The Nation Newspaper

Tag: immunity

  • Parliament wants immunity

    Parliament wants immunity

    Folks, your parliament wants immunity!

    But what is the assurance that immunity won’t breed parliamentary impunity, the most violent antipode to the very concept of democracy?

    Can you imagine a kabiyesi parliament — a parliament that cannot be questioned, even by its own electors?

    Yet, it is this much abused “democracy” that this self-serving ensemble mouth themselves as most authentic living symbols!

    Since 1999, when former President Olusegun Obasanjo roasted the National Assembly on the populist altar of “furniture allowance”, portraying the new brood of legislators as a band of unconscionable gluttons devoted to nobody’s welfare but their own, Ripples had always thought Nigerians unfair to their elected representatives.

    For one, President Obasanjo was scorching parliament and projecting himself as some people’s champion, too holy for a profane legislature to touch.  Yet, the president parliament must touch, by constitutional oversight.

    That populist ploy was, of course, dangerous Machiavellian gambit, subversive of rigorous checks-and-balances, on which presidential democracy is erected.

    For another, the president on the grandstand furiously excoriated legislative pork; but was stone quiet on the perks of his own ministers; and the brood of unelected others, in executive sinecure.

    Besides, Nigeria’s successive military coups had consigned the legislature as the least developed of the three governmental arms, since it was the only arm sacrificed during military rule.  For that sole reason, it deserved some empathy.

    Still, with Leo Ogor’s sensational announcement of immunity dreams for its topmost principal officers, Ripples just wonders if the National Assembly, not popular in the streets even in the best of times, is not bent on a self-destruct path.

    Mr. Ogor, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) member and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, announced with glee the legislature was mulling over a constitutional amendment that would gift immunity to the Senate president and his deputy, as well as the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives.  In the spirit of subversive generosity, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) too was a putative beneficiary!

    The logic?  Well, the president (national) and governors (states), heads of the executive, enjoy the immunity clause.  So, why not “democratise” immunity, to include the heads of the other two arms?

    Indeed, why not, other things being equal?  But that is the snag: other things were far from equal.  Really, Mr. Ogor’s statement came across as some provocative sword of Damocles, from a parliament chaffing at the “insult” of docking Senate President, Bukola Saraki, for alleged corruption.

    Mr. Ogor’s seeming unstated illogic?  That the Constitution grants the president immunity, and the senate president none, appears “unacceptable” to parliament; and must be reversed forthwith.

    But wouldn’t self-help itself — and that’s what Ogor’s threat amounts to — be a cynical corruption of the hallowed trust of law making?

    Besides, when did legislative immunity become an issue — before or after Saraki’s Code of Conduct odyssey? Didn’t those chaffing now read the Constitution before they opted for the National Assembly, instead of running for president or governor, to enjoy immunity?

    And having made their choice, should they corrupt the process with self-help, not only cynically hinting that the law is an ass; but also that the processes leading to lawmaking is outright asinine, since legislators can corral powers to legislate for their short-term selfish interests, rather than for the perpetual good of the polity?

    Should they even pull off this gambit, how would it possibly save Saraki from having his day in court, even if his body language violently rails against that due process?  Could parliament, in all good — and democratic! — conscience, make the law retroactive to save the embattled senate president?

    Still, for all you know, Mr. Ogor could well have been speaking for himself, and no one else.  He could also be the quintessential honourable gentleman, as his House membership presupposes, incapable of cant.

    But he could also be flying a kite for an incipient campaign.

    Given his political trajectory, a scion of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), a party splendidly undone by its own impunity, impunity would appear never far away.  From his PDP culture, therefore, a cynical push for legislative immunity, en route to legislative impunity, would appear coming with the territory.

    Still, the real story behind the Ogor immunity drama is the clash of vision between President Muhammadu Buhari and Senate President Saraki, on what governance should be in a season of change.

    In fairness, the crisis started from Buhari’s presidential naivety of declaring himself disinterested in whoever headed the Senate or the House of Representatives.

    But in fairness to the president too, no decent person would have expected Saraki’s vaulting desperation, which fired his brazen sell-out of his party — and its right to the deputy senate presidency — to the opposition PDP, to corral subversive votes, to land the Senate presidency.

    Now, the PDP sits pretty, not giving a damn if the new order fails.  Neither does Saraki, it appears, so long as he achieves his aim.  It’s all so reminiscent of the infamous quote of Lucifer, in John Milton’s Paradise Lost: “Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven”!

    Soon enough, if this crisis persists, rebel APC senators in Saraki’s camp, could just drop their neither-nor facade, and queue behind their master.  Whence then would he lead them?

    Remain Lucifer, still the proud Son of the Morning, in the ruling party (whatever its name)?  Or a full descent into Satan, in hellish opposition, stubbornly living the quip of ruling in hell, rather than serving in heaven?  Time will tell!

    This monstrous see-saw of change-but-no-change, therefore, drives this crisis.  The threat of legislative immunity is only the latest symptom, of the high-octane power play for the soul of change: the Buhari vanguard of change for real change; or the Saraki school’s change as mere illusion.

