By Paul Onomuakpokpo
In a democratic
government that is marked by the absence of an autocratic pecking order that
harks back to the days of medieval despots, conflicts among the key players in
the political space are inevitable. But since there is no allowance for any of
the three arms of government to hegemonise authority, they are all expected to
adhere to a constitutionally ratified cooperative principle that oils the wheel
of good governance.
*Ibrahim Magu |
Such a principle is violated if instead of the
arms of government mustering enough capacity to resolve their disagreements,
they allow them to hurt governance. This brings us to the long-drawn rift
between the Presidency and the Senate over the confirmation of the Acting
Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu.
The conflict is festering as both arms of government continue to maintain their
hardline positions.
The Senate has vowed not to confirm any
presidential nominee until Magu is relieved of his job. It feels affronted by
the unresolved contradiction that the same Presidency that gleefully declared
that it did not need the approval of the Senate for Magu to be in office wants
the upper legislative chamber to confirm presidential nominees.
In its attempt to wriggle out of the cul-de-sac it has found itself, the
Presidency is considering taking the matter to the Supreme Court for judicial
intervention. When the rift between the two arms began, the Presidency
obviously relished the support of the public. The latter eagerly waited for
that moment when the Senate would declare itself shellacked by the Presidency.
Beyond supinely contemplating the impudence of the Senate to appropriate powers
it has not been given by the constitution, some people made themselves
available to be hired to protest against the chamber. But these protests have
since fizzled out since it has become clear that the Senate would not disavow
its position.