NewStats: 3,261,110 , 8,173,053 topics. Date: Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 08:58 AM 5b736p

By Tobi Soniyi

Legal luminary and elder statesman, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) has written to the leadership of the National Assembly, informing them that the legislature does not have the power to summon President Muhammadu Buhari for violating the Constitution when he paid $496,000,000 to the U.S. government for the purchase of military aircraft, without the authorisation of the National Assembly.

In the letter dated April 27, Nwabueze, however, acknowledged that Buhari’s action was unpardonable for not getting the approval of the lawmakers before paying for the Tucano aircraft, but noted that he was not one of those that could be summoned by the National Assembly as provided in Section 89(1)(c) of the Constitution.

He also commended the lawmakers for their efforts to checkmate the “incipient dictatorship of the president”.

In the letter to the National Assembly, Nwabueze, an expert in constitutional law, said: “I commend you for the courage of the role you play in checkmating the incipient dictatorship of President Buhari.

“It is, to me, simply unpardonable that he should pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation the sum of U.S. four hundred and ninety six million dollars ($496,000,000) for the purchase of military aircraft without the authorisation of the National Assembly as specifically required by Section 80 of the Constitution ‘in the expectation’, as he puts it in his letter, ‘that the National Assembly would have no objection’.”

However, he noted that summoning Buhari to appear before the National Assembly to address it on the state of the nation and to answer questions in explanation of his action had raised questions as to whether the National Assembly has the power to so summon him, and whether it was proper for it to do so.

According to him, the word “summon” is defined in the dictionary as a “command or order by authority to appear”.

While itting the Section 89(1)(c) of the Constitution empowers the Senate or the House of Representatives to “summon any person in Nigeria” he added that the president was not covered within the meaning of the term “any person” under the section because he is also the “Head of State” so proclaimed by Section 130(2) of the Constitution.

He said: “The term ‘any person’ must therefore be viewed within the context of the concept of the state and the concept of Head of State.”

He quoted from one of his books where he wrote: “The next development in the concept of a state was its linkage to the idea of sovereignty, a process of thought which was progressively developed to a point where the state itself was proclaimed sovereign. This is not unintelligible. Legal sovereignty is an attribute of government, and since the state is government transmuted into a corporation, the sovereignty associated with government must inure to the state.

“Important implications flow from the conception of the state as a distinct corporate entity separate from the organs of government. It creates the necessity for someone to represent it or even to personify and embody it, although the idea of someone personifying and embodying the state is unnecessary and subversive of the concept.

“Secondly, invested, as it is, with perpetuity, the state does not derive its existence from the constitution of the government; it is independent of it, with the result that the destruction of the constitution and of the organs of government established by it leaves the state unaffected, but this is disputed in some quarters.

“As the repository of the title and ceremonies of the sovereignty associated with government, the state has invested in it the symbolic authority and majesty that go with them.

“The separateness of the state from government is underlined not only by the greater authority and majesty inhering in it (the state) but also by the fact that the headship of the state is a position distinct and different from that of head of government, and carries with it a certain inherent authority and dignity not possessed by the head of government.

“He embodies the majesty and authority of the state and, as some say, he incarnates the state, i.e. he is the state – a rather extravagant assertion.

“The position of head of state has been aptly described by Oppenheim as follows: ‘As a State is an abstraction from the fact that a multitude of individuals live in a country under a sovereign government, every State must have a Head as its highest organ which represents it within and without its borders, in the totality of its relations… The Head of a State as its chief organ and representative in the totality of its international relations, acts for his State in its international intercourse, with the consequence that all his legally relevant international acts are considered to be acts of his State.’

“The separateness of the state from the government has tended in practice to be blurred by the union of the two offices of head of state and head of government in the same person in most countries, and, in countries where they are not so united, by the virtual reduction of the head of state to a figurehead, implying that only the government, but not the state, has an effective, significant existence. This should not be so.

“A head of state is a position that implies more than a figurehead. It is a position that ought conceptually and logically to be, and function as, a moderating agency, as a ‘balance sheet’ to the constitution intervening when the political authorities or forces seem to be out of alignment with one another.”