    But before the politicians get ahead of themselves, cooking deals and expecting the docile people to helplessly watch from the sidelines, let everyone know.

    For all his braggadocio, Senator Saraki only boasts the mandate of a third of a state, his senatorial district in Kwara State.  At the end of the day, the senate presidency, when the chips are down, is more a function of honour and of influence, than of power.

    On the other hand, President Buhari boasts a national mandate.  While to the tactful, soft power always trumps hard power, between the president and the senate president, there is little doubt as to who wields a bigger mandate.

    And lest everyone forgets: Buhari’s win was as much a victory for the opposition as it was redemption for the self-destruct ruling elite, which PDP was heedlessly rushing to the political gallows.

    A few months hence of Jonathan’s anomie, and maybe Nigeria’s present ruling elite would have been buried under the Nigerian rubble?

    That is why Buhari holds it a historic duty to enact the positive change his presidential win promised.  That is his contract with Nigeria.

    The Saraki dilution, via PDP intrusion, is not part of that solemn deal.  It is a terrible distraction that must be removed — and fast.

  • Perish the idea of immunity for legislative leaders

    Perish the idea of immunity for legislative leaders

    Of all the problems confronting the 8th National Assembly, and given the bad image and low public esteem lawmakers have been struggling to overcome, it is remarkable they still find time to dream of utopia and energy to pursue red herrings. Last week, in what is turning out to be a provocative legislative pastime, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Leo Ogor, was reported by the Vanguard newspaper as hinting that the legislature would soon sponsor a constitutional amendment to confer immunity on the Senate President and his deputy, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and his deputy, and the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN). Their arguments are engagingly simple. First, according to him, if the head of the executive arm and his deputy enjoy immunity, the heads of the other arms of government should also benefit; and second, if legislative heads are not buffeted by trials and other distractions , frequent change of leadership would be avoided. Simple? No, absolutely simplistic.

    If it is true that Hon Ogor accurately reflects the intentions of the national lawmakers, then the problem of lawmaking in Nigeria has indeed assumed tragic proportions. There are many pressing national and constitutional issues requiring the attention of lawmakers. That they are instead focused on personal comfort and self-preservation reflects badly on their motives and convictions. Perhaps the lawmakers, whose legislative mill grinds appallingly slowly, are just flying a kite. But the mere thought of that atrocious idea, not to say the lawmakers’ determination to table the immunity matter for amendment, is opprobrious. Just when the nation was summoning the will to strip the executive arm of immunity, lawmakers are anxious to embrace the disconcerting notion that immunity should be widened. Obviously most lawmakers see the legislature as a tool for entrenching privilege and class differentiation.

    Until now, the idea of immunity for legislative leaders was discussed in hushed tones in legislative corridors. No one had the courage to promote it to the level of constitutional amendment because former lawmakers instinctively knew it would be unpopular. They probably suspected that their plummeting popularity, if exacerbated by a rash struggle for immunity, could in fact subvert the entire democratic process and endanger their own survival. Right from the 1st to 7th National Assembly, no lawmaker seemed really persuaded about sacrifice anything for democracy. If they openly clung to its facade, it was only to the extent that it gave them ephemeral purpose and kept them preoccupied. It is, therefore, not entirely surprising that the 8th National Assembly is tarred with the same brush of superficial conception of democracy and its many variants. And as this latest push for immunity seems to indicate, the legislature was never too good at gauging public mood or competently judging democratic constructs and evaluating societal values.

    The immediate trigger for Hon Ogor’s campaign was the Code of Conduct Bureau case against Senate President Bukola Saraki, which dramatically came to a head when he was slammed with a 13-count charge for false declaration of assets. Dr Saraki had suggested at the trial that he was being prosecuted because he opposed his party’s zoning policy and defied powerful party leaders determined to erode the legislature’s independence. The arguments were self-serving, it seems, but Dr Saraki has in consequence twice been given near unanimous votes of confidence. Should the immunity issue be tabled before that frantic National Assembly, and should the public fail to put the lawmakers in their place, the amendment will pass, for the lawmakers are full of rebellion and defiance.

    Under Dr Saraki, NASS has been doing things and fomenting unusual and provocative ideas and policies. If they stay the course unchecked, soon, they may even deign to sack the executive, curtail the people’s freedoms, and, while entrenching their queer and amoral practices, proceed to subvert the principles and virtues by which this embattled and traumatised republic had been faintly ennobled over the decades.

