President Muhammadu Buhari has directed Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, ministers and other elected and appointed ministers to declare their assets before leaving the offices along with him on May 29.
The President, who himself collected the asset declaration today, May 26, said that the directive is in strict adherence to the constitutional requirement of assets declaration before and after taking office.
Buhari said that the asset declaration is aimed at strengthening best practices, raising moral standards in Public Service, helping to build integrity and combating corruption.
He insisted that all out-going officials, elected and appointed from the Vice President downwards must collect the assets declaration form, fill and return it as he has done.
Speaking in Abuja ,as he collected the form from Professor Isah Mohammed, Chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), President Buhari said that no one is excluded from the Constitutional duty of assets declaration.
“I signed, collected and acknowledged receiving my form. From here, I will ask my bank Manager in Kaduna to show me what has gone in and out of my account.
“Nobody is excluded from declaring their assets.
“I expected everyone from the Vice President downwards to follow the system.”
Professor Mohammed had said that compliance by the President in the last eight years and the support he had given to the Bureau had enabled it to achieve 99 percent compliance by elected and appointed officials.
He acknowledged the support of the President in the achievement of the digitization of its services and operations thereby helping the organisation to open investigation of cases with greater efficiency.

A five-member panel of the Supreme Court has ruled that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lacked the locus standi to institute a suit seeking the disqualification of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and Senator Kashim Shettima as presidential and vice-presidential candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
In the judgment dismissing the suit today, May 26, the panel said that the PDP is not a member of the APC.
President open letter
The PDP had claimed that Shettima’s nomination as Tinubu’s running mate was in breach of the provisions of sections 29 (1), 33, 35, and 84(1) (2) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
The opposition party argued that Shettima’s nomination to contest the position of vice-president and Borno central senatorial seat — at the same time — contravened the law.

President Muhammadu Buhari has said that in his eight year presidency, he never Interfered In the affairs of the legislature (the National Assembly).
He said: “I refrained from meddling in the affairs of the legislature and promoted, instead, a culture of mutual respect and collaboration between the two Arms.”
President Buhari, who spoke at the commissioning of the permanent site of the National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies, (NILDS) in Abuja
Thursday in Abuja, acknowledged the harmonious relationship between the Executive and the Legislature.
He said the Legislature had been the cornerstone of any democracy, saying that the relationship had contributed to the tremendous success his administration recorded in the provision of critical infrastructure in the past eight years, many of which he had been commissioning across the country in the past few days.
“I have traversed all parts of Nigeria in the last few days commissioning several critical national infrastructures that our administration has completed over the past eight years. Our successes as a government are primarily due to the harmonious relationship between the Executive and Legislature.
“The legislature is the cornerstone of any democracy and is vital to ensuring that the wishes and aspirations of all Nigerians are considered during the law-making process. It also performs critical functions of overseeing the Executive and ensuring that government spending aligns with legislative intent.
“From the moment of my election in 2015 and subsequently, I supported the idea of an independent National Assembly, one that is able to decide its leadership and develop its agenda in line with the manifesto of the All Progressives Congress (APC).”
The President said the cordial relationship was also instrumental to the unprecedented number of Bills passed into law, and addressed some of the long-standing challenges that have hampered economic growth and development.
“Our achievements in reforming the oil and gas sector, strengthening the electoral framework, diversifying our economy, improving transparency and accountability, tackling insecurity and entrenching good governance are easily verifiable. This 9th Assembly will be remembered as one of the most productive in terms of outputs and outcomes.”
President Buhari said that Nigeria is immensely endowed in many ways, saying: “Our single greatest asset is the people of this country. Our teeming youth population provides the labour force we need to industrialise and develop our economy.
“This underscores the need for a more sustained investment in human capacity development.”
He said that human capital is the essential lifeblood of a State and its institutions as it aids in the performance of constitutionally assigned mandates better when provided with all the required resources.
“The NILDS permanent site, therefore, is a critical first step towards bolstering the capacity of the legislature to improve its law-making, oversight and representation functions.”
In his remarks, Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, expressed his delight that “the promise that the Institute would not be a white elephant project has been realized, adding that “the tenth Assembly had prioritized the completion of Legacy projects in the 2023 budget because of their importance in stimulating economic activities and the need to entrench the legacies of this administration.”
