Tag: legislative

  • Guide to legislative drafting

    Guide to legislative drafting

    As the success of any legislation largely depends on the manner in which it is being expressed, legislative drafting is thus an integral part of the legislation itself. The role legislation plays in the society has made it mandatory that due regard be paid to legislative drafting to ensure effectiveness. Legislative drafting goes beyond the act of merely putting legislation on paper, it is a unique form of writing and the drafter is saddled with the task of ensuring that the proposed legislation achieves the policy objective in a legally effective way. The legislative drafter is thus faced with the challenge of not only expressing legislative intention appropriately, but also ensuring that the legislation is well comprehended by its subjects and perfectly interpreted by the courts. A legislative drafter is often likened to an Architect in so many ways; he draws the ‘blue print’ for the legislation, gathers background information on the legislation, and develops the legislation through drafting.

    Consequently, it is essential that there are guides to facilitate this task, the demand to which Legislative drafting manuals satisfy. These exist around the world no doubt, but a manual which addresses jurisdictional peculiarities is preferred.

    The ‘Manual of Legislative Drafting’ by the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies is produced in response to the dearth of materials that serve as guides to drafters in Nigeria. The manual which is an authoritative statement of the issues legislative drafters have to observe when drafting legislation is a product of research directed by Prof Epiphany Azinge (SAN), the Director -General of the Institute and a compilation team of 13 researchers from the institute. Divided into seven chapters, the manual instructs the reader on the elements of successful legislative drafting. In its academic nature, the manual not only contains principles to be observed while drafting, it also illustrates how legislation should be drafted by providing some model Laws.

    The manual recognises that the approach to take in drafting legislation owes to a number of factors. Local circumstances such as the form of government in place have strong influences on the kind of law to be made. The approach to be taken while drafting a law under democratic dispensation will differ from that while under a military regime as a Law does not have the same tone as a Decree. Another factor determining the approach to be taken while drafting legislation is the legal system which influences how legislation is structured. A third factor which is identified in this manual is local preferences which determine questions of style in drafting legislations. Bearing in mind that there are other universal principles regulating the act of legislative drafting, the manual firstly sets out those universal principles that should influence the drafting of legislation, it then goes ahead to capture local circumstances and style in the illustrations given on the principles of drafting.

    The first chapter of the manual introduces the reader to the aim the manual on legislative drafting seeks to achieve which is to serve as a guide to users. This chapter clears any reservation the reader may have as to the essence of a legislative drafting manual. It examines the importance of the drafting of legislation in the Nigerian democratic system of government. It establishes that in as much as drafting of legislation requires skills, acquisition of same entails long years of training which drafters often times do not have the opportunity to undergo. Such training is not exhaustive of the whole learning process as there is still need for materials with which drafters who are already trained need to refresh their knowledge. This chapter thus assures the user of the value of the manual.

    The second chapter of the manual is titled ‘Legislative Research’. Questions such as how legislative process begins and the first steps a drafter should take before the commencement of the drafting process are addressed in this chapter. The chapter states that since most, if not all proposed legislation have been previously dealt with in some other jurisdictions, consequently, a good way to begin the drafting process is by researching on the area to be legislated upon. The user of the manual is instructed on what to consider in carrying out any legislative research. The manual provides “The first consideration in carrying out any research is to determine the nature of the law that is intended. Will it be a general law or a special law?..”(p. 4). On this, the manual further instructs what the research should aim at finding out in each case. The essence of research as the first step towards drafting legislation is brought to light as the manual provides “The value of adequate legislative research is that it helps set the stage for the drafter. Because nothing is new under the sun, the drafter is prevented from re-inventing the wheel in situations where very good models exist.” (p. 5) The manual in this chapter provides a checklist of matters to be considered by the drafter in carrying out legislative research. Among other items on the checklist, the user is instructed to consider whether the bill violates any provisions of the Constitution. In the same vein, it should be considered whether the Constitution requires any special action to the legislation.