  • Still in immunity mode months into a change regime

    Still in immunity mode months into a change regime

    A Senate with 83 senators that passed a vote of confidence in someone elected about one month ago and with the temerity to warn the police not to ‘harass’ their members seems to have sufficient numbers to frustrate policies and bills designed by the president and his party to fight corruption

    Democracy is more than a political system; it is also a moral system. It is a political system which is characterized not by particular procedures, such as regular elections of government, but primarily by being based on certain fundamental moral principles. In a genuinely democratic society, the government’s policy must accord with those principles. And, furthermore, all social institutions must also be established and conducted within the same moral framework, which invariably includes equality, freedom, and respect for the rights of the individual.—A. V. Kelly

    By immunity in this piece, I do not mean the formal protection against arrest and prosecution of president, vice president, governor and deputy governor which those who occupy these positions enjoy in our country and which makes leaders of the executive branch of government the most powerful and protected political office holders in the world. I mean the general lack of respect for laws, rules, and conventions among those accorded legal immunity by the constitution and those that are not covered by such protection. In other words, I am using immunity in the sense of an individual’s or group’s belief that he or she can do anything without being answerable to the principle of equality before the law.
    It is intriguing that despite the fact that majority of Nigerians voted for General Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the belief that the new president and his party would be in a better position to right the wrongs of the past under the regime of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the culture of business as usual is still thriving two months into the Buhari presidency. For example, the recent lucid analysis by JitiOgunye of the conduct of lawmakers in the National Assembly, particularly in the Senate illustrates how the culture of immunity and disregard for laws, rules, and conventions reigned on June 9 in the hallowed chambers reserved for regulating the lives of the nation and its citizens through establishmentof the ‘Dos and Don’ts’ that in normal situations sustain modern polity and civilisations. Ogunye demonstrated in a jargon-free interpretation that the election of Senators Saraki and Ekweremadu as president and deputy president of Senate was based on forged rules and thus need to be declared null and void, if deliberations under existing leadership of the Senate are to have integrity.
    Even after the police has revealed in its own investigation that the rules cited by the Senate for its conduct on June 9 are products of forgery, senators in support of the outcome of the election still find it comfortable to warn the police and other security agencies against allowing themselves to be used to harass the Senate, senators, or their spouses. Put in other words, the senators are warning the police not to do its work: investigation and detection of crime and presentation of suspected criminals to the court of law for trial. Instead of showing qualms, senators involved in the election of officers in June now show bravado as they threaten law enforcement officials for attempting to perform their lawful duties. This attitude from 48 PDP senators and 35 APC senators signal disaster for change, if the other branches of government— the executive and judiciary— fail to act in defence and protection of the rule of law.
    Stealing of the country’s patrimony, particularly crude oil in the millions still took place until July 3, according to President Buhari’s recent statement. This is an indication that the lawlessness that characterised the last government was still in vogue even after a new president had been sworn in. The courage of politically connected oil thieves during the last administration to engage in illegal bunkering even months after their principals had vacated power shows how ingrained the culture of impunity has become. What this signals is that there are collaborators in all sectors of the polity, including the nation’s security system who are still ready to work with economic saboteurs even under the nose of an anti-corruption federal government.
    Furthermore, using the media to deceive citizens through blatant lies that was a past-time of the administration in the last four or so years has not abated even two months into the new administration. For example, nobody in the country including those in power can say with certainty the exact location of the $15 million that was smuggled toward the end of Jonathan’s government to South Africa to ‘buy arms’ with which to fight the Boko Haram insurgency. As recent as last week, the South African High Commission was unable to confirm if the money had been returned to Nigeria. The South African envoy’s encouragement on July 23: “So, I advise you to check with the agency from where the money was released for the arms acquisition deal,” implies that the location of the money still remains unknown after several months of claim by the Jonathan administration that the funds had been returned to Nigeria.
    As we write this piece, many citizens are rejoicing that the crisis in the House has been settled with Dogara’s acceptance of the list of APC nominees for offices other than that of the Speaker. People are forgetting fast the issue that the election of House Speaker and Deputy Speaker was conducted outside the framework of the laws that guide such elections in the House. Many of such enthusiasts are saying that we need peace in the House to be able to embark on the crusade of change. How realistic is the optimism that the crusade for positive change can be facilitated by House officers who finally agreed to a compromise after being given a deadline to ‘do the needful’?
    It is not that actions and statements referred to in the paragraphs above had taken place in Nigeria that is a novelty in a country that had for decades become the poster child for political and bureaucratic corruption in the world. What is worrisome is that such unwholesome acts as conducting election in the federal legislature with forged rules; senators’ threatening of the police for planning to enforce the laws of the land; and solidarity messages from supporters of lawmakers purported to have used rules not known to the law smack of a growing tolerance for impunity under the nose of a regime of zero-tolerance for corruption.
    It is not the capacity of President Buhari to fight corruption with sincerity and vigour that is likely to be a problem, given his own strength of character. What is scary is the capacity of a Senate led by leaders elected on the basis of forged rules to constitute a stumbling block to Buhari’s efforts to clean the Augean stables the president has inherited from the preceding administration. A Senate with 83 senators that passed a vote of confidence in someone elected about one month ago and with the temerity to warn the police not to ‘harass’ their members seems to have sufficient numbers to frustrate policies and bills designed by the president and his party to fight corruption. It is not out of place to think that the current senate leadership is in a position, if adequate care is not taken, to disrupt good governance by instigating crisis that can disrupt the change agenda.
    The matter of election of senate leaders must not be left to compromise among party members, more so that police investigation has revealed that the election of such officers took place on the strength of forged Senate Rules. The executive and judiciary must not shirk in their own responsibilities on a matter that has been politically unsettling since June 9. This is the most appropriate time for the Buhari presidency to insist on equality before the law. If indeed there was forgery of Senate rules, those behind such forgery, regardless of their position in the polity and society, should be brought to book immediately.
    Citizens who want their mandate on change to be put to good use need to stand firm and give support to the executive and the judiciary when they act to protect the country’s constitution, especially its commitment to the rule of law, without which democracy cannot deliver good governance. Citizens must not leave protection of the moral system that subtends all viable democratic systems in only the hands of office seeking lawmakers.

