By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA–The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, declined to stop security agencies from investigating the lawmaker that hitherto represented Bauchi North in the Senate, Adamu Bulkachuwa, following a confessional statement he made during a valedictory session that was held by the 9th National Assembly.

Bulkachuwa, whose wife, Zainab, is the immediate past President of the Court of Appeal, had in his speech at the ceremony that held on June 10, admitted that he persuaded his wife to help some of his colleagues that had cases in court.

Speaking on the floor of the Senate, Bulkachuwa, said: “I look at faces in this chamber whom have come to me and sought for my help when my wife was the President of the Court of Appeal.

“And I must thank particularly, my wife, whose freedom and independence I encroached upon while she was in office, and she has been very tolerant and accepted my encroachment, and extended her help to my colleagues.

“I did my best and in most cases I succeeded,” the lawmaker stated, before his speech was interrupted by the then Senate President, Ahmed Lawan.

However, following a barrage of criticisms that trailed his speech, Senator Bulkachuwa quickly approached the court to stop security agencies from arresting or inviting him for questioning. 

Cited as 1st to 5th defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/895/2023, were; the Attorney-General of the Federation, Clerk of the NASS, the State Security Service, the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission, ICPC, as well as the Nigeria Police Force.

He prayed the court to declare that he was “covered, privileged and protected by the parliamentary immunity as enshrined in Section 1 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017 and freedom of speech and expression made thereto is privileged.”

The plaintiff equally urged the court to declare that without exhausting the internal disciplinary mechanism, recommendations and approval of the 9th House of Senate, “no other law enforcement agent of the Federal Government, including the defendants, can invite any member of the Senate for questioning/interview and or for any disciplinary purposes in relation to the plaintiff’s privileged inchoate expression/statement/speeches made on the floor of the Nigeria House of Senate at the valedictory session.”

Likewise, his wife and former PCA, in a statement, debunked the claim that she helped her husband’s colleagues, insisting that she “never favoured any party during her time as a judge.”

Meanwhile, in its judgement that was delivered on Tuesday by Justice Inyang Ekwo, the court, dismissed the suit for want of merit.

It held that the plaintiff, being a lawmaker, ought to have understood the implication of the statement he made on the floor of the Senate.

Justice Ekwo held that Senator Bulkachuwa’s speech amounted to a confessional statement that revealed the possibility that an illegal act was committed. 

He held that the plaintiff was wrong to have claimed that he enjoyed legislative immunity under section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, when he made the utterances on the floor of the Senate.

According to Justice Ekwo, the court, could not be used to stop law enforcement agencies from carrying out their statutory duties. 

“It is the duty of every law-abiding citizen to assist and cooperate with law enforcement agencies in their quest to carry out their statutory function.

“It is only where a law enforcement agency breaches the fundamental right of a citizen in the process of carrying out their statutory function, then a cause of action could be said to have arisen.

“The provision of the law is that every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”

He held that section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, could not be interpreted to mean that a person could say anything he likes without consequences.

“In a formal setting like that plenary session or committee proceedings of the Senate, It is not expected that a person who is privileged to voice any expression, will utter words or express opinion or impart Ideas or give information that cannot be defended under the constitution.

“Upon studying the provision of Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it is my opinion that the words uttered by the plaintiff on the floor of the Senate on Saturday, 10th June, 2023, was a confession of doing an act that is prohibited by law.

“When a person confesses that he influenced a judicial officer to help his friends and colleagues, such a person has gone beyond the limit of freedom of speech that is reasonably covered and protected by the provision of Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“A person who has used the opportunity given to him by the constitution to express himself freely and uses the opportunity to expose his actions or conduct which the law of the land criminalises, has unwittingly invited law enforcement agencies to question him.

“This is what the plaintiff did in this case.

“I, therefore, find that that the speech of the plaintiff on the floor of the Senate on June 10, was a confession of illegal act and Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) cannot be invoked to cover such and I so hold,” Justice Ekwo added.