Alleged N10bn Private Jet Scam: Abuja Court Quashes House Summon Of Dieziani, NNPC

SAN FRANCISCO, December 17, (THEWILL) – The invitation of the Petroleum Minister, Dieziani Alison-Madueke, and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), by the investigative panel of House of Representatives over the alleged N10billion private jet scam has been quashed .

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and presided by Justice Ahmed Mohammed quashed the invitation Wednesday while ruling on a suit filed by the Minister and NNPC challenging the summon.

The minister and NNPC had approached the court seeking to stop the House of Representatives from probing allegations that they expended over N10bn on chartered aircraft after several invitations extended to them by the House.

But in his ruling on the suit on Wednesday, Justice Mohammed held that the House of Representatives has the power to summon anybody irrespective of his or her position to appear before it to give explanation on how a public property entrusted to him or her is being managed.

The court also rejected the argument that the House could not summon public officials without the consent of the President.

According to Justice Mohammed, “The National Assembly in the discharge of its duty does not need any consent to invite a public officer to come and defend how he managed a public property such as the aircraft in his care.

“What the House is asking for is not a confidential document‎ that needed the consent of the President before it would be released rather it is a public property placed in care of a public servant.”

Justice Mohammed however held that the House must comply with its own rules when summoning public officials, maintaining that in the case at hand, the House did not follow due process in inviting the plaintiffs.

The court also held that the House of Representatives ought to have presented before the court the resolution of the meeting published in a gazette or a journal where it agreed to invite the minister and NNPC.

Ruling on the invitation of the plaintiffs, the court maintained that the National Assembly has the power to direct investigation but the burden of proof is on the House of Representatives to show that there is a resolution on such invitation.

According to Justice Mohammed, “None of the defendants has produced the published resolution where it was said that the plaintiffs should be invited.

“The defendants ought to have brought before the court, resolution of its meeting wherein the plaintiffs are invited to appear before it, published in a gazette or house journal.

“There is no evidence before the court that there was a resolution to invite the plaintiffs. By this act, it renders the summons invalid.

“Therefore, the letter of invitation served on the plaintiffs is hereby set aside because of the failure of the House of Representatives to produce the resolution as duly published in the gazette or its house journal.”

“Had the House of Representatives published the resolution in a gazette or a house journal and presented it before this court, the plaintiffs would not have any business coming to this court.”

“This decision does not imply that the House of Representatives does not have the power to summon anybody no matter how highly placed to investigate him.”

“If such power is properly utilised, the National Assembly can summon anybody. However in this instant case, the House of Representatives has not followed the due process of inviting the plaintiffs.”

“It is on that note, that I advise the plaintiffs to submit themselves to any invitation to show their respect to constituted authorities.”

The plaintiffs, had through their lawyer, Etigwe Uwa (SAN), argued that the National Assembly had no constitutional power to carry out an oversight function on Ministries, Departments and Agencies of Government and cannot hold hearing to adjudicate on petitions against them.

Uwa argued that before any summons could be issued out by the House or request for any documents or papers, the consent of the President must be first sought, adding that the defendants never followed such process.

The lawyer further argued that before the summons could be issued on his client, such summons must first be published in the gazette of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and must also be first published in the journal of the National Assembly in line with sections 88 and 89 of 1999 Constitution.

He also added that the defendants without complying with Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution could not summon them.

Uwa therefore prayed the court to set aside the invitation sent to his clients by the House for probe.

However, the defendants through their counsel, Yakubu Maikyau (SAN) and Abubakar Mahmud (SAN) for the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively opposed Uwa's arguments, praying the court to dismiss the argument of the plaintiffs.

Maintaining that the National Assembly had not issued any summon on the minister but rather an invitation, they submitted that, the plaintiff had approached the court because she was afraid of what the outcome of the probe would be.

On the court's argument that the summons ought to have been published in a gazette, the defendants submitted that the vote of proceedings for that day could be used as a journal as they prayed the court to allow the probe.