He commended President Buhari for his love for the 9th Assembly which has translated into his approval for the completion of the NILDS Complex as well as the commissioning of several projects of the National Assembly.
The Speaker, House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila, said that having noted the institutional challenges facing the Legislature, the National Assembly was convinced that the commissioning of the Institute by the President would address some of the challenges.
He thanked President Buhari for his steadfast efforts at uplifting the well-being of Nigerians.

Festus Keyamo and Ramatu Aliyu Tijjani, the two ministers of State in the outgoing administration of President Muhammadu Buhari have kicked against the portfolio.
Keyamo has been the minister of State for Labour and Employment while Ramatu Tijjani has been the minister of State for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
Keyamo described the position of Minister of State ss unconstitutional and an aberration.
“The concept or designation of “Minister of State” is a constitutional aberration and is practically not working for many so appointed. Successive governments have come and gone and many who were appointed as Ministers of State have not spoken out at a forum such as this because of the risk of sounding ungrateful to the Presidents who appointed them.”
Keyamo went on: “However, like I said earlier, this is not ingratitude.
As a private citizen, I am on record to have gone to court a number of times to challenge unconstitutional acts of governments for the sake of advancing our constitutional democracy, so it will be out of character for me to have gone through government and be carried away by the pomp of public office and forget my role as a member of the Inner Bar and my self-imposed role over the years as a crusader for democracy and constitutionalism.
Mr. President, I crave your indulgence to explain this constitutional conundrum of “Minister of State”. Sections 147 and 148 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), deal with the appointments and responsibilities of Ministers of the Federation. The said sections state as follows:
Section 147
“(1) There shall be such offices of Ministers of the Government of the Federation as may be established by the President.
(2) Any appointment to the office of Minister of the Government of the Federation shall, if the nomination of any person to such office is confirmed by the Senate, be made by the President.
(3) Any appointment under subsection (2) of this section by the President shall be in conformity with the provisions of section 14(3) of this Constitution:- provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the President shall appoint at least one Minister from each State, who shall be an indigene of such State.”
Section 148
“(1) The President may, in his discretion, assign to the Vice-President or any Minister of the Government of the Federation responsibility for any business of the Government of the Federation, including the administration of any department of government.”
Furthermore, the 7th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides for the Oath of Office to which each Minister must subscribe. There are no different Oaths for “Minister” and “Ministers of State”. They all take the same Oath of Office.
In addition to the above, the Ministers-designate appear before the Senate and are grilled and cleared AS MINISTERS, not as Ministers in some instances and Ministers of State in some other instances. It is at the point of assignment of portfolios that successive Presidents then reclassified some as “Ministers of State”.
Some may want to justify this by saying the President is given the discretion by the Constitution to assign whatever responsibility(ies) he likes to Ministers. Yes, I concede Mr. President can do that, but not by a designation different from that prescribed by the Constitution. Simply put, it is akin to the President assigning responsibilities to the office of the Vice-President and re-designating that office as “Deputy President” under our present Constitution. That is clearly impossible. Why then should that of the Ministers be different?
What is more, Ministers are appointed pursuant to Section 147(3) of the 1999 Constitution to represent each State of the Federation. Therefore, Ministers sit in Cabinet as the eye of Mr. President in each State of the Federation. It is therefore against the intendment of the drafters of our Constitution for a representative of a State to be reclassified as against another representative of another State.
The Schedules of Duties of Ministers and Ministers of State that intend to cure some of these anomalies hardly help the issues. Firstly, the Schedules of Duties are observed more in breach by the Permanent Secretaries and Directors who really cannot be expected to serve two masters. And in any case, many of the roles of both Ministers are so ambiguous that the bureaucrats would always interpret them to satisfy the ones they see as the “Senior Ministers” or “main Ministers” for fear of being persecuted by them.
Secondly, parts of the Schedules of Duties seem to suggest that the Ministers can delegate functions to the Ministers of State. This is a constitutional impossibility. It is only Mr. President that can delegate Presidential powers as one cannot delegate what he does not have (delegatus non potest delegare). In any case, how can someone who took the same Oath of Office with another delegate functions to that other?
Thirdly, the Schedules of Duties leave so many gaping holes that bring conflicts between the Ministers and Ministers of State. In addition, the provision that “Ministers of State” cannot present Memos in Council, except with the permission of the Minister, is another anomaly. It means the discretion of the Minister of State is subsumed in the discretion of the Minister, yet both of them represent different States in Cabinet.