    Chapter three is titled: ‘Fundamental Rules’. The manual in this chapter specifies the fundamental rules which must be followed in the course of drafting legislation. Identifying thirteen rules, the manual discusses each rule in details not without illustrating with ample examples. In discussing ‘simplicity’ as a fundamental rule to be followed, the manual warns against using big and complex words to express ideas that can be sufficiently expressed by simple words. Numerous phrases and words which should not be used are listed and the words which should be used as substitutes are provided. On this the manual instructs “….Do not say: absolutely null and void and of no effect; Say: void, Do not say: corporation organized and existing under the laws of Nigeria; Say: a Nigerian Corporation, Do not say: evidence, documentary and otherwise; Say: evidence, Do not say: is authorized and directed; Say: shall, Do not say: law passed; Say: enacted, Do not say: per annum, Say: per year …” (p.11)

    Consistency is also discussed as a fundamental rule in legislative drafting and the user is advised to avoid using more than one expression for the same thing since a change in terminology may be construed as a shift meaning. This rule is extensively explained as stipulating that a word should be made to have only one meaning throughout a bill. Another fundamental rule identified is ‘Defined terms’. Here, the user is guided in the definition of terms used in a bill. It is advised that terms which fairly communicate the concept should be chosen and generic terms which may be used elsewhere in the bill in a sense other than that of the defined term should be avoided. This chapter goes further to discuss other fundamental rules and warns against the use of masculine pronouns as this act is criticised as gender bias. In order to avoid this act, the manual provides some techniques to be followed; this includes the use of possessive nouns instead of pronouns. Instructions are also given in this chapter on how to express age and time.

    In chapter four, which is titled: ‘Style, Usage and Grammar’, the manual gives instructions on how sentences are to be structured. A person or entity to whom a power, right or privilege is granted or upon whom a duty, obligation or prohibition is imposed should be used as a subject in a sentence. The proper use of verbs, modifiers, finite verbs and infinitives is discussed. The use of finite verbs is recommended instead of their corresponding infinitives, for instance, instead of saying ‘give considerations to’, the word ‘consider’ should be used. The manual in this chapter instructs the user on how to use modifiers in order to avoid ambiguity. Citing an instance of ambiguity, the manual provides “Place modifying words and phrases so there is no doubt about what they modify. Poor placement of modifiers is probably the main cause of ambiguity in statutes. Consider the following example: a person shall not kill an animal on the highway. There is an ambiguity in the expression ‘on the highway’ as the expression may modify: (a) Person, that is, a person who is on the highway; (b) Kill, that is, a person shall not kill on the highway; (c) Animal, that is, an animal which is on the highway…” (p. 23)

    This chapter also gives instructions on the appropriate use of punctuations, and advises that in as much as provisos are acceptable especially in line with appropriation bills, a drafter should try to avoid them because they can unnecessarily complicate a sentence structure. Giving instructions on preferable expressions, the manual in this chapter instructs that drafters should use the active voice instead of the passive voice. However, passive voice is permissible to avoid awkward repetition and only if the identity of the actor is clear. This chapter notifies the user of words that are often wrongly used interchangeably. Identifying the words ‘that’ and ‘which’, the manual instructs that a restrictive relative clause should be introduced with the word ‘that’ rather than ‘which’. It also sheds light on what restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses are. Some other words identified that are often wrongly used interchangeably are the words ‘biannual and biennial’, ‘compose and comprise’, ‘continual and continous’, ‘fewer and less’, among others.

    As this chapter is a guide on the use of style, usage and grammar, it extensively discusses various themes and a captivating part is the General rule on the expression of numbers contained in page 46. The manual instructs “Express a number under 10 in words unless it is a number such as a Naira amount, dates, decimal, or section number. These and exact numbers of 10 and above are expressed in figures. Express rounded numbers of one million or more by spelling out “million (or “billion” etc) and following the general rule for the rest of the number. Consider the following illustrations: ….” Still on the expression of numbers, the manual instructs that while drafting legislation the word “over” should not be used to express an indefinite number of people or things, instead the phrase “at least” should be used. An example given is that instead of saying ‘over 17 members’, the drafter should say ‘at least 18 members’. The proper construction of dates, fractions, percentages, time among others is also discussed.