     

  • Too much sugar reduces immunity, says provost

    Too much sugar reduces immunity, says provost

    Provost of the Federal College of Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, Lagos, Dr Idowu Ogunkoya has urged people to adopt lifestyles that can boost their immunity.

    According to him, this is necessary because people with strong immunity have natural resistance to diseases.

    He said consuming too much sugar suppresses the immune system cells responsible for attacking bacteria. “By consuming between 75 and 100 grammes of sugar solution can reduce the ability of white blood cells to overpower and destroy bacteria,” he said.

    Besides, natural fruit juices, tea and water should be used to flush the cells, boost immune system with vitamins and keep hydrated.

    He advised people to deal decisively with chronic stress because it makes them more vulnerable to illness, colds, and even serious diseases.

    “The continuation of stress exposes the body to a steady flow of stress hormones, such as cortisol and adrenalin, which suppress the immune system. People should breathe deep, meditate, or focus on ‘letting go’ to reduce their stress,” he said.

    People, he said, should be active by exercising as getting stuck to a chair for long hours can reduce immune system efficiency.

    “Being stuck at a desk all day or skipping exercise can reduce your immune system’s efficiency. Movement, or exercise, not only stimulates the lymphatic system (the sewer system of the body), but increases oxygenation, and increases the level of leukocytes in the body, an immune system cell that fights infection,” he said.

    He said inadequate sleep can affect immunity, stressing that insomnia can cause a rise in inflammation – and similarly an increase in cortisol. It is clear a great way to boost the immune system is to get between seven and nine hours of sleep every night.

    Ogunkoya recommended lifestyle changes for people to shed extra body weight, adding that being overweight increases their chances of having diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.

    “People can increase their immunity by eating more fresh fruits and vegetables, avoiding refined sugars and processed carbohydrates. Also, they should consume lean, optimally plant-based proteins, drinking plenty of water, and getting a moderate exercise regularly.

    He said the essential amino acids, antioxidants, and healthy fats in avocados can help to balance hormones, support the immune system and balance adrenals.

    The provost said ginger is a good plant that aids immunity. “It warms the body and it helps to break down accumulation of toxins in the organs, specifically the lungs and sinuses. This root also helps to cleanse the body’s lymphatic system, which is the body’s sewer system,” he said.

    He urged people to meditate because relaxation can help to clear negative thought and ensure best possible focus.

    Ogunkoya said taking oat can improve overall benefit of the immune system, adding that a portion of oatmeal contains soluble fibre, which is known to reduce LDL, or ‘bad’ cholesterol.

    Garlic, he said, works as antibacterial, antiviral and a great immune booster when eaten in its raw state. It is rich in antioxidants, he added.

    He enjoined people to take vitamin C as it is known for its immune boosting power. “Generally all fresh fruits and vegetables are good for the immune system. Top antioxidants, such as vitamin C and E, beta-carotene, and zinc are good for boosting immunity. Also helpful are brightly coloured fruits, such as citrus, berries, grapes, kiwi, apples, and vegetables, such as kale, onions, spinach and sweet potatoes. Zinc is found naturally in red meat, chicken, fish, eggs, legumes, sunflower and pumpkin seeds,” Ogunkoya said.

  • Legislative immunity in whose interest?

    THE way our lawmakers are going and in the absence of a drastic action to check the worsening legislative impunity and arbitrariness being shoved down our throats, we may wake up one day to read the news that they have promulgated a law compelling us to sacrifice our heads on a platter if they so wish. Without any iota of doubt, the Nigerian legislature is overreaching itself and it has become a bully to this democratic process. Truth is these folks have turned the noble task of promulgating law for the good governance of the collective into a huge joke. It is, in my opinion, infantile illogic to keep on peddling the lie that our lawmakers’ kindergarten behaviour can be excused on the fact that the Nigerian democracy remains an experiment, 15 years on. So much for a 15-year-old toddler on the throes of survival in an incubator. Some would even say it is yet to get a life of its own. That is simply not true. They seem to embrace the mundane rather than take seriously matters of urgent national importance. Just like they did last year and the year before that, our federal legislators again trooped to the International Conference Centre in Abuja on Thursday (23/10/2014) for another round of sermons at their National Breakfast Prayer Meeting. As observed by one commentator, the sumptuous delicacies provided by one of Abuja’s five-star hotel appear to have received more attention than the truthfulness and patriotic fervour that the preacher from faraway United Kingdom was trying to stir.

    The truth is that our democracy, ‘nascent’ as some would tag it, is becoming dangerously obese; a mockery of the time-worn ethos of what representative governance is all about elsewhere in the world. It is possible that we have spent the last 15 years of this democratic journey searching for the right answers with the wrong persons. We may, as well, have been treading a path that leads to nowhere. Here I speak not only of an executive that rides roughshod on the citizenry and enforces the laws mainly in the breach or carries out its constitutional responsibility on the prism of party affiliations and similar outrageous considerations. I do not even speak of a highly-compromised judiciary whose image has been ruinously battered by the free flow of stolen petrodollars in which justice is negotiated to suit the whim of the highest bidder. I speak not of a legislature that has surrendered the arduous task of law making and checking the excesses of the executive to the gratifications that come with throwing a blind eye to this deepening, systemic rot.

    In less than 16 years, we have since zoomed past the learning curve such that our home-grown brand of democracy has one or two things to teach the world. Today, governance has become such a mumbo-jumbo affair that one can hardly tell if there exists a clearly demarcated schedule of responsibilities as obtainable elsewhere. No, this is not just about the basic definition of democracy as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is too elementary a description of the serious business of governance for the jet age politicians in Nigeria to decode. The people hardy matter in a system where personal aggrandisement has been elevated to an art and where a devious kick in the groin has been unleashed on the principle of checks and balances. What we have here is a perfect synergy that elevates the self over and far above the interests of the collective. Nigeria’s democratic progression is frustratingly retrogressive. Very soon, we may end up having a legislature that is nothing more than another powerful appendage of the executive. Should that happen, as I suspect it would, it will be a dangerous coalition of power and an ultimate collapse of common sense. Already, the hallowed chambers, otherwise known as the National Assembly, have been infiltrated by erstwhile state chief executives who daily contribute nothing other than a daily dose of sleeping allowance to the business of law making. Among that crowd of stupendously rich but idle politicians are persons answering one corruption case or the other at different courts spread across the country. So, we have a queer arrangement in which people of questionable character and despicable background are constitutionally empowered to make laws for the rest of us. Of course, apologists including those who eat crumbs off them would easily argue that these persons got the mandate to proceed to Abuja through the electorates. That argument, we know, cannot justify the sacrilege. Besides, can we really claim ignorance to the farcical drama that props up strange characters in our political system?

    Even before the infiltration of these persons, the quality of legislation has been anything but ennobling. Right from the days of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, the Nigerian legislature at the national level has continuously denigrated its own authority. It got to its head when Obasanjo unilaterally saw to the ouster of, at least, two Presidents of the Senate with a failed attempt to remove one Speaker of the House of Representatives. Speaking from a presumed Olympian height, Obasanjo, without any recourse to any proven case at the court of competent jurisdiction, literally pronounced a sitting Senate President guilty of receiving financial gratification from a serving minister to ‘pad up’ the budget of the Ministry of Education. It was also at that period that one of Obasanjo’s favourite ministers accused some members of the Senate of receiving millions of naira to screen ministerial nominees. I remember then that this particular issue ignited riotous rage and passion by the lawmakers. Sadly, it ended up just the way it started—an anti-climax. A coerced minister reluctantly offered an apology and the matter, grave as it was then, was swept under the Senate’s red carpet in deference to the ruling party’s dispute resolution strategy—- family affairs.

    Since then, Nigerians have witnessed countless ‘collaborative’ efforts between the executive and the legislature. Unfortunately, the collaboration has not in any way deepen democracy but rather entrench group interest in a “you rub my back and I rub your back” political arrangement. This is the tragedy of this democracy right from inception. This, definitely, is not the time to reel out a catalogue of memorable events to justify how this romance between the legislature and the executive has gravely affected the entrenchment of a robust democratic system. With more serving state executives planning to join their colleagues in the Senate in 2015, we can only visualise a lame duck legislature that would be at the disposal of the executive should President Goodluck Jonathan make it back to power. Right in our faces, the legislature is gradually becoming a safe haven of some sorts for people who should be having their days at the courts, to account for their stewardship. The ones who do not really fancy the drudgery at the Senate are preparing themselves for appointments as ministers, ambassadors or chairpersons of boards and parastatals. The list, as I write this, is endless.

    If the legislature has become this manifestly corrosive, one can only assume that it would become worse if it eventually talk its way through conferring members with immunity regardless of how ‘partial’ that may be. You cannot help but wonder why the lawmakers are hankering over immunity at a time when Nigerians clamour for its removal as key privileges enjoyed by the President and Governors. The answer is simple. Like their counterparts in the executive, these folks are becoming uncomfortable with the searchlight being thrown at them by the public. They thrive better under the cover of a legislation that legitimatized impunity. They want to become lords of the manor, trampling and bullying the rest of us with relish. These, by the way, are lawmakers saddled with the responsibility of checking the abuse of power!

