suggestion by some Senators for presiding officers of the National
Assembly to be placed under immunity in the constitution and on
pension, out rightly described the move as selfish and anti-people.
They would have thought the House of Representatives will simply
take note of the condemnations coming from different angles and
back out from these two unpopular plans. But surprisingly on
Tuesday, July 12, the House passed for second reading, the bill,
sponsored by House Minority Leader, Leo Ogor ( PDP, Delta )
seeking to alter Section 308 (3) of the Principal Act of the
constitution to add Senate President, Speaker, Deputy Senate
President, Deputy Speaker, immediately after the word ‘Vice
President ‘ and also to include Speaker of a State House of
Assembly, Deputy Speaker of a State House of Assembly
immediately after the word ‘Deputy Governor’.
In a replay to what happened at a-two day retreat on Constitution
Review organised by the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on
Constitution Review in Lagos, which had senators sharply divided
on both proposals, members of the House took opposing positions
on the matter. Leading the debate on the bill, Ogor who is
certainly not new to parliamentary battles argued that the
proposed immunity for National Assembly principal officers was to
protect the legislative arm and to ensure that the leadership of the
National Assembly fully concentrates on its duties. “The
amendment is straight forward but it needs some clear
explanation. The amendment seeks to strengthen the National
Assembly; they (leadership) should be protected in the period they
are in office”, he said. He had support, as speaking in favour of the
other ranking member, Ossai Nicholas Ossai ( PDP-Delta ) said
the alteration was targeted at protecting the independence of the
legislature. He further posited that primary duty of legislators is to
make laws for good governance and they needed to be protected.
But rising in total rejection of the proposed amendment, Majority
Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila (APC-Lagos) stated his opposition to
the bill, saying that there was not a single democratic country
where heads of the legislature enjoy immunity. Gbajabiamila
insisted that the timing of the bill was wrong especially now that
the Senate President Bukola Saraki was facing trial at the Code of
Conduct Tribunal and the FCT High Court. He said: “I oppose the
bill because we are here to legislate and on behalf of our
constituents but the question is what are we here for? Timing is
very important here and we don’t want to send the wrong signal,
because of what is going on in the Senate, it will be
misinterpreted. I’m not aware of any country where such applies.
Let us do what will endure. In most countries, only the President
and the Vice- President enjoy it”.
In his intervention, Speaker, Yakubu Dogara stated that being a
constitutional matter, the bill would be referred to the Adhoc
Committee on Constitution Review. But lawmakers voiced
opposition to the bill, with shouts of ‘no immunity’ from different
sections of the green chamber. The shouting between lawmakers
in support and against the bill lasted for over 20 minutes. While
some converged around the Speaker to find a middle ground,
other lawmakers broke into groups with many making efforts to
justify their positions. Deputy Whip, Pally Iriase was largely ignored
by lawmakers as he tried in vain to restore decorum to the
House. Ali Madaki ( APC- Kano ), who insisted that his point of
order be taken could hardly be heard, but he stressed that the
integrity of the House should be protected by jettisoning the bill.
At a point, the Speaker had to invite the Chairman, House
Committee on Appropriation, Jibrin Abdulmumim ( APC-Kano) to
speak to him privately, but the lawmaker who is a known ally of
Dogara held a piece of paper with ‘no immunity’ written on it.
When the Speaker eventually sought the intervention of Deputy
Chairman, Committee on Rules and Business, Olabode Ayorinde
(APC -Ondo) on the position of the House Rules on such matters,
the lawmakers cited Order 8 rule 98 (3) that upon second reading,
the bill shall be consigned to special committee on constitution,
but his clarification didn’t go down well with lawmakers who
insisted that the order was specific on the bill being transmitted to
the committee ‘after debate’. And Despite the loudly voiced
complaints by his colleagues, the Speaker stated that his decision
to commit the bill to the constitution review committee was in
order as the experts in the committee would scrutinise it with
professionalism. “If we throw the bill out, we will never see it
again,” he said, as he put the question, to have it referred to the
ad hoc Committee, banging the gavel to signal an end to the
heated debate. The atmosphere in the green chambers was so
heated that many didn’t realise that the Clerk of the House
didn’t read the full title of the bill.
