Senate Only Confirms Nominees, DSS is Responsible for Security and Certificate Screening, Clarifies Senator Ndume

Senator Ali Ndume, representing Borno South Senatorial District, has clarified the legislative role in the appointment of presidential nominees, stressing that the Senate’s function is confirmation, while the crucial task of security and certificate screening lies with the executive arm, specifically the Department of State Services (DSS).

Ndume’s statement, made during a television interview on Thursday, was a direct response to public scrutiny following the recent resignation of Uche Nnaji, the former Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation, over allegations of certificate forgery.

The Senator was quick to draw a sharp constitutional distinction between the two processes. “We are not screening. Get this clear. Screening and confirmation are two different things,” Ndume asserted. “Before the President sends a candidate to the Senate, there are a lot of processes, including screening him not only on certificates but also conducting a background check by the SSS. The SSS has to clear him.”

He maintained that the Senate’s decision to confirm or reject a nominee is fundamentally reliant on the integrity of the security reports submitted by the DSS. Ndume cited a past incident where the Senate acted on a DSS red flag to reject a candidate, arguing that this demonstrates the upper chamber’s commitment to its duty. “Last time the SSS brought something against somebody, and we dropped the person. So don’t say we are not doing our job. We are not even to do the screening; we are to do confirmation,” he added.

While acknowledging that the issue of forged documents is a significant problem that pervades various sectors in Nigeria and is not restricted to the political class, Ndume’s clarification effectively shifts the primary responsibility for the initial integrity assessment of ministerial and other presidential nominees to the nation’s security architecture. This comes as the Nnaji forgery saga continues to fuel public debate over the rigour of vetting processes for high-level government appointments.