The House of Representatives is again considering a bill to separate the offices of the Attorney General of the Federation from that of the Minister of Justice, as well as the office of Attorney General from that of Commissioner of Justice in the states, after the failed efforts by the previous lawmakers to separate the two offices, e writes

The House of Representatives is currently considering a bill to separate the offices of the Attorney General of the Federation from that of the Minister of Justice and the offices of the Attorney General from Commissioners of Justice of states.

The bill, co-sponsored by two Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawmakers, Mansur Soro and Oluwole Oke, is receiving legislative input from the House Committee on Constitution Review, chaired by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu.

The bill is seeking alteration to Section 150 of the Constitution of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) with the introduction of sub-section 1 to read: “There shall be an Attorney-General of the Federation who shall be the Chief Law Officer of the Federation different from the person occupying the position of the Minister of Justice to be appointed by the President, subject to the confirmation of the Senate.”

Also, the bill seeks to introduce a sub-section to Section 195 of the Constitution. The new subsection to be introduced reads: “There shall be an Attorney-General for each state who shall be the Chief Law Officer of the State to be appointed by the governor, subject to the confirmation of the House of Assembly.”

Those in support of the separation have often argued that it will enhance efficiency in the dispensation of criminal justice, safeguard the public interest and deter abuse of legal process in public prosecution at both the federal and state levels.

In their views, the combined roles of the minister or commissioner for justice with the attorney general would bring about a conflict of interest. The bill, they noted, is intended to “eliminate the conflict, limit risks of political interference, boost public confidence in Nigeria’s justice system among others.”

The 1999 Nigerian Constitution names the Attorney-General as also the Minister of Justice. It has been this way since independence. The occupier of the office is the Chief Law Officer of the state as provided by the Constitution.

Pressure was mounted previously on former President Goodluck Jonathan to split the offices, but he eventually failed to assent to the amendment bill presented to him by the seventh Senate.

The Senate had also in 2017 voted in support of altering sections 150, 174, 174, 195, 211, 318 and the third schedule of the Constitution to separate the offices.

Section 174 provides the AGF powers over criminal prosecution and is perhaps one of the most publicly scrutinised aspects of his responsibility.

The calls for the separation of the offices were premised on the perceived influence of the executive on the occupier. 

The argument is that those holding the office have been largely tainted with bias and corruption. 

The occupier of the office operates as the Chief Law Officer of the federal government as against his true position as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation.

The Senate specifically said the amendment would create independent offices of the AGF and AGs of the states by insulating them from partisanship. 

The Senate was backed by the House of Representatives, which also voted in its favour. 

The bill, however, failed as it did not get the support of two-thirds (24) of the state Houses of Assembly as required by section 9 (2) and (3) of the Constitution which provides that before the National Assembly can pass an Act to amend the Constitution after the two-thirds majority of all the members of each chamber have voted in support, at least 24 Houses of Assembly must approve by a simple majority.

Although some believe that the offices of the Attorney General should simply be strengthened to allow for different departments handling distinct operations or issues of justice and law, others insist on the separation of the office into independent entities.

Those against the separation of the offices argued that such would amount to jurisprudential questions they said would stall cases in the court in seeking interpretations of whom between the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General of the Federation has “jurisdiction to either institute an action or carry out one function or the other.”

Others have also argued that separating the offices might not guarantee the efficiency of either the AGF or the Minister of Justice.

 To them, the challenge is that those who have manned the offices in the past lacked knowledge of their roles and responsibilities. They added that those who have manned the offices, focused on their personal benefits and failed to represent the Nigerian people.

Those who spoke to THISDAY suggested that rather than separate the offices and create more ministries, the number of ministers be pruned.

They further argued that some countries in Europe do not have more than 15 ministers.

In an ideal society, they argued, the Attorney General represents the government for and on behalf of the citizens.

 By implication, the office of the Attorney General is an office that represents the citizens at large using the instrument of the state. 

Another insurmountable hurdle is to determine how the Attorney General is to be appointed.

 Is he to be appointed by the government, or the populace via popular election or by the Nigerian Bar Association?

 If the Attorney General were to be appointed by the president, the occupant of the office is likely to suffer from the likelihood of bias and show deference to the executive arm of government that the present occupier of the two offices is being accused of.

A former Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Bello Adoke, who occupied the seat between 2010 and 2015, agreed that the office be split into two.

Writing in his new book, ‘Burden of Service: Reminiscences of Nigeria’s Former Attorney-General,’ Adoke said: “This is because when acting as Attorney-General, he is answerable to no one but his conscience and the interest of justice, but while in his capacity as minister, he must take directives from the president and do the President’s bidding.”

According to him, there is always a conflict of interest as a AGF, “which has enormous responsibilities requiring independent thought, mind and direction,” and also the Justice minister, “who is an appointee of the president with the mandate to assist him in the discharge of his executive functions.”

He added that the AGF has to be a “saint in order not to be tainted by the views of his party under whose platform he was nominated or those of the president who appointed him, given the intrigues and underhand dealings that characterise partisan politics in Nigeria, coupled with the “absolute loyalty to the president’ syndrome…”

“As Chief Law Officer, the responsibilities of the AGF is like no other in the Federal Executive Council (FEC)… the AGF has a special responsibility to be the guardian of the constitution. He has a special role in advising the government to ensure that the rule of law is maintained and that government action passes the acid test of constitutionality,” the former AGF wrote.

Adoke, who stressed the need for the offices to be divided with specified functions, said: “This is often a great task, given that government actions sometimes conflict with the interest of the citizenry.”

But Adoke’s predecessor in office, Mr. Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), had expressed concerns over the proposal to separate the offices, questioning the intent behind the amendment.

Aondoakaa, who spoke on the issue on ARISE NEWS Channel, noted that Section 150 of the 1999 Constitution does not recognise the position of Minister of Justice. He argued that there is no ambiguity in Section 150 that would justify creating a separate constitutional office for the Ministry of Justice.

“The Constitution specifically states that there shall be an Attorney General of the Federation, who serves as both the chief legal officer and a minister in the council. I see no conflict here. If the proposal intends to create a constitutional office for the Ministry of Justice, that is an entirely different matter,” he said.

He raised concerns about the potential consequences of separating the offices, questioning whether similar amendments might be proposed for other ministries, such as the Ministry of Finance.