Proposed Amendment to Section 150: Ex-AGF, Aondoakaa Warns of Unintended Consequences

Former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), has raised concerns over a proposal by the House of Representatives to separate the offices of the AGF and the Minister of Justice.

The bill, co-sponsored by Peoples Democratic Party lawmakers Mansur Soro (Bauchi State) and Oluwole Oke (Osun State), also seeks to distinguish the roles of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Justice at the state level. It is currently under review by the House Committee on Constitution Review, chaired by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu.

The proposed amendment targets Section 150 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), introducing a sub-section to specify that “There shall be an Attorney-General of the Federation who shall be the Chief Law Officer of the Federation, separate from the person occupying the position of Minister of Justice, to be appointed by the President, subject to the confirmation of the Senate.”

Additionally, the bill proposes amending Section 195 to create a similar separation at the state level, stating that “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.”

Aondoakaa questioned the necessity of the amendment, arguing that Section 150 of the Constitution does not recognize the position of Minister of Justice. He emphasized that the Constitution explicitly provides for the Attorney General of the Federation, who serves as both the Chief Legal Officer and a minister within the council, without any apparent conflict in the role.

“The Constitution clearly states 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 is to create a constitutional office for the Ministry of Justice, that’s a separate matter entirely,” Aondoakaa stated.

He further clarified that while the National Assembly has the authority to create ministries, it has not done so for the Ministry of Justice, which remains an executive function delegated by the President. According to him, the Ministry of Justice, like other ministries such as Finance or Works, is not a constitutional office.

Aondoakaa also expressed concerns about the broader implications of such amendments, questioning whether similar legislative proposals might arise for other ministries, like the Ministry of Finance. He reiterated that the Constitution only explicitly recognizes the office of the Attorney General, not the Minister of Justice.

“There is no conflict to warrant the proposed separation. The Attorney General is a constitutionally recognized office with specific responsibilities and is integrated into the executive structure by the President,” he concluded.

JOY ANIGBOGU of the Independent brings the excerpts:

The House of Representatives is considering a bill to separate the offices of the Attorney General of the Federation from that of the Minister of Justice. what are your thoughts?

I don’t know the nature of the mandate that you claim to give to that office, because, specifically, the office of Minister of Justice is not there in section 150. So I keep wondering what they intend to amend. If you read it, it says they shall be Attorney General of the Federation, who shall be chief law officer of the federation, and shall be a Minister in Council. So I don’t see the conflict. I don’t see where they are going to amend it. If they want to create a constitutional office of Minister of Justice, it’s a different thing. There’s no Minister of Justice in the constitution. It’s just like the Minister of Finance, Minister of Works. If you read the constitution, they keep talking of amendment, but I don’t see where they can situate the amendment. Although the National Assembly has the power to create a ministry, they have not done so. There has not been any Ministry of Finance. Those ministries have been left as an executive function of the incumbent president. So I don’t see the conflict that they keep talking about, except what I am reading is different from what they are reading. Section150 says they shall be Attorney General of the Federation, who shall be Chief Law Officer of the Federation, and shall be a Minister in Council. If the Attorney General is an Attorney General and he does not go to Council, how can he advise on legal matters? The issue of the Minister of Justice is an executive creation. With the mandate given by the president which it also exercised by the Assembly under Section 5 through ministers, which he has added to the Attorney General. The Constitution never created him as Attorney General and Minister of Justice. It created the Office of Attorney General only. Just like you have a Minister of Finance, this is an executive function. Now there’s the Minister of Finance and Budget and the Coordinating Minister. Are they going to amend it so that they will separate because the president has added those ministries? I don’t know. They should read well before we go into talking of amendments. I don’t see anything. Do they want to make a law? But how will you make a law for how the president will function, exercised as an executive function?  The Assembly cannot go making a law and say, create Office of Finance in the Constitution, and create office of Commerce in the Constitution. The only office created by the Constitution is the Office of Attorney General. The Minister of Justice is not there. So what are they amending?

But the same Constitution you talked about in the subsection 2 item 4 of that same Constitution, it says that for the alteration of that particular law to be made possible, certain requirements must be met, such as a two-thirds majority of the House. And of course, it means that there is a possibility for this office to be created as long as this requirement is met. What potential constitutional challenge do you foresee, being someone who has occupied this position before?

