N38bn: No Court Can Try Me Says BANKOLE

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Dimeji
Bankole has said no court in the country has the
jurisdiction to try him for his actions while exercising his
powers as speaker of the lower chamber.
Citing the provisions of the Legislative Houses (Powers
and Privileges) Act and the National Assembly Service
Commission Act, the former speaker insisted that his
actions while in office were beyond the scrutiny of
anybody, including the courts.
In an application to quash the charges of illegally
obtaining N38 billion loans levelled against him before an
Abuja High Court, Bankole, through his team of lawyers
led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) Thursday, said
there was no shred of evidence to sustain the 17-count
charge.
Awomolo argued that the occupier of the office of the
speaker could not be answerable for duties, functions
outside the provision of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999, and Legislative Houses (Power
and Privileges) Act 2011.
He said that his client, Bankole, was not a member of staff
of the National Assembly and that no law could make the
speaker a staff member of the House.
According to him, Section 51 of the constitution created
the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly and other
staff … whereas Section 318 defined public service of the
Federation to include clerk or other staff members of the
National Assembly.
Section 9 of the National Assembly Service Commission
defined officers of the National Assembly to include:
a) Clerk of National Assembly;
b) Deputy Clerk of National Assembly; etc.
Awomolo submitted that the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, by law, was not subject to the
jurisdiction of any court in respect of exercise of any
power conferred on or vested in him, under the
Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act, the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or the
standing order of the Legislative House.
He further argued that the speaker as an officer of the
House was immune from civil or criminal proceedings in
respect of matters spoken or written or a decision taken
by the House in plenary or executive sessions or
committee stages of the business of the House.
He cited Sections 3 and 30 of the Legislative Houses
(Powers & Privileges) Act.
Section 3 of the Act states: “No civil or criminal
proceedings may be instituted against any member of a
Legislative House –
(a) in respect of words spoken before that House or a
committee thereof; or
(b) in respect of words written in a report to that House or
to any committee thereof or in any petition, bill,
resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by
him therein.”
He submitted that the rationale for legislative officers’
immunity was founded in public policy.
He said: “The reason is not because the speaker has any
privilege to make mistake or be corrupt or to do wrong. It
is so that he should be able to do his duty with complete
independence from fear.”
He also stated that the exercise of powers by the speaker
was like that of a judicial officer in exercise of the
functions of his office.
He said: “The applicant in exercise of his official function
as Speaker of the House of Representatives cannot and is
not criminally liable and this court cannot exercise
jurisdiction in all the 17 counts against him as they relate
to Legislature and the principle of supremacy of
parliament remains inviolate. This is in recognition of
exercise of public powers and duties which are peculiar
with the executive, legislature and the judiciary.”
In an application to quash the charges of illegally
obtaining N38 billion loans levelled against him before an
Abuja High Court, Bankole, through his team of lawyers
led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), said there was
no shred of evidence to sustain the 17-count charge.
He consequently asked the court to direct the Chairman of
the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC),
Mrs. Farida Waziri, to publicly apologise to him for public
humiliation, denial of personal liberty, unlawful detention
and discomfort to his person and family since Sunday,
June 5, 2011.
He punctured the entire charges one after the other
claiming that the EFCC was acting under the mis-
apprehension of the law or was merely persecuting the
former speaker.
He asked the court to quash the charges also on the
ground that EFCC had neither statutory nor constitutional
power to issue authority to a private prosecutor, to
prosecute offences created by or under the Penal Code Act
in any court of law, without the fiat of the Attorney-
General of the Federation (AGF) first being sought and
obtained and usage of the powers as a vindictive weapon
against the applicant.
He also wanted the court to issue an order condemning
EFCC for abuse of court process, malicious and reckless use
of prosecutorial power of the AGF when it had no power
or authority to appropriate the constitutional powers of
Attorney-General.
He said: “The commission knew the position of the law
but used it as a vindictive weapon to destroy the
applicants’ political career.”
According to him, no court has jurisdiction to try the
speaker of the House or subject him to jurisdiction in all
matters which related to, connected with and arose from
any exercise of his official functions.
Bankole argued that in the exercise of his duties in
matters relating to his office as Speaker of the House, he
could not be prosecuted for the acts, decisions and
resolutions of the House, taken at its executive or
committee sessions because the principle of vicarious
liability was unknown to criminal law in Nigeria.
EFCC had accused Bankole and his former deputy, Usman
Nafada, of using the accounts of the House in First Bank
and United Bank for Africa Plc.to obtain loans illegally.
But he said that it was a pity that the EFCC did not
understand the criminal laws it was supposed to enforce,
claiming that neither him nor any principal officer of the
House was a signatory to the accounts in question.
He also accused the commission of being ignorant of how
the House worked.
He said he was not the accounting officer rather the Clerk
of the House at the material time was Mr Mohammed
Ataba Sani Omolori, who is listed as the 3rd prosecution
witness.
According to him, the clerk is the chief administrative
officer, the chief legislative officer and the accounting
officer of the House.
He explained that all contracts awarded by the House
which were less than N50 million were approved and
given effect by the Management Committee under the
chairmanship of the Clerk of the House.
All contracts and finances requiring over N50 million, he
said, were recommended by the management committee
to the House Committee and the Committee of Principal
Officers under his (Bankole) chairmanship and when
approved, it was given effect to by the management
under the control of the clerk of the House.
He said in March 2010, the House at its executive session
resolved to enhance the “running cost” of all the 360
members, except the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker.
At the executive session, he said, the House formed a 37-
man committee which reviewed the package of the
running cost and it was presented to the House at an
executive session where it was approved.
He also said it was the accounting officer of the House who
advised that the shortfall in fund be met by loans to be
taken from a commercial bank to meet the funds required.
The former speaker explained that the loans were
negotiated by the management of the House and the
disbursement was effected by the same management into
the accounts of all the 360 members.
He said: “There is no evidence that the money received as
loan was the property of the Federal Government of
Nigeria. It was at best the money of the House of
Representatives. The persons entitled to it were the 360
members less the 1st and 2nd accused (Bankole and
Nafada). All the persons who were entitled to the money
got it. So where is the theft coming from.”
He gave other reasons why the charges must be quashed.
They are: That there was no scintilla of evidence contained
or shown in the proof of evidence capable of warranting
the inference or conclusion that the applicant was at any
time entrusted with the House of Representatives Account
No. 0039007000018 with the United Bank for Africa Plc. as
alleged in counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the charge or at all.
He also claimed that there was no scintilla of evidence
shown in the proof of evidence capable of leading to the
conclusion that he breached the provisions of Section 311
of the Penal Code Act in the manner alleged in counts 7, 8,
9, 10 and 11 of the charge or at all.
He faulted EFCC when it accused him of “dishonestly” using
account No. 00390070000018 to obtain a loan as alleged in
counts 2-6 of the charge and at the same time be charged
with misappropriating the sums alleged in counts 7-17 of
the charge by referring to the loan as “property of the
Federal Government of Nigeria” because an alleged illegal
loan facility from a commercial bank, could not at the
same time be the property of the Federal Government of
Nigeria, capable of being misappropriated or stolen.
He said: “The allegations of ‘dishonestly disbursing’ the
amounts in counts 13-17 of the charge are unknown to
any written law and are thus unsustainable.”