Salami: Jonathan’s critics partisan says Ruben Abati

 Dr Ruben Abati Once one of the strongest critic of The Goodluck Jonathan Led Government but recently appointed the special Adviser on Media and publicity to the president has in recent times been trying his best to do his job and like we all know he who pays the piper dictates the tune and what happens to the principle of Dr Ruben?
The Ph.D Holder in a recent attempt to defend is boss has once again done so in this case the Salami Vs NCJ (Nigerian Judicial Commission) debacle.
Dr Ruben Abati said that Jonathan's Critic in the Salami's case are merely partisan and that those against the president's hasty assent to the NJC National judicial council's Infamous recommendation was to ensure that by approving the suspension and quickly appointing an acting President of the Court of appeal the president has infact up held the rule of law and ensure that there is no vacuum in the office of the PCA. he also stressed that if the president refused to act quickly, he would have been criticised for interfering with the affairs/ work of the Judiciary.
With due respect i believe the above line of argument suffers from the poverty of logic and at best can be described as strategic misrepresentation of facts.
First, The recommendation of the NJC was in bad faith, illegal and unconstitutional , the decision came while a law suit has been filed by Justice Ayo Salami. The recommendation of the NJC in the first place is what seeks to create the said vacuum so if the president has not hastily decided to give approval to the recommendation the argument of whether there will be a vacuum or not would not have arisen. The president's approval created the vacuum in the first instance.
Secondly,  each arm of Government should be an instrument of check and balance to prevent the excesses of the other arms ,so if president Goodluck acting for the Executive arm of Government decides to check the unconstitutional Excesses of the Judiciary when the whole country is now aware of the  notorious fact that when a matter is already in court the NJC’ had no right to take action on the same matter and acted altra vires and subjudice in taking a decision on a matter . The President would have been applauded for upholding the rule of law if he had refused to approve  a recommendation based on illegality.