There’s no conflict. The office of the Attorney General is constitutionally created with responsibilities. But the office was not created to exercise powers of Attorney General and Minister of Justice. The Constitution recognizes the Attorney General as the Attorney General alone. But in addition to making the Attorney General a chief law officer, he’s saying he should be like a minister in council, which I don’t see where there’s conflict that you have to separate. They have the power to create any office, but I want to point out to you that the Minister of Finance and Budget and several other things added to it have not eluded any conflict that will require positional amendment because that ministry is an executive creation. The Minister of Justice is an executive creation. It’s an additional assignment given to the Attorney General by the President, not the Constitution. So what are they really amending? That’s my big question. You can read Section 150 again over and over. Where did they mention the Minister of Justice that you want to separate the office? So which office do they want to separate?

If there needs to be an alteration. Two-thirds of the House can make an alteration to that particular office. You don’t see that as a possible lope hole to latch on? 

No, I say it’s possible, but Section 150 has not mentioned Minister of Justice. So if you are making an alteration, what are you making that of? Excising the power given to you to make alteration of the Constitution. So which office are you altering? Minister of Justice is not there. So where are you going to make the alteration? Except that in making an alteration to create a new office of Minister of Justice. Minister of Justice is not in the Constitution. It’s an assignment given to the Attorney General by the President, just as the President assigned responsibilities to the Minister of Finance, Minister of Works, Minister of Commerce, Minister of National Planning. So I don’t see where they want to create, except they want to introduce a new office and give it a constitutional responsibility. As of now, there is no Minister of Justice created by the Constitution. The Minister of Justice is an assignment given by the President. Except they are going to say that, look, once you are made Attorney General, you should not be Minister of Justice.

The President should not assign the Minister of Justice to you. But that would be far-reaching interference with the executive function.

The other subject you’re here to discuss is also the Construction Act, and I’d like us to deviate to that for a moment, please. Now, regarding that, what specific penalties would effectively deter the issue of project abandonment?

This is the problem of the country. I read Sen. Jimoh Ibrahim, PhD, double PhD, thesis on abandonment of mega-projects. And I also was privileged to attend his last lecture at Oxford University. I was in attendance. He stated that we have over 1,000 – 11,000 mega-projects that will constitute up to 60% of our debt threshold. That is alarming. That means you have put money in projects that are mega-projects, and these projects are not executed or fairly executed or abandoned. For instance, he pointed out Ajaokuta steel plant, which has gulped up to 40 billion, and nothing has happened. But the truth is that there has not been any framework, a construction law that takes care of this and makes people culpable. There’s supposed to be a sub-construction law, different from the architect, different from the surveyor that makes people who implement, who conceive these projects with the intention that it should fail, culpable. And the penalty should involve including the contractors who, whether international local contractors or international contractors, there should be penal provisions that makes them liable to pay compensation and also makes them liable so that they can have imprisonment. If that is done, they will be debt-free. For instance, you have situations where contractors are given road contracts to road maintenance. You pass through there six months, the road is being maintained, and after three months, the road is damaged. There’s no law to punish those people. There’s no law to punish the supervisors who never ensure that the road is being repaired according to specification. There should be a law that specifies that.  There’s a law, a construction law. It’s not an ad hoc law. A comprehensive construction law that takes care of the conception of the project, the supervisors, project managers, all of them, their responsibilities should be there with penal provisions and the contractors’ liability after they are given the contract. It should be clearly stated that if they give it to you and this contract fails, you pass through a road where maintenance is being done either by FERMA or a contractor awarded by FERMA. After three months of the maintenance, you see potholes, and nobody is held liable. There’s no law that you address or situate these people and deal with them on a failed construction. On a failed construction, law should address that if you have a contract and the contract has a framework and you execute it, and it has failed within a period that’s not acceptable, you should be critically liable and also you should be liable to pay compensation. It’s a kind of construction law. They are everywhere internationally, and we also need to involve project managers. Project management is now becoming an international course which everybody is attending because apart from the fact that engineers, architects are involved, surveyors are involved, you have key project managers whose duties are specified by law and who are trained to manage these projects.

Source: BarristerNG