    The fifth chapter is titled: ‘Components of a Bill’. This chapter dissects a bill from the official heading to the explanatory memorandum. On the commencement of legislation, the manual teaches “…generally, unless it is otherwise provided, legislation takes effect on the date of its enactment. If the policy is to have the legislation take effect on the date of its enactment and if there are no other provisions relating to its application that are required, then no effective date provisions is needed…” (p. 55). The manual gives circumstances under which a commencement (effective date) provision is required; these are: if the legislation is to take effect on a date other than its date of enactment; or if the legislation is to take effect with respect to particular things or events.

    The manual instructs that declaration of purpose if included in a bill should be short and concise. It warns that an improperly worded statement of purpose may cause serious problems of judicial interpretation. The manual encourages the use of legislative findings as it posits that the legislature cannot alter past events or scientific facts by passing law. However, if construction of a statute depends on a factual situation, the legislature may wish to present its understanding of the situation in a “finding of fact” section. The manner in which this can appear if needed is given thus: “The National Assembly finds that customary law is historically unwritten in Nigeria and that what constitutes the custom of a people is established by prevailing conventions.” (p.58).

    This chapter in recognition of judicial review of legislation considers the inclusion of a Severability Clause in legislation. In situations where a part or some parts of legislation is held by the courts to be invalid the remaining part is not be affected by the invalidity if the court determines that such remaining part is severable from the invalid part. The manual encourages he inclusion of a severability clause that may read as follows: “If any provision of this Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable.” (p.60).

    The chapter also discusses amendments while reminding the user that each enacted bill affects, by addition, deletion, or alteration, the cumulative body of existing law and is in that limited sense an amendment of existing law. The chapter instructs that in order to structure a bill to accomplish its intended purpose, a drafter must be familiar with any existing law that covers the subject matter of the proposed bill. Some principles which are useful in determining the nature and extent of law existing on the same subject are discussed in this chapter.

    Chapter six is titled ‘Drafting Other Legislative Measures’. This chapter contains instructions on drafting supplementary bills, resolutions and commemorations. The essence of this chapter is hinged on the need for supplementary bills in some cases. For instance, any money not appropriated by the General Appropriation Act may be appropriated in supplementary or special appropriation bills. These are discussed extensively as the different types of resolution are brought to light. Each part of the resolution is explained and instructions are given on drafting same.

    Chapter seven is titled ‘Other Useful Information’ and it contains other things that must be considered when drafting legislation. The drafter in this chapter is advised to ensure that he or she is fully briefed on every point necessary by the legislature in order to carry out the intention of the legislature. To this end, the drafter is instructed to have a drafting checklist. A specimen of the checklist is provided which contains subjects such as the title, sponsors, enacting clause, latest effective version of law, correct version of section, material to be deleted, catchlines, severability clause, effective date and so on. The drafter is also instructed to consider matters that affect the content of the bill. A checklist is provided which contains subjects such as: is the title short, yet clearly expressive of the subject matter of the bill? Is the enacting clause at the correct point and in exactly correct form? Is the bill written in a clear style and can it be easily understood by those affected? Does the bill accomplish its intended purpose? Does the bill create new problems without providing solutions?

