Osinbajo NOT 'Coordinator' BUT Ag. President - Senate Corrects Buhari's Humiliating Clause On VP

The humiliating clause contained in the letter sent to the Senate by President Muhammadu Buhari, describing the Vice President as who will coordinate the affairs of the government has been corrected by the Senate.

Buhari, who is already in the United Kingdom for medical leave has in an unusual manner carefully refused to refer to Osinbajo as the Acting President, as he did in his previous letters to the Senate.

Senators were yesterday locked in a big argument over the President’s medical leave letter.

At issue was President Muhammadu Buhari’s description of Acting President Yemi Osinbajo as the person to “coordinate activities of the government”.

How I Increase My Blokos Size & Stopped Premature 

Ejaculation Issues That Scattered My Relationship For 2years.. Click HERE for Details

But to Senate Leader Ahmed Lawan, it was all a storm in a teacup. He criticized the point of order raised by Senator Mao Ohuabunwa.

Senate President Bukola Saraki then upheld Lawson's argument and declared Osinbajo Acting President.

It was all at the Senate plenary after Saraki read the letter from the President who has travelled to London on “medical follow-up”.

How I Increase My Blokos Size & Stopped Premature 

Ejaculation Issues That Scattered My Relationship For 2years.. Click HERE for Details

However, at the House of Representatives, there was no controversy when the letter was read by Speaker Yakubu Dogara.

President Buhari’s May 5 letter states that while he is away, the vice president will “coordinate activities of the government”.

The length of his stay in London will be determined by his doctor’s advice, the letter states.

The letter reads: “In compliance with Section 145 {1) of the 1999 constitution as amended, I wish to inform the distinguished Senate that I will be away for a scheduled medical follow-up with my doctors in London.

“The length of my stay will be determined by the doctor’s advice.

“While I am away, the vice president will coordinate the activities of the government. Please accept the distinguished Senate president the assurances of my highest consideration.”

Hardly had Saraki concluded reading the letter than Senator Ohuabunwa raised a Point of Order.

Ohuabunwa (Abia North) had noted that the Constitution had no provision for a coordinating president or a coordinating vice president.

He said presidential letters to “the Senate, the highest legislative body in the country, should be direct and unambiguous.”

Ohuabunwa said: “Whenever the president transmits to the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration that he is proceeding on vacation or otherwise that he is unable to discharge the functions of his office, until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such function shall be discharged by vice president as acting president.

“Mr. President I don’t think in our Constitution we have anything like ‘coordinating president or coordinating vice president’.

“It is either you are vice president or you are acting president and any letter should be unambiguous and very clear.

“So, I’m saying that this letter really does not convey anything because coordinating has no space or any place in our Constitution.

“We have been having letters like this and you tell us who is the acting president and we know who to deal with as a Senate.

“This is the highest legislative body of the country and if you are sending us letter it should be direct and unambiguous. So, I am saying that this letter for me is not right and maybe should be sent back.”

Lawan urged the Senate to disregard Ohuabunwa’s point of order noted that Section 145 (1) of the Constitution which President Buhari quoted is clear on who should act in the absence of Mr. President.

The Yobe North lawmaker said any other word contained in the presidential letter is irrelevant

Lawan said: “Mr. President, let me say that the Point of Order raised by my colleague and the explanation that subsequently followed shouldn’t have been.

“I still rely on the first paragraph of that letter which Mr. President wrote to this Senate and read by the President of the Senate and I will read Section (145), which reads, ‘whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration that he is proceeding on vacation…”

“Any other word in this letter or indeed anywhere else is irrelevant. I therefore feel that Mr. President has done what the Constitution requires him to do and I urge this Senate not to go ahead to discuss this because it’s not an issue.

“We have the budget and so many other serious issues for us to discuss and Nigerians are waiting.”

Senate President agreed with Lawan that Section 145 quoted in the presidential letter is unambiguous.

He said the Senate should always be guided by the provisions of the Constitution in carrying out its legislative functions.

“I think it is a very clear issue and what we should be guided by is the Constitution.

“I think that it is clear, the letter has referred to the Constitution and there is no ambiguity in the Constitution.

“So, I don’t think there is any issue there. Let me rule you out of order Senator Mao.”

Some of the lawmakers insisted that “leaving out the fact that the Vice President should act in the absence of the President may have been “deliberate to create avoidable confusion”.

According to one of them, “this is not the first time President Buhari left the country for medical attention and it was clear in his letter to the Senate the fact the vice president should act in his absence in line with the Constitution.