He explained that the concept of a head of state as a moderating agency was perhaps best effectuated by the provision in the Constitution of the French Fifth Republic (1958) and the Constitution of Romania (1991) under which the President of the Republic, as Head of State, is invested with power to “secure respect for the Constitution”, to “secure, by his arbitration, the regular functioning of the governing authorities as well as the continuity of the state”, and to serve as “guarantor of national independence and territorial integrity”.

To this end, Nwabueze argued that the head of state is expected to take all such actions as may be required for dealing with a grave and immediate danger threatening the integrity of the state or its institutions and authority.

He added: “Besides, Section 89 of the Constitution specifically provides that the power of the National Assembly to ‘summon any person in Nigeria’ is ‘subject to all just exceptions’. The exemption of the Head of State from the power is surely one of the ‘just exceptions’.

“Whilst President Buhari by his actions and utterances, may have brought humiliation and degradation to himself as president, he remains our Head of State, and should be treated as such, and accorded all the pomp and dignity appertaining to the office.

“He is entitled to appear before the National Assembly whenever he chooses to do so in order to deliver a state of the nation address, but whenever he goes to the National Assembly for this purpose he does so in state.”


https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2018/04/30/nassembly-cannot-command-buharis-appearance-says-nwabueze/amp/

Prof wey sabi book

That's the plain truth..Buhari is so charismatic and highly respected not only in naija but in the world at large.unlike the corrupt drunkard....

Hmmmmmm

Nwabueze, an erudite lawyer but still a lackey to Saraki and his bunch of nincompoops. Nwabueze himself needs legal advice on where the money was drawn from. Even if the NASS presented a flawed statement to him, for such an important issue he should have removed the thick film of hatred for the president from his eyes.

“It is, to me, simply unpardonable that he should pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation the sum of U.S. four hundred and ninety six million dollars ($496,000,000) for the purchase of military aircraft without the authorisation of the National Assembly as specifically required by Section 80 of the Constitution ‘in the expectation’, as he puts it in his letter, ‘that the National Assembly would have no objection’.”

Some people will rush out to call him names now, Buhari can equally invoke the order of necessity as the reason for the expenditure.

[s]

360degreess:
That's the plain truth..Buhari is so charismatic and highly respected not only in naija but in the world at large.unlike the corrupt drunkard....

[/s]
Hausa Youth high on codeine.


See finishing by Prof Nwabueze

Whilst President Buhari by his actions and utterances, may have brought humiliation and degradation to himself as president, he remains our Head of State, and should be treated as such, and accorded all the pomp and dignity appertaining to the office.

Ok. Noted Sir.

Does this man realise that the National Assembly is a representative of the PEOPLE and that they reserve the right to summon any Nigerian, including the Head of State since he was elected into that post by the PEOPLE and therefore able to them via the National Assembly.

We should never allow Mediocrity, and possibly a lack of dignity, push us into justifying any form of impunity.

360degreess:
That's the plain truth..Buhari is so charismatic and highly respected not only in naija but in the world at large.unlike the corrupt drunkard....

Did you just say a drunkard?

yns4real:
By Tobi Soniyi

Legal luminary and elder statesman, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) has written to the leadership of the National Assembly, informing them that the legislature does not have the power to summon President Muhammadu Buhari for violating the Constitution when he paid $496,000,000 to the U.S. government for the purchase of military aircraft, without the authorisation of the National Assembly.



https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2018/04/30/nassembly-cannot-command-buharis-appearance-says-nwabueze/amp/

Chai this man don become BMCs hero nau

The National Assembly is not even serious self. See as them they drag this matter upandan Are they afraid of doing their job

If you cannot summon him, he was indicted now The next thing na IMPEACHMENT jarè

docadams:
Hmmmmmm

Nwabueze, an erudite lawyer but still a lackey to Saraki and his bunch of nincompoops. Nwabueze himself needs legal advice on where the money was drawn from. Even if the NASS presented a flawed statement to him, for such an important issue he should have removed the thick film of hatred for the president from his eyes.

[“It is, to me, simply unpardonable that he should pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation the sum of U.S. four hundred and ninety six million dollars ($496,000,000) for the purchase of military aircraft without the authorisation of the National Assembly as specifically required by Section 80 of the Constitution ‘in the expectation’, as he puts it in his letter, ‘that the National Assembly would have no objection’.”

You are the one lacking in intelligence and knowledge here.