    The user is educated on some other rules pertaining to legislative drafting such as the Enrolled Bill rule and also gives an instance of this rule as contained in the Evidence Act 2011. This chapter also discusses validating acts, classification schemes and conflicting acts of the same session. The manual warns that incorporating another statute or part of another statute by reference into a legislation should be done with caution. An illustration is given thus: “The penalty may be waived in situations in which penalties would be waived under section 153, Criminal Code Act.” The manual advises that “a drafter should incorporate a definition by reference only when the drafter wishes to maintain a parallel meaning between the statutes over time and not merely to save words.”(p.76)

    The manual provides three model statutes as appendixes for full illustration of the instructions already given. These are a model Reproductive Health and Rights Bill, 2013; a model Road Traffic Law, 2013, and a model Universal Access and Universal Service Regulations 2007 under the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.

     

    Comments

    The ‘Manual of Legislative Drafting’ as a product of prolific research takes into account general legislative drafting principles. A wide research is conducted as the manual makes references to the drafting practices of other jurisdictions. The manual captures local circumstances and style and gives illustrations on principles of drafting. It pays attention to specific details which can be easily overlooked and translates each drafting principle to fit the Nigerian situation.

    The manual is written in simple English language which makes it easy for the user to understand. The absoluteness of the manual is evidenced in that there is no need to make reference to any other treatise while reading it. The manual is also comprehensive enough to be solely relied upon during legislative drafting.

    Recommendation

    The manual is recommended for all legislative drafters, students undertaking legislative drafting courses and anyone interested in pursuing a career in legislative drafting. As this manual provides the user with insights into the making of legislation, all law students will benefit from it. Legislators in all levels of government are also enjoined to have a copy each because this will provide them with more knowledge of how the drafter should go about drafting the legislation. Finally, all lovers of knowledge will immensely benefit from this because they will further understand and appreciate the wordings of legislation.

     

  • Oil theft: Mark insists on death penalty

    •Rolls out legislative agenda

    Senate President David Mark yesterday insisted on death penalty for oil thieves.

    He said persistent crude oil theft would have a devastating effect on the economy if not checked.

    Mark spoke in Abuja when he welcomed the senators back from their one month break.

    He said: “We must, therefore, address it squarely. I still maintain my earlier stance that oil theft should attract capital punishment.”

    The Senate President lamented that the nation was still bedevilled by economic and security challenges.

    He said the gains were apparent in the three states where a state of emergency had been declared.

    Mark added: “As we make progress and win the hearts and minds of the people, government must intensify the provision of social amenities in the areas where normalcy has been restored.

    “We must do everything possible to address the social and economic needs of our people.”

    He urged the senators to give the welfare of Nigerians priority in their parliamentary activities during the Third Session of the Seventh Senate.

    According to the Senate President, consideration of the report of the Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution and consideration and passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) would top the Senate’s agenda for the current session.

    He said other priority areas include Pension Reform Act (amendment) Bill, review of the Electoral Act, 2010, preparation for flood during the rainy season and preparation for the first Africa Legislative Summit in November.

    He said: “I have no doubt that the Seventh Senate will be judged by how well we tackle the items on the present legislative agenda.

    “If we get it right, and I am sure we will, we shall succeed in turning adversity into opportunity for our compatriots and alter our collective destiny.”

     

  • Legislative autocracy in a democracry

    One of the major malaises plaguing our dear country is the urge to easily forget and trudge on, as if the past do not shape the present and the future. That malady would have been the faith of June 12, 1993 elections, if not for the resilience of the intellectual warriors, insisting that Nigeria must atone for that gory past. A good cause, I must add. Interestingly, in his well-articulated intervention, Steve Osuji, in his column in this paper, last Friday: Expresso: Like June 12, like Biafra, succinctly juxtaposed June 12 and Biafra tragedies, asking primarily for a national interrogation of the events.

    As many have correctly demanded, there is the need to accord Chief M.K.O Abiola, a posthumous status of a duly elected President of Nigeria, in atonement for the injustice done primarily to him, and to Nigerians who voted for him, to become their President. A more befitting atonement would have been to bring those responsible for that debacle to justice. But that is very unlikely. Just as it is unlikely that our nation will ever bring those who provided the impetus, for the ethnic genocide against the old easterners to justice. Thankfully, those agitating that necessary lessons be learnt from June 12 are not showing weariness; unfortunately, just as the democratic pretenders riding Nigeria roughshod shows no exhaustion.

