The plaintiff is also asking the Hon Court to restrain the president, AGF from allowing and keeping Magu to continue serving as the Acting Chairman of the Commission. The plaintiff stated that “the unilateral acts by the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari and the Attorney General of the Federation Abubakar Malami in allowing, Magu Ibrahim to continue to serve in acting capacity despite the failure to be confirmed in two different occasions by the senate to of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is contrary to the provision of ction 88 (Chairman2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 and these actions are to the extent of their inconsistencies with the 1999 Constitution and the EFCC Act, unlawful and unconstitutional”. According to Jamilu, the acting Capacity of Mr Magu over the administration of the commission, in the guise of exercise of power of appointment by the president without recourse to the power of confirmation by the Senate is Ultra Vires and therefore unlawful and unconstitutional as provided for in section 2(3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004. “The president and the AGF have no powers to allow and keep Magu to be serving as Acting Chairman of the commission, having failed twice to scale and satisfy the provision of 1999 Constitution and Section 2(3) of the EFCC Act,” he added. The Respondents in the suit are President, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Attorney-General of the Federation, Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Mr. Ibrahim M. Magu, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC). Jamilu in the suit is asking whether the responsibility for the confirmation of the 4th Defendant as Chairman of the 5th Defendant is the exclusive preserve of the 3rd Defendant? whether in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, the 1st Defendant can unilaterally take over and usurp the powers of confirmation by invoking the power of appointment under Section 171 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), to appoint the 4th Defendant either in acting capacity or substantive Chairman of the 5th Defendant without having recourse to the 3rd Defendant? Whether the current tussle between the 1st , 2nd and the 3rd Defendants over the failure of the 4th Defendant to pass the confirmation screening by the 3rd Defendant in the guise of the exercise of their legislative law making powers is not contrary to the provisions of Section 88 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004? Whether in view of the provisions of Section 88 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants can unilaterally allow the 4th Defendant to continue serving as Acting Chairman of the 5th Defendant in clear disregard of the powers and responsibility and without having recourse to the 3rd Defendant? Whether in view of the provisions of Section 88 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, and the failure of the 4th Defendant to be confirmed by the 3rd Defendant twice, the 4th Defendant ceases to continue to head and administer the affairs of the 5th Defendant ?]]>