It also follows that it would be difficult to assess the individual performances of the Ministers of State since their discretion is shackled under the discretion of the Ministers. Original ideas developed by a Minister of State are subject to clearance by another colleague in Cabinet before they can sail through for consideration by Council. The drafters of our Constitution obviously did not intend this.
As a result, many Ministers of State are largely redundant, with many going to the office for symbolic purpose and just to while away the time. Files are passed to them to treat only at the discretion of the other Minister and the Permanent Secretary. Yet, the Ministers of State will receive either praise or condemnation for the successes or failures of such Ministries.
I understand that when this practice first surfaced in the First Republic, it was used as a contraption to give a semblance of “Government of National Unity”, when in actual fact no “real power” was ceded to the opposition members co-opted into government who were mostly designated as the Ministers of State, so as to keep them in check under the leadership of the ruling Party’s Ministers. But, over time the custom has come to stay and now it has been established as a norm, even regarding Ministers from the same ruling Party. In fact, one political absurdity that has emerged from this is that some Ministers of State won more votes from their States for the party in power than the “main Minister”.
THE WAY FORWARD
Many Ministerial Retreats have been held to try and resolve the issues between Ministers and Ministers of State. President Obasanjo held four of such Retreats, with the last one holding at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Jos, from 23rd to 25th February, 2001. Yet, the problems persisted.
Unknown to many successive Presidents and the general public, these conflicts gravely affect the optimal performance of Governments. What is the way forward?
Obviously, the argument that two Ministers are cramped into some Ministries in order not to unnecessarily proliferate Ministries and therefore save Government’s money is no longer tenable. This is because Government does not need any extra infrastructure or more money to maintain all Senior 36 Ministers or even a bit more appointed as is now the custom. This is because the present Ministers and Ministers of State have their separate offices, cars, security personnel and personal aides. So, what is the point?
There are enough Permanent Secretaries within the system to be assigned to each Minister, or in the least, one Permanent Secretary can serve two Ministers. Since the Schedules of Duties of both Ministers already reflect the broad Mandates of the Ministries, the Ministers can be named in line with those Schedules of Duties, instead of continuing with this unconstitutional arrangement. For instance, there is no reason why we cannot have a Minister of Labour and another Minister of Employment.
In my case, whilst the Schedule of my colleague had to do more with Labour and Productivity, mine had to do more with Employment. The Directorates in my Ministry that were under my office would then be fully under the Minister of Employment, without any double loyalty to the Minister of Labour and Productivity.
We can also have a Minister of Trade and another Minister of Investment. We can have a Minister of Education (Tertiary) and another Minister of Education (Primary and Secondary); we can have a Minister of Mines and another Minister of Steel; we can have a Minister of Works and another Minister of Housing and so on and so forth.
In all of these, no extra infrastructure is needed to sustain this suggested arrangement. The present infrastructure and present personnel in the Ministries can very well sustain it. It will be at no extra cost to government. This is preferable than successive governments continuing with this present unconstitutional arrangement.”
On her part, FCT Minister of State, Ramatu Tijjani asked: “if you are appointed, if you serve your state, if you underwent the same training, you attended the same FEC, representing your people, why then is your voice hinged upon another minister’s voice? “Why is lack of planning on another minister’s part and an emergency on yours? Why is the label ‘ineptitude’ now the label you will carry if he should fail?
“All these should be looked into by the next administration, to put the country in the good part of trajectory.
“Let me tell you this: if and only if, and that is the little minus I saw in this administration, all ministers were allowed to perform, the performances of the government and the achievement of President Muhammadu Buhari administration, I will beat my chest, cannot be equaled. But if one plus one becomes one, then there is an issue.
“Why then a minister of state, whose capacity no matter what, is brought forth, will be weighed and will be debated upon, will be decided to go or not go to FEC by a colleague? So that does not do justice to the appointment; it doesn’t do justice to the people representing and it does not even do justice to the persons presenting themselves.
“But by and large, it was fantastic. It is a worthy experience, because you know what that did to me? It also built my thick skin. It built my endurance level, it built my capacity to understand what is not and what does not. And it has built me largely to operate within the level available to me and hopefully, there if an another opportunity comes sometimes somewhere God’s grace, such will unleash the potential of so many untapped representing ministers.”