    Last week, Senator Ita Enang, reminded Nigerians of this national weakness of forgetfulness, when he inferred at a briefing, that the National Assembly is determined to strangulate the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in the hunt for the Director -General, Aruma Oteh. Senator Enang by the way, represents Uyo constituency, and is the Chairman, Business and Rules Committee in the Senate. As far as the National Assembly is concerned, the commission must regardless of the costs to our country, be put to death, through legislation, even when such conduct is unconstitutional. For the legislators, they erroneously think that the legislature in our constitutional democracy is supreme. Unfortunately, the intimidated SEC, instead of testing their rights in the courts, helplessly resorts to prayers, as their Board Chairman, Dr. Suleyman Ndanusi, told Nigerians, few months ago.

    As many have argued, the refusal of the National Assembly to make budgetary allocation for SEC in the Appropriation Bill is shameful, more so because of the reasons for the test of might in the first place. But more importantly, that ‘special legislative act’ denying the commission its constitutional right to a budgetary allocation is unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional, and must be deprecated. That so called legislative privilege over budgeting, specifically targeting SEC, through a special legislative act, will most likely be struck by any court of competent jurisdiction. Well, that is if the commission has the courage, and the court the wisdom.

    I guess the distinguished law makers, in making those provisions in the appropriation act, did not avert their minds to our Supreme Court’s dictum, in Lakanmi & anor vs A.G. Western States & Ors, adopting Lord Pearce in Liyanage vs The Queen, where she said: “Blackstone in his commentaries said ‘therefore a particular Act of legislature to confiscate the goods of Titus or to attain him of high treason, does not enter into the idea of a municipal law: for the operation of this Act is spent on Titus only and has no relation to the community in general: it is rather a sentence than a law. If such Act as these were valid, the judicial power could be wholly absorbed by the legislature and taken out of the hands of the judges… what is done once, if allowed, may be done again and in a lesser crisis and less serious circumstances, and thus judicial power may be eroded.”

    Furthermore in Lakami’s case, the Supreme Court, cited with approval the dictum of Justice Hugo Black, of the United States Supreme Court in United States vs Lovett: “Those who wrote our Constitution well know the danger inherent in special legislative acts which take away the life, liberty or property of particular named persons, because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment. They intend to safeguard the people of this country from punishment without trial by duly constituted courts”. The Law Lord further said: “When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, our ancestors had ample reason to know that legislative trials and punishment were too dangerous to liberty to exist in the nation of free men they envisioned”. I can only with humility add that what applies to the United States with a written constitution should apply to Nigeria, unless of course, the other tragedy of lawlessness, has also added to our forgetfulness.

    For the avoidance of doubt, our constitution with all its challenges clearly provides in Section 1: “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria” (emphasis mine). Furthermore in section 4(2), it provides: “The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part 1 of the second schedule to this constitution” (emphasis mine). I strongly doubt, whether, the attempt by the national assembly to muzzle a federal agency, and thereby surreptitiously seeking to exercise executive prerogatives, will meet the constitutional requirement of making laws, within the purview of our constitution.

    While mourning our elite inflicted tragedies of the past, we must guard against the tyranny of the present. I, therefore, join well-meaning Nigerians, to ask the National Assembly to always hearken to the rule of law, and not man; under which the Biafra and June 12 tragedies happened.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Jonathan signs 2013 budget

    Jonathan signs 2013 budget

    The 2013 Appropriation Bill has  finally been  signed into law on Tuesday by President Goodluck Jonathan.

    Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Dr Reuben Abati said in a statement that the bill was signed after consultations and an agreement between the Executive and the Legislature.

    According to him,  President  Jonathan wishes to reassure  Nigerians that the consultations  over the budget have been in the best interest of the country, and in pursuit of understanding and mutual cooperation between both arms of government.