The clash of positions was largely unpredicted even if it’s
happening at all was quite predictable. Right from when senators
stirred the hornet’s nest by raising the issue of immunity for
presiding officers and pension for this select group, Ogor who
spoke to Daily Sun and a few other lawmakers stated their
positions on the matter, each sounding uncompromising on both
issues. In a phone interview with Daily Sun, the Minority Leader
expressed support for the senators.
Also backing the Senate, Deputy Chairman House Committee on
Appropriations, Chris Azubogu (Anambra-PDP) said: “You see, the
office of Speaker and that of the Senate President, are offices you
don’t play with. They need to be covered to effectively carry out
their duties. Governors enjoy immunity, so I absolutely support
presiding officers being covered by immunity”.
But taking a different position, Chairman, House Committee on
Financial Crimes, Kayode Oladele (Ogun-APC) said including
presiding officers on the immunity list can hardly be justified.
“There are some things that we undertake as National Assembly
members, that we can justify and some things we cannot. So, I
will not support any move to grant presiding officers of the
National Assembly immunity”, he said.
The lawmakers equally differed on the move to place presiding
officers on pension. Ogor opined that the issue should be
thoroughly scrutinised. On his part, Azubogu argued that presiding
officers should be placed on pension like the head of the judiciary
and the president.
“Judges, don’t they have pension? Doesn’t the president have
pension? Then, there is nothing that stops presiding officers of the
National Assembly from being placed on pension”, he said. Taking
a similar position, Oladele said: “ I will back the issue of pension
for the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the Senate President and the
Deputy Senate President. But I am not sure I will agree for the
same treatment for other principal officers, like the Majority Leader
and others”. During the review of constitution by the 7th
Assembly , 33 of the 36 states of the federation had voted in
support of the alteration of Section 84 of the constitution to insert
a new subsection, 5A to guarantee life pension for President of the
Senate, Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of
Representatives at a rate equivalent to their annual salaries.
Daily Sun investigations point to the fact that lawmkers are a little
amenable to pension for their leaders but are very much sharply
divided on the vexed issue of immunity. The mood in the House
played out at the weekly briefing of the House Committee on
Media and Publicity when in a rare display of disunity, members of
the committee differed on the immunity issue. As expected,
chairman of the committee, Abudulrazak Namdas described the
outcry against the move to amend the constitution to include the
principal officers of the National Assembly for protection under the
immunity clause as uncalled for. “It (bill) will undergo a process.
It could be retained or dropped. But people are reporting the issue
as if we have already given our principal officers immunity” he
lamented.
When asked if Speaker Yakubu Dogara erred by ruling that the bill
be transmitted to the Yussuff Lasun-led Adhoc Committee on
Constitutional Review, without the Clerk reading its full title, owing
to the rowdy atmosphere at the plenary, Namdas insisted that the
Speaker did not breach the rules. Namdas had strong backing
from his deputy, Jonathan Gbefwi (Nasarawa-APC) who added
that the Speaker was right to adhere by the House rules even if
the mood in the House was unfriendly towards his ruling. “You
cannot breach the rules because of the current mood. If you do
that, you will be setting a bad precedence” he stated.
The House spokesman, maintained that the move to place
National Assembly presiding officers under immunity would not be
of benefit to the current leadership. But another colleague in the
committee, Jerry Alagbaso (Imo-PDP) countered: “we are not
doing this because somebody has a problem. So, let no one leave
here with the impression that we have a motive”, adding that the
bill, “will also be put up for debate by the public” and Olufemi
Adebanjo (Lagos-APC) insisted that, “I and some others will never
support immunity for the legislature. “ Indeed, the power lies in
the hands of Nigerians, many who have wondered why the House
cannot prioritise important bills that will positively impact on the
lives of majority or simply steer clear of laws that will only worsen
its reputation as an institution dominated by persons who love to
seek means to live like lords, simply because they are in
government. As argued by lawmakers, members of the public can
make their voices heard and push for the bill to be defeated at the
public hearing stage. Ideally, it is based on the report of the
committee that a bill is referred to after second hearing; that
determines if it is read for a third time, sent to the Senate for
concurrence and possibly for presidential assent.
But in some cases, the wish of committees have been the deciding
factor and not the real feedback from public hearing and other
findings. Another factor that could be a challenge is the largely out
of sight manner the House Adhoc Commitee on Constitutional
Review has conducted its business. It will most likely be difficult
to monitor how the controversial bill is treated by the Lasun-led
Committee.
http://sunnewsonline.com/immunity-clause-divides-house-of-reps/
No comments:
Post a Comment