    No matter how they couch the language, the fact remains that the demand for legislative immunity in ‘words spoken or written” in the recently passed harmonised version of the amended constitution is selfserving and untenable in a democracy. It would practically hand over the licence to commit murder to the lawmakers. Should that happen, we should just kiss goodbye to a citizen’s right to sue any lawmaker that tramples on our rights. What it means is that all manner of legislative rascality would be excused on the platform of legislative immunity including the outright abuse of privileges as it happened in the case of the Director General of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mrs. Arunma Oteh, who exercised her rights to be heard and consequently won in the court of public opinion. It means some lawmakers who dubiously obtained huge funds from Ministries, Departments and Agencies in the name of capacity building courses in countries close to the end of the earth would justify the arrant exploitation on legislative immunity. It means state governors planning to join their idle benchwarmers at the Red Chamber would have the freedom to abuse a trial judge and claim immunity on ‘words spoken or written’ in the course of performing their duties as lawmakers. Why should anyone with half a sense allow this crazy kite to fly in the first place?

    As succinctly argued by the National Coordinator of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), Emmanuel Onwubiko, the subtle attempt by the lawmakers to foist their authority on us and transform into some kind of demigods should be rejected by all well-meaning Nigerians. It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good except, of course, the ones pushing for it.

    Claiming that the move exposes “the hasty inordinate ambitions of the Senators to convert themselves into emperors by granting immunity of whatever form or shape on themselves while in the line of duty”, Onwubiko equally cautioned the lawmakers against playing smart with the intelligence of Nigerians. He said it is a “primitive acquisition of crude immunity clause for mere selfish and undemocratic reasons which stands condemnable and is hereby repudiated for being the classical case of attempting to steal powers that does not belong to these politicians.’

    In other words, it is tantamount to legislative robbery! Surely, we cannot allow our democracy to sink deeper than the laughable brand we have been displaying to the outside world. Can we?

  • House removes immunity for President, governors

    House removes immunity for President, governors

    The final process in the amendment of the constitution started in the House of Representatives yesterday.

    The House approved 71 amendments to the Constitution after an executive session.

    The mandatory two-thirds required (240 of the 360-member House) for the amendment to pass was met as 252 of the 261 members that voted were in favour of the amendments. Eight voted against and one abstained.

    The lawmakers have placed the National Security Agencies, the office of the Auditor-General of the Federation, the Police, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, on a first-line charge from Nigeria’s Consolidated Revenue Account.

    The President or Deputy President of Senate and Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives are to receive pension for life as approved by the lawmakers.

    The President will mandatorily address a joint meeting of the National Assembly once a year, if the amendments get the Senate’s concurrence and are approved by two thirds of the 36 state Houses of Assembly.

    But the review suffered a setback in the Senate.

    Though the consideration of the report of the conference committee on the review of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (further amendment) Bill 2014 was listed in the Order Paper, the consideration could not hold due to lack of quorum.

    The Senate Committee on Rules  and Business listed in the Order Paper: “That the Senate do consider and approve the report of the Conference Committee on the Review of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Further Amendment) Bill, 2014.”

    It was listed against the name of the Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu, who is also chairman, Senate Committee on Review of the 1999 Constitution.

    It was gathered that the Senate leadership decided that because the required quorum for the consideration of the report of the conference committee was not formed, the consideration of the report would be taken on another legislative day.

    Our correspondents also gathered that the Senate leadership did not want to play into the hands of those who might accuse it of sidelining some senators in the consideration of the report.

    It was not clear if the report would be considered today.

    While considering the 108-page report, the House approved “independent candidacy” to participate in general elections as well “life pension for President, Vice President, Senate President, Deputy Senate President, as well as Speaker and deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives”.

    This is contingent on if the occupant was not impeached from office.

    Members also approved Section 7(1a) which prohibits appointment of caretaker committee by governors while 7(1b) provides for four-year term to democratically elected council. Subsection 7(1c) grant financial autonomy to local governments.

    They approved the immunity clause, Section 4(7a), which states that “in the course of exercising the foregoing legislative powers, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against a member of a legislative House in respect of words spoken or written before the House or a committee thereof.”

    These were part of the recommendations of the harmonised report of the Ad-hoc Committee on Constitution review adopted by the lawmakers at the Committee of the Whole.

    Other amendments approved include state creation, indigeneship and citizenship, budgetary process and role for traditional Rulers, among others.

    An alteration of Section 241, which inserts a new subsection (2A), bars Nigerian courts or tribunals from  staying any proceeding on account of an interlocutory appeal.

    They also voted to include in the  concurrent legislative list seven items which include railways, agriculture and pensions.

    Federal lawmakers also backed adoption of referendum for state creation.

    They, however, rejected the amendment of Section 9 to allow for a referendum in determining the fate of the National Conference recommendations.