    “As part of the understanding reached with its leadership, the observations of the executive arm of government about the Appropriation Bill as passed by the National Assembly will be further considered by the National Assembly through legislative action, to ensure effective and smooth implementation of the 2013 Appropriation Act in all aspects.

    “The administration remains fully committed to the positive transformation of the country, and effective and efficient service delivery for the benefit of all citizens.

    “All Ministries, Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government have therefore been directed to work very hard to ensure that all the services, projects and programmes contained in the budget are successfully delivered on schedule in spite of the slight delay in its enactment” Abati stated.

  • N250b suit: I have legislative immunity, Lawan tells court

    N250b suit: I have legislative immunity, Lawan tells court

    The suspended Chairman of the House Ad Hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime, Mallam Farouk Lawan, yesterday asked the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory to strike out a N250billion suit against him and three others by a businessman, Mr. Femi Otedola, because he has legislative immunity.

    Otedola and his company, Zenon Petroleum and Gas Limited had sued the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal and the suspended Chairman of the House Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime for N250billion.

    Others, who are joined in the suit filed in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory , are the Clerk of the National Assembly and the National Assembly.

    The two plaintiffs also vowed to expose how a $3million bribe was demanded from them by the first defendant, Farouk Lawan.

    The plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants jointly and severally are as follows:

    The sum of N100billion against the defendants as general damages for the acts of intimidation, loss of goodwill and patronage occasioned by the acts of the defendants.

    The sum of N150billion against the defendants as exemplary damages for their oppressive and arbitrary action.

    But Lawan, through his counsel, Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju from Afe Babalola Chambers, sought for an order striking out and/or dismissing this suit.

    He raised three grounds for his objection, including the facts that: *the 1st Defendant enjoys legislative immunity; *this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit having regard to the subject matter and parties hereof; and that *the action is premature as no cause of action has arisen to warrant same.

    In a written submission, the counsel to Lawan (who is the first defendant) said the lawmaker has legislative immunity.

    The submission said: “This is a notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of this suit as well as the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to entertain same.

    “The grounds of the objection are as shown on the face of the notice of objection. We respectfully crave your Lordship’s indulgence to argue same seriatim.

    “We respectfully submit that the 1st Defendant (Lawan) enjoys legislative immunity and cannot, therefore, be sued, having regard to the averments in the Statement of Claim filed in this suit. May we humbly refer your Lordship to Section 3 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap. L12, Laws of the Federation, 2004 which provides: “ Immunity from proceedings. No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of a Legislative House –in respect of words spoken before that House or a Committee thereof; or in respect of words written in a report to that House or to any Committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by him therein.”

    “Without doubt, the totality of the complaint of the Plaintiffs against the 1st Defendant centres on words spoken by him on the floor of the House and/or words written in a report to the House of Representative or its Committee. We refer your Lordship to paragraphs 3, 8, 15, 20, 23, 24, 25 & 26 of the Statement of Claim.

    “The net effect of these paragraphs and indeed the totality of the Statement of Claim is that the Plaintiff’s complaint borders on the words spoken by the 1st Defendant and/or written by him in a report to the House of Representatives or its ad-hoc committee and cannot therefore be entertained by this Honourable Court. See the unreported decision of this Honourable Court presided over by Hon. Justice S. E. Aladetoyinbo in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/164/2008 between Hon. Henry Seriake Dickson v. R. Hon. Werinippe Seibarugu Dividson & Ors, delivered on the 30th of June, 2009 where His Lordship held on pages 10 – 11 thus: “The relevant statute to this proceeding is Section 3 of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act 1990.It reads as follows:

    “No Civil or Criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of a Legislative House. In respect of words spoken before that House or a Committee thereof or in respect of words written in a report to that House or to any Committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion, question brought or introduced by him therein.”

    The defendant insisted that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit.

    Lawan said the subsