Saraki should’ve resigned as Senate President – Opadokun

Chief Ayo Opadokun

The Convener, Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reform, Chief Ayo Opadokun, says if Senate President Bukola Saraki had been gentlemanly, he would have resigned as the President of the Senate when his election to the office was widely condemned by the generality of Nigerians.

Saraki had on June 9, 2015, defied the directive of the All Progressives Congress on the leadership of the Senate by emerging the President of the Senate under controversial circumstances.
ADVERTISEMENT

The circumstances also saw Senator Ike Ekweremadu of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party emerging as Deputy Senate President.

The former Secretary-General of the Afenifere and ex-General Secretary of the National Democratic Coalition, further said Saraki had been “an unpleasant occupier of an otherwise very strategic constitutional office.”

Opadokun added, “Saraki should go.”

He said, “It was a total misjudgment on Saraki’s part to conspire with the opposition to sell out his party in order for him to become the Senate President. If he was to be a gentleman, he could have resigned from that office long ago.”

The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation had dragged Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, where he is facing a 13-count charge for alleged false declaration of assets.

Opadokun said, “He should have resigned from his position to save Nigeria’s nascent democracy. He should appreciate that he has laid his hands on the plough; there is no going back, he has to leave.

“Let Saraki’s legal consultants and advisers tell the world how they can save him by presenting that the forgery of the Senate Rule that was used to make him the Senate President is a matter limited to the National Assembly. Forgery is a criminal offence.”

He stated that it was wrong for Saraki’s loyalists to claim that the alleged false assets declaration was purportedly committed 13 years ago.

“If he does not know, our criminal legal system here is anchored on the Latin maxim, which says time does not run against the state in criminal prosecution. Even if you committed the offence 30 years ago and the state is now ready to prosecute you, you have no basis to say it was committed long ago.”

Source:Punchng