A careful examination of the legal framework establishing the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has revealed potential legal missteps in President Bola Tinubu’s decision to unilaterally remove Babatunde Irukera, the agency’s Executive Vice Chairman.
In an announcement on Monday, President Tinubu declared the “immediate dismissal” of the chief executive officer of the federal government agency, citing plans to restructure and reposition critical government agencies for the protection of Nigerian consumers. The presidential spokesperson, Ajuri Ngelale, stated in a release that Irukera had been directed to hand over to the next most senior officer in the agency pending the appointment of a new chief executive officer.
However, legal experts argue that the President’s authority to unilaterally dismiss the head of the FCCPC is restricted by the Federal Protection and Competition Act of 2018, the legislation that established the agency. According to the relevant section dealing with removal from office in the Act, the President’s powers in such matters are expressly subject to the approval of the Senate.
The Act outlines specific conditions under which a commissioner or head of the organization can be suspended or removed from office, including being found unqualified for the appointment, breaching conditions of the appointment, demonstrating an inability to perform duties effectively, being absent from consecutive meetings without consent, or engaging in serious misconduct related to duties as a commissioner.
Importantly, the Act states, “The exercise of the powers of the president under this section shall be subject to the approval of the Senate.” However, there is no evidence to suggest that President Tinubu sought the Senate’s approval before dismissing the former FCCPC boss.
This development raises questions about the legality of the President’s actions and highlights the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures outlined in the Federal Protection and Competition Act. Legal experts anticipate that the issue may spark discussions in both legal and political circles regarding the proper process for the removal of heads of government agencies.