The ECA is money belonging to all tiers of government and hence it's consolidated in a way though it's an illegal . Having been declared illegal, that doesn't exist in the eyes if the law hence what ever is drawn from it is seen as having been drawn from a consolidated revenue

To this end, Nwabueze argued that the head of state is expected to take all such actions as may be required for dealing with a grave and immediate danger threatening the integrity of the state or its institutions and authority.


He added: “Besides, Section 89 of the Constitution specifically provides that the power of the National Assembly to ‘summon any person in Nigeria’ is ‘subject to all just exceptions’. The exemption of the Head of State from the power is surely one of the ‘just exceptions’.

Nwabueze must be from the northside.


Una Good Morning jare!

yns4real:
By Tobi Soniyi

Legal luminary and elder statesman, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) has written to the leadership of the National Assembly, informing them that the legislature does not have the power to summon President Muhammadu Buhari for violating the Constitution when he paid $496,000,000 to the U.S. government for the purchase of military aircraft, without the authorisation of the National Assembly.

In the letter dated April 27, Nwabueze, however, acknowledged that Buhari’s action was unpardonable for not getting the approval of the lawmakers before paying for the Tucano aircraft, but noted that he was not one of those that could be summoned by the National Assembly as provided in Section 89(1)(c) of the Constitution.

He also commended the lawmakers for their efforts to checkmate the “incipient dictatorship of the president”.

In the letter to the National Assembly, Nwabueze, an expert in constitutional law, said: “I commend you for the courage of the role you play in checkmating the incipient dictatorship of President Buhari.

“It is, to me, simply unpardonable that he should pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation the sum of U.S. four hundred and ninety six million dollars ($496,000,000) for the purchase of military aircraft without the authorisation of the National Assembly as specifically required by Section 80 of the Constitution ‘in the expectation’, as he puts it in his letter, ‘that the National Assembly would have no objection’.”

However, he noted that summoning Buhari to appear before the National Assembly to address it on the state of the nation and to answer questions in explanation of his action had raised questions as to whether the National Assembly has the power to so summon him, and whether it was proper for it to do so.

According to him, the word “summon” is defined in the dictionary as a “command or order by authority to appear”.

While itting the Section 89(1)(c) of the Constitution empowers the Senate or the House of Representatives to “summon any person in Nigeria” he added that the president was not covered within the meaning of the term “any person” under the section because he is also the “Head of State” so proclaimed by Section 130(2) of the Constitution.

He said: “The term ‘any person’ must therefore be viewed within the context of the concept of the state and the concept of Head of State.”

He quoted from one of his books where he wrote: “The next development in the concept of a state was its linkage to the idea of sovereignty, a process of thought which was progressively developed to a point where the state itself was proclaimed sovereign. This is not unintelligible. Legal sovereignty is an attribute of government, and since the state is government transmuted into a corporation, the sovereignty associated with government must inure to the state.

“Important implications flow from the conception of the state as a distinct corporate entity separate from the organs of government. It creates the necessity for someone to represent it or even to personify and embody it, although the idea of someone personifying and embodying the state is unnecessary and subversive of the concept.

“Secondly, invested, as it is, with perpetuity, the state does not derive its existence from the constitution of the government; it is independent of it, with the result that the destruction of the constitution and of the organs of government established by it leaves the state unaffected, but this is disputed in some quarters.

“As the repository of the title and ceremonies of the sovereignty associated with government, the state has invested in it the symbolic authority and majesty that go with them.

“The separateness of the state from government is underlined not only by the greater authority and majesty inhering in it (the state) but also by the fact that the headship of the state is a position distinct and different from that of head of government, and carries with it a certain inherent authority and dignity not possessed by the head of government.

“He embodies the majesty and authority of the state and, as some say, he incarnates the state, i.e. he is the state – a rather extravagant assertion.

“The position of head of state has been aptly described by Oppenheim as follows: ‘As a State is an abstraction from the fact that a multitude of individuals live in a country under a sovereign government, every State must have a Head as its highest organ which represents it within and without its borders, in the totality of its relations… The Head of a State as its chief organ and representative in the totality of its international relations, acts for his State in its international intercourse, with the consequence that all his legally relevant international acts are considered to be acts of his State.’

“The separateness of the state from the government has tended in practice to be blurred by the union of the two offices of head of state and head of government in the same person in most countries, and, in countries where they are not so united, by the virtual reduction of the head of state to a figurehead, implying that only the government, but not the state, has an effective, significant existence. This should not be so.

“A head of state is a position that implies more than a figurehead. It is a position that ought conceptually and logically to be, and function as, a moderating agency, as a ‘balance sheet’ to the constitution intervening when the political authorities or forces seem to be out of alignment with one another.”

He explained that the concept of a head of state as a moderating agency was perhaps best effectuated by the provision in the Constitution of the French Fifth Republic (1958) and the Constitution of Romania (1991) under which the President of the Republic, as Head of State, is invested with power to “secure respect for the Constitution”, to “secure, by his arbitration, the regular functioning of the governing authorities as well as the continuity of the state”, and to serve as “guarantor of national independence and territorial integrity”.

To this end, Nwabueze argued that the head of state is expected to take all such actions as may be required for dealing with a grave and immediate danger threatening the integrity of the state or its institutions and authority.

He added: “Besides, Section 89 of the Constitution specifically provides that the power of the National Assembly to ‘summon any person in Nigeria’ is ‘subject to all just exceptions’. The exemption of the Head of State from the power is surely one of the ‘just exceptions’.

“Whilst President Buhari by his actions and utterances, may have brought humiliation and degradation to himself as president, he remains our Head of State, and should be treated as such, and accorded all the pomp and dignity appertaining to the office.

“He is entitled to appear before the National Assembly whenever he chooses to do so in order to deliver a state of the nation address, but whenever he goes to the National Assembly for this purpose he does so in state.”


https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2018/04/30/nassembly-cannot-command-buharis-appearance-says-nwabueze/amp/

The East have them......wise men.

360degreess:
That's the plain truth..Buhari is so charismatic and highly respected not only in naija but in the world at large.unlike the corrupt drunkard....

Oga your madness is real otito

What is the ECA got to do with the federation ?this nwanbueze self old age and hate dey worry an.

Sunnynwa:


You are the one lacking in intelligence and knowledge here.

The ECA is money belonging to all tiers of government and hence it's consolidated in a way though it's an illegal . Having been declared illegal, that doesn't exist in the eyes if the law hence what ever is drawn from it is seen as having been drawn from a consolidated revenue

See where your Lilliputian intelligence took you. ECA is consolidated in a way. ITI, OLODO, ZUWO.

We will meet at the poll

But were these legislathives expecting buhari to wait for their approval over a sales that's got deadline when they are yet to even think about 2018 budget presented to them since 2017. The United States confirmed receiving the money into their abii Lai Mohammed is now incharge in USA also? All they are after is the share they would have gotten from the money.

Jus tell us u pipu are afraid of wat he can do to ur political careers and we will understand.....don't come and be telling us rubbish here

we would command the old fool back to dura 2019

6660M0666:
Does this man realise that the National Assembly is a representative of the PEOPLE and that they reserve the right to summon any Nigerian, including the Head of State since he was elected into that post by the PEOPLE and therefore able to them via the National Assembly.

We should never allow Mediocrity, and possibly a lack of dignity, push us into justifying any form of impunity.

I can see the way the assembly is representing u?

6660M0666:
Does this man realise that the National Assembly is a representative of the PEOPLE and that they reserve the right to summon any Nigerian, including the Head of State since he was elected into that post by the PEOPLE and therefore able to them via the National Assembly.

We should never allow Mediocrity, and possibly a lack of dignity, push us into justifying any form of impunity.

sorry..this NA do not represent the people..they represent themselves..how can people who represent the people be far from the people.....the rigged themselves to power and Lord over the people they are suppose to serve..buhari maybe inept.. But out sinators and HOR are nothing to write home about

Buhari asslicker

This old prof should shut up, the constitution said any man can be summoned, so is Buhari not any man ?

me for your logo for your business...For proof of my work, click the link in my signature.

J

They will soon come for this man's head just because of his opinion.

This intellectually lazy idiotic pig of Biafra that the money is from consolidated revenue .

I was expecting him to explain if national assembly can interfere into excess crude .

.

Legal luminary that they will use one brown envelop to shout up...

Oga face your old age we the lazy youths will fix Nigeria pretty soon..

Its obvious we're practicing ZOO democracy in this country. Such a disorder form of government were the rules of law is swept under the carpet. God Help us!