“This time around ‘coordinating the affairs of government’ crept in.

“It should be abundantly stated that the vice president is the acting president . Any other coinage, including the so-called ‘coordinating affairs of government’, is not necessary.”

In a letter to the Senate in January, President Buhari specifically said “while I am away, the vice president will perform the functions of my office.”

This time around, President Buhari said that the vice president will “coordinate affairs of government.”

Appear In Person To Prove Seized $15.591m 'Proceed of Crime' Is Yours - Court Tells Patience Jonathan

The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday refused to grant Mrs. Patience Jonathan’s request to release her accounts holding $15.591million.

Justice Mohammed Idris held that she and other parties must give oral evidence on the money’s ownership.

Mrs. Jonathan will, therefore, be required to appear in court to give evidence on how she came about the money, which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) described as a “proceed of crime”.

Since the case was filed, Mrs. Jonathan has never attended the proceedings. She has always been represented by lawyers.

She sued the EFCC for placing a no-debit order on the Skye Bank Plc accounts.

How I Increase My Blokos Size & Stopped Premature 

Ejaculation Issues That Scattered My Relationship For 2years.. Click HERE for Details

Justice Idris ordered parties to file pleadings since issues were joined on the money’s ownership.

The judge said the defendants formulated issues that were different from the one formulated by Mrs. Jonathan in her originating summons, which he said was “unacceptable”.

Besides, he said the nature of the case was not one to be decided by or an originating summons procedure in which witnesses are not called to testify.

“The issues formulated by all the defendants are baseless. They go to no issue and will be ignored by the court.

“I hold that this court lacks the competence to determine the issues raised by the defendants in their written addresses, having abandoned the specific issues formulated by the plaintiff in the originating summons.

“It is unfortunate. I say this because the issues raised by the defendants appear on the face of it good and deserving to be considered on their merit.

“But, I as I understand it to be the law, sentiment has no basis in the adjudicatory system,” the judge said.

Justice Idris said where processes were not properly prepared, any defect would render the proceeding fatal.

The court, he said, cannot “re-formulate” the issues for determination.

He further held that there was a contention as to issues and facts on the money’s ownership.

“In respect of this issue (of ownership), the contention appears divided and there is clearly an air of friction in the proceedings,” the judge said.

According to him, all the defendants’ counter-affidavits contain disputed facts that could not be decided without oral evidence.

“In the light of the above affidavit evidence, it cannot in my view be rightly contended that there are no disputed facts of substance as to the ownership of the said funds and the law.

“The issues of fact raised by the defendants herein are not spurious or irrelevant. The affidavit of the plaintiff is also not conjectural.

“In my view, the facts are contentious, and oral evidence needs to be led by the parties herein.

“In the light of the above facts, this case is generally not suitable for an originating summons procedure.

“In the circumstances, the court hereby orders that the parties herein file pleadings in accordance with the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009 and trial shall then proceed accordingly.

“This is the order of the court,” Justice Idris held.

The EFCC had urged the court not to release the accounts because the money is suspected to be a “proceed of crime”.

Skye Bank Plc, Jonathan’s former aide Waripamo-Owei Dudafa, Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Ltd and Avalon Global Property Development Ltd are the other respondents.

The companies, through their representatives, had pleaded guilty to laundering the money last September 15, when they were arraigned before Justice Babs Kuewumi of the same court.

They were charged with Dudafa, Briggs and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku for laundering the money.

Unlike the companies, Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge.

But, the companies, through another representative, filed an appeal, contending that they pleaded guilty “in error”. The appeal is pending.

In a supporting affidavit to her application, Mrs. Jonathan’s aide, Sammie Somiari said Dudafa helped the former first lady to open the accounts about   March 2010.

The deponent claimed Mrs. Jonathan was the sole signatory to the accounts and that she had no relationship with the companies.

He said after the accounts were opened, Mrs. Jonathan discovered that Dudafa opened only one of the accounts in her name while the other four were opened in the names of companies belonging to Dudafa.

The deponent said Mrs. Jonathan continued to operate the accounts even though they were not in her name.

He said the bankers promised to rectify the problem by changing the accounts to Mrs. Jonathan’s name, but never did.

EFCC is contending that the money is a proceed of crime and should be forfeited to the Federal Government.

Another judge of the court on April 26 ordered the temporary forfeiture of a separate $5,842,316.66 belonging to Mrs. Jonathan.

EFCC said the sum was “reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities”.

According to the commission, “several huge cash deposits in dollars were made to the account, sometimes with fictitious names”.