    An alteration of Section 7, among others, stops revenue allocation from the federation account to local governments that are not democratically elected. Local government administrations also stand dissolved at the expiration of four years, commencing from the date the members of Council were sworn in.

    An alteration of Section 59 allows the National Assembly to bypass the president should he fail to sign a Bill presented to him within 30 days.

    It states: “Within seven days, the President of the Senate shall convene a joint sitting of the National Assembly to reconsider the Bill and if passed by two-thirds majority of members of both houses at such joint sitting, the Bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required,” the alteration reads.

    The action is the most far-reaching amendment made to the constitution.

    It was learnt that the closed- door session was to allow members agree on the modalities for the voting on the amendments.

    The leadership was said to have impressed it on members that there was need to pass the amendments without bickering due to its importance to democracy and the need to conclude it expeditiously.

    The report will be transmitted to the 36 Houses of Assembly for concurrence, after the Senate’s concurrence.

    Chairman, Ad-Committee on Constitution Review, Emeka Ihedioha, said exhaustive deliberations with the Senate on the areas of differences was done with due regard to the wishes of the people,

    “At this stage, we also urge you to reach out to your respective House of Assembly members whom Section 9 of the Constitution have made critical and distinctive partners, to support the realisation of the recommendations of the Committee here attached, which we believe is another milestone towards repositioning our fundamental legal framework for public good,” he said.

  • Impeachment: Al-Makura waives immunity, to appear before panel Monday

    Impeachment: Al-Makura waives immunity, to appear before panel Monday

    •Lawmakers jittery of stunning revelations at panel’s sitting

    Determined to prove his innocence, the Governor of Nasarawa State, Alhaji Tanko Al-Makura, has offered to waive off his immunity to appear before the seven-man investigative panel on alleged mismanagement of state funds.

    But it was learnt yesterday that members of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly have become jittery following likely stunning revelations about their financial demands.

    Some of the disclosures might include certain documents already before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Investigation by our correspondent revealed that in spite of the setting up of a nine-man legal team to defend the 16 allegations against him, Governor Al-Makura has waived off his right to immunity in Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to testify before the panel.

    Barring last minute change of mind, the governor may testify before the panel on Monday.

    A highly-placed source said: “The panel will begin the public sitting on Monday; all parties have been notified, including the House of Assembly.

    “We learnt the Assembly might boycott the open session because it has rejected two out of the seven members of the panel.

    “But the most surprising is the decision of the governor to appear before the committee to respond to issues and place all facts before the committee on the allegations against him.

    “The governor is determined to set a record to account for his stewardship and to prove to the people of the state that he did not steal their money.

    “This is a governor who declared over N20billion assets and cash to the Code of Conduct Bureau when he assumed office. The records are there, anyone can apply for his Assets Declaration Form.

    “For two or three months when he took over, the state could not afford to pay workers’ salaries and he used his personal money to offset some bills of the state.

    “The governor has been saying that in what way could he have sacrificed for the state. The people of the state will hear a lot.

    “As I talk to you, the governor does not begrudge the lawmakers. He is ready to meet with them in order to move the state forward.”

    Contacted yesterday, Governor Al-Makura simply said: “I think I will make first appearance on Monday, and then my counsel can thereafter take over.

    “I hope my counsel will allow me to have the first shot before they go ahead with the legal representation.”

    He refused to talk further insisting that he has tremendous respect for the House of Assembly and constitutional guidelines on the ongoing impeachment proceedings against him.

    Section 308 of the constitution says: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, but subject to subsection (2) of this section –

    (a) no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period of office;

    (b) a person to whom this section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either on pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and

    (c) no process of any court requiring of compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued;

    “Provided that in ascertaining whether any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to whom this section apples, no account shall be taken of his period of office.

    “The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to civil proceedings against a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party.

    “This section applies to a person holding the office of President or Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor; and the reference in this section to “period of office – is a reference to the period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office.”

    Meanwhile, members of the Nasarawa House of Assembly were said to be jittery about the likely stunning revelations on their financial demands and expenditures which might be presented to the panel by the government and stakeholders.

    Another source added: “Everyone is excited about the decision of the panel to subject the sitting to public hearing. All the facts and documents will be laid on the table for the people of the state to judge.

    “At least people will have the knowledge of what comes to the state monthly; how it is disbursed and the projects already carried out by the government.

    “The breakdown of funds, including extra-budgetary cash, spent on the lawmakers will also be known to the public.”

  • Why criminal immunity must end, by SAN

    Why criminal immunity must end, by SAN

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mrs Funke Adekoya, yesterday urged the National Assembly to remove the immunity clause in respect of criminal matters as demanded by Nigerians, if the war against corruption and abuse of office is to be won.

    “Their current explanation of such criminal actions constituting a ‘distraction’ for political office holders does not hold water,” she said.

    Mrs Adekoya, a partner at üLEX, a Lagos law firm, spoke to reporters at a briefing on its ninth Annual Lecture titled: In God’s Name: Politics, Religion and Economic Development.

