Former Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki, has said the Court of Appeal's ruling that Ibrahim Magu's prolonged tenure as acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission was unlawful has vindicated the position taken by the eighth Senate under his leadership.

Saraki stated this in a post on his X handle on Tuesday while reacting to the appellate court's decision on the legality of Magu's continued stay as acting chairman of the anti-graft agency.

The former Senate President recalled that the eighth Senate rejected Magu's nomination as substantive EFCC chairman twice in 2016 and 2017, but the former EFCC boss continued to serve in an acting capacity until July 2020.

Magu's continued stay in office after the Senate's rejection subsequently became the subject of a legal challenge, with the dispute centred on whether he could remain acting chairman for an extended period without confirmation by the Senate.

Saraki said the Senate's action was not politically motivated, as some had alleged at the time, but an exercise of its constitutional responsibility.

"Back in 2016 and 2017, the 8th Senate, under my leadership, rejected Ibrahim Magu's nomination as substantive EFCC chairman not once but twice.

"Still, he remained in office illegally until July 2020, without confirmation by the Senate," Saraki stated.

He said the Senate's decision attracted criticism at the time, with some people attributing it to political considerations.

"At the time, some called our decision political. It wasn't. We were simply exercising our constitutional duty and standing by what was right.

"My colleagues in the 8th Senate and I, as well as our families and associates, endured what I can only describe as attempts by Magu to terrorise us," he said.

According to Saraki, maintaining the Senate's position came at considerable personal and public cost. Saraki said Monday's judgment by the Court of Appeal had now reinforced the position taken by the eighth Senate nearly a decade ago.

"Yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled that Magu's prolonged tenure as acting EFCC chairman was indeed unlawful. Nearly a decade later, I feel vindicated yet again," he stated.

Reflecting on the development, Saraki said the experience underscored the importance of remaining committed to one's convictions while serving in public office, even when such positions attract criticism.

"For those of us who have had the privilege of serving this nation, the deepest lesson in all of this is that time may test one's conviction, but it always ultimately reveals the value of standing on principle," he said.

Recall that the Court of Appeal in Abuja ruled that Magu's prolonged stay as acting EFCC chairman was unlawful, overturning a Federal High Court judgment that upheld his continued retention in office.

A three-member panel of the appellate court delivered the judgment on Monday in an appeal filed by Johnmary Jideobi, a lawyer, who had challenged Magu's continued stay in office after the Senate twice rejected his nomination as substantive EFCC chairman.

The appeal arose from a judgment delivered by Ijeoma Ojukwu, a judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, on December 4, 2019.

Magu served as acting chairman of the EFCC from 2015 until July 2020, when he was suspended from office.

Jideobi had instituted the suit before the FHC in March 2017, arguing that Magu could not remain indefinitely as acting chairman after the Senate had rejected his nomination.

In the 2019 judgment, the judge dismissed the suit challenging Magu's continued stay as acting chairman.

She held that the EFCC Act, especially section 2(3), did not restrict the powers of the President to retain Magu as acting chairman of the commission.

However, dissatisfied with the decision, Jideobi appealed the lower court's verdict, where he argued that the chairman of the EFCC has a four-year tenure, renewable once, and that Magu had exceeded the stipulated period without Senate confirmation.

He further argued that Magu's acting appointment had ended by operation of law after the Senate rejected his nomination.

Jideobi asked the appellate court to set aside the Federal High Court judgment and grant the reliefs sought in his original suit.

The respondents in the appeal were the Senate, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the EFCC and Magu.