By James Agboju
Love and trust are essential in relationships. And in their absence, unnecessary suspicions and clash of egos become normal.
That is exactly how I see the current face-off between Rt Hon Femi Gbajabiamila, Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 36 state governors over the ‘Control of Infectious Disease Bill, 2020’ popularly known as the ‘NCDC Bill.’
The governors’ grouse with the speaker stem from the bill which he and Pascal Obi, chairman, House Committee on Health Institutions and Tanko Sununu,chairman of the Committee on Health Services, sponsored to ‘replace’ the National Quarantine Act of 2004.
After a virtual meeting of the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF), Kayode Fayemi, the Ekiti State governor, in his position as NGF chairman asked that the bill be suspended.
The decision was based on the bashing of the bill by Alhaji Aminu Tambuwal, Sokoto State governor, vice chairman of the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) and former speaker.
And according to some reports, the governors are plotting Gbajabiamila’s impeachment because of that.
Right from the beginning, the bill has been trailed with controversy. Rushed through a first and second reading, lawmakers said they were only given copies of the legislation after they complained.
And noticing some contentious provisions, it wasn’t long before the controversies began. It was photocopied from Singapore. It is authoritarian in design. It was sponsored for selfish interests. But Tambuwal’s reasons may be more personal.
While members of the public generally supported the need for the bill, they wondered if this moment when the whole world is busy fighting Covid-19 was the right time to pursue such legislation.
In some quarters, the speaker was accused of having ulterior motives and that the bill was being pushed, courtesy of $10m largesse from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a claim which both parties have denied.
And many critics also fear that the bill gives too much power to the minister of health and the director general of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC).
For instance, the bill stipulates that the NCDC-DG will have the right to convert any building into an isolation area, close down premises deemed to be overcrowded and can detain individuals suffering an infectious disease without any warrant. Surely this is too much power to be conferred in one person.
However, the bill also prescribes compulsory vaccination of every child in Nigeria against some infectious diseases as well posing stiffer punishment for defaulters.
“A new law is needed but the powers are too sweeping,” said the Director of Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre, Clement Nwankwo, in a report. “There are a lot of powers in the bill which could be used for political purposes.”
I agree. There are aspects of the law that need fine-tuning and there has to be a mechanism for checks and balances. When Covid-19 finally forced the country to a ‘lockdown’ in March, the country was challenged in its reaction.
There was no protocol to follow. We had citizens lost on hope and means. We had agencies engaging in meetings and still not understanding what was expected of them to do.
We even had governors taking the fire-brigade approach to issues of information dissemination, palliative sharing, security and border securement.
The federal government too was only reactive. All the while, the effects of the tiny coronavirus ravaged the country. Defending the bill, Gbajabiamila opined what we know to be a fact – that the Quarantine Act is far removed from the realities of modern times.
“Our current framework for the prevention and management of infectious diseases is obsolete and no longer fit for purpose,” the Speaker said. “The current law severely constrains the ability of the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) to take proactive action to prevent the entry into Nigeria of infectious diseases and the management of public health emergencies when they occur.
“Even now, the government remains vulnerable to claims that some directives already being implemented to manage the present crisis do not have the backing of the law and therefore cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.”
He continued: “The Control of Infectious Diseases Bill will be put forward to a public hearing where stakeholder contributions will be sought to make improvements to the Bill before it is reviewed and debated by the Committee of the whole.
“It is from the accumulation of these myriad views, suggestions and good faith critiques from within and outside the House that we will arrive at final legislation that meets the present and future needs of our country, and which we all can support in good conscience.”
In 1926, when the Quarantine Act was first passed, commercial air travel was largely inexistent and by 2004 when it was modified, the internet was just being a thing in the country and fake news didn’t have currency.
While I agree there are segments of the law to be looked at so that it is not totalitarian, I think it should not get to the point of blackmail as the governors seem to be doing. The governors ought to realise that the law is for the benefit of all Nigerians.
The Green Chamber has told the NGF that Tambuwal’s cry that the bill be suspended was because he never wanted Gbajabiamila to emerge speaker.
“We assume that his position was informed by his well-known personal and partisan opposition to the emergence of the current leadership of the house considering his obvious stance in 2015 and 2019,” Benjamin Kalu, the house spokesman, said in a recent statement.
“Unlike in a constitution amendment matter, where state houses of assembly have a defined constitutional role to play in effecting any review to it, bills such as the Control of Infectious Diseases are not by our constitution subject of concurrence of state houses of assembly or state governors.
We do believe that our respected governors are aware of these lawful processes of legislation and should not be misguided by a biased position of a former speaker.”
Surely, many things can be contested about the bill but not the need to revisit laws that could guide our response to infectious diseases. And the governors have every right to express their grievances to any bill or sections of it they consider ‘unsuitable’.
However, there are appropriate means of doing such and they should not encourage or be seen to be encouraging underarm tactics such as ‘sponsoring the impeachment’ of elected public officers. The speaker has announced that there would be a public hearing of the bill.
And citizens would be allowed to make contributions. The governors can also make contributions. They can also harness the power of their representatives in the law-making houses to influence it. But no, the governors do not seem interested in doing that.
Separation of power exists for reasons just like this. While the governors hold sway as executive heads in their various states, the legislative, at different levels call the shots when it comes to law-making.
Acting as a modifier between them is the judiciary which interprets and applies the law. These different arms serve to check each other.
The operative word there is ‘check.’ They do not seek to control each other. However, the recent interference by the state governors concerning the NCDC bill revolves more around ‘control.’
It is disheartening that governors still think that banding together in executive rascality is the way to go. Effective governance is way beyond that.
Leave a Reply