminal justice system.

“In furtherance of its objective, the Senate fast-tracked the process of this amendment via two readings (first and second) within 48 hours. It has also set in motion the process for removing the jurisdictional powers of CCT on criminal matters via the amendment of the Administration of the Criminal Justice Act.
“In consideration of the fact that sometimes in most climes, corruption trials are triggered by reasons other than corruption, it makes a lot of sense to create legislations that guarantee fair trial and justice for the accused.

Secondly, legislative amendments are part of the constitutional functions or duties of the National Assembly
“We at the NLC hold the view that the noble intention of the Senate notwithstanding, the timing is suspect and fraught with danger.We do not think the privileges of the Senate President extend to exemptions from civil or criminal trials. At the moment, only the president and his vice, the governor and his deputy enjoy this rare privilege. Thus, what the Senate is trying to do is no more than a legislative ambush”.
Falana in a letter addressed to the Speaker of House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara said the National Assembly lacked legislative powers to alter any section of the CCB) and CCT Acts without amending some provisions of the 1999 Constitution, describing the proposal as “illegal and unconstitutional”.

“In other words, without amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the proposed amendment of the Act is an exercise in futility. As the proposed amendment cannot alter, enlarge or curtail the relevant provisions of the Constitution the Senate ought not to continue to waste precious time and resources on the illegal exercise.
“Section 3 of the Act is in pari materia with Paragraph 3(e) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution. To that extent, section 3 of the Act is inoperative and invalid in every material particular,” Falana stated.
Following the barrage of condemnations, the Senate subtly stepped down the amendment process on April 20, 2016.

However, on May 31, 2016, the House of Representatives dramatically considered and adopted ten proposed amendments to the CCB/CCT Act, including a new clause that gives power to appoint personnel of the Bureau to the National Assembly, instead of the president as required in the existing Act.

The most controversial was the proposed amendment to Section 3 of the Act by adding paragraph (e) which reads; “upon complaint(s) of any breach or where it appears to the Bureau that there is a breach of the provision of this Act, the person concerned shall be given particulars of such non compliance or breaches to explain before any reference to the tribunal”, meaning that the CCB would not have powers to immediately refer a matter to the CCT as is the case with the extant Act.

The House in the new proposal deleted section 1(4) which and replaced same with a claus that “the Chairman and members shall serve for a term of five years subject to renewal for one further term only”, while Section 4 (2) was also amended by substituting the word “President” with “the National Assembly” as the one to appoint members of staff of the Bureau and exercise disciplinary control over it.
To many analysts, the action of the House was a back-door entry plot, since the attention was so much on the Senate because of Saraki’s trial before the CCT. But spokesman of the House, Hon. Abdlurazak Namdas defended the action on June 2, 2016 at a media briefing where he said the amendment was not done with any bad intention, but that “we (members) are just doing our legislative business, which we were elected to do.
He explained that two amendment Bills to the Act were separately introduced by Hon. Edward Pajwok and Hon. Osai Nicholas Osai, and were consolidated before passage. “It is just like any other law originating from the House.

It is like passing and amending any other Bills, so the allusion should be done away with. Even if passed, and concurred by the Senate, it cannot operate in retrospect.We will ensure things are done clearly without any conflict. We are not usurping any body’s power, as it was done in the interest of the country”, Namdas stated.

The proposal according observers was ill-intended, as they have argued that appointments to some of such executive agencies are usually done by the President, and subject to ratification of the National Assembly, specially the Senate. They wondered therefore how the parliament can appoint such personnel for a body under the control of the presidency.
To many, the exercise may be a futile one as the President may withhold assent to the Bill when eventually transmitted. Would the parliament be bold enough to override his veto, should he choose not to sign the Bill? If the parliament does, would there still not be backlash from the society as is expected? To all these, only time will tell.