    It will hold on July 25 at the AGIP Hall, MUSON Centre, Onikan, by 2pm.

    She said: “They need to tell us why some 100 political office holders, purportedly elected by ‘We the people’ know better than those who elected them, and whom they are supposed to represent.”

    The Senior Advocate said the criminal justice is still unduly delayed, blaming what she called an outdated system.

    “Hopefully the promised speedy passage of the Administration of Criminal Justice bill will help, although as lawyers we need to move away from the culture of impunity which presently pervades the country, and which gives the impression that we are not serious about providing justice to the victims of crimes, whether they are individuals, corporate entities or the State itself.

    “There have been some improvement in the civil justice system, mostly due to front loading practices introduced by High Court Civil Procedure Rules, the AMCON Fast track rules, among others,” Mrs Adekoya said.

     

  • Why Sudanese President wasn’t arrested, by Foreign Ministry

    Why Sudanese President wasn’t arrested, by Foreign Ministry

    •’Al-Bashir, participants have immunity in line with AU practice’

    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday explained why Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was not arrested in Nigeria. It said by the statute of the African Union (AU), he was supposed to enjoy immunity like other delegates.

    It also said al-Bashir was in the country under the auspices of the AU and the nation owes an obligation to respect the decision of the continental body.

    The ministry said the presence of al-Bashir is a matter between the AU and the international community.

    The Ministry made the clarifications in a statement in Abuja against the backdrop of controversy trailing the presence of al-Bashir in Nigeria for the AU Summit,

    It said Nigeria is standing by the 2009 Resolution of the AU that the UN Security Council should defer the proceedings initiated against President al- Bashir in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Crime Commission (ICC).

    The statement said: “With respect to the participation of H E President Omar Hassan El-Bashir of the Republic of The Sudan, it should be emphasised that Nigeria, as an active member of the continental body, is under an obligation to comply with the decision of the African Union on the Special Summit.

    “The decision to hold this Summit was taken by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union. Therefore, member states do not require the invitation from Nigeria to attend. “Indeed, standard Host Country Agreements for such Summits grant privileges and immunities to all foreign participants expected at the conference, including obligations on the part of host countries to provide all the necessary facilities for the entry and exit to participants.

    “President al-Bashir was therefore in Nigeria under the auspices of the African Union, based on the Assembly decision to convene the Special Summit in Abuja, to deal with three diseases that together constitute a heavy burden on member states.”

    The Ministry urged Nigerians not to make an issue out of al-Bashir’s trip to Nigeria.

    It added: “Any attempt to make an issue out of the attendance of President al- Bashir at the AU Summit will only serve to unnecessarily shift focus away from the important objectives of the Special Summit.

    “It is, therefore, a matter between the African Union and the international community.”

    The Ministry said the Federal Government decided to stick to the 2009 resolution of the AU urging the UN Security Council to defer action against al-Bashir.

    “For the records and avoidance of doubt, Nigeria’s position in this regard is consistent with the AU Assembly decision adopted at the 13th Ordinary Session of the Heads of State and Government in Sirte, Libya on 3rd July, 2009, as it concerns President al-Bashir of The Sudan.

    “In this regard, it is worthy to recall that following the lack of action on the request by the African Union to the UN Security Council to defer the proceedings initiated against President al- Bashir in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the ICC, the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government decided inter-alia that the “…AU Member States shall not cooperate pursuant to the provisions of Article 98 of the Rome Statute of the ICC relating to immunities, for the arrest and surrender of President Omar El-Bashir of The Sudan…”

    “The AU decision further reiterated its request to the UN Security Council and appropriate response is still being awaited to-date. As a responsible member of the AU, Nigeria has a duty to take full cognisance of this decision in the overall interest of Africa.”

     

  • Niger immunises 2m kids

    The Niger State Primary Healthcare Development Agency has immunised no fewer than two million children against polio during the just concluded round of Immunisation Plus Days exercise (IPDs).

    The chairman of the agency, Dr Aliyu Yabagi told journalists in Minna that the exercise was part of the IPDs for children below the age of five years.

    He said that the state and local governments contributed over N10 million towards the success of the exercise.

    He said the agency embarked on a massive campaign in mobilising all stakeholders in the communities, in order for parents to allow their children to be immunised.

    Yabagi praised traditional rulers and religious leaders for their roles in the sensitisation exercise on the importance of immunisation.

    He said that the agency was still faced with the issue of rejection of the immunisation by some parents in Chanchaga Local Government Area.

    He also commended donor agencies for their support towards polio awareness and the importance of immunisation, which he said assisted the agency to achieve the recorded success.

    “We are fully committed to kicking polio out of Niger. We are collaborating with neighbouring states to address the issue of isolated border communities by synchronising the exercise in those communities to ensure a 100 per cent coverage.

    “The approach will help to stem the cross border movement of the virus, as migrating parents and their children are easily identified and their wards immunised against the virus”.

    He enjoined parents to ensure optimal personal hygiene practice at all times, as well as good environmental standard, to curb the spread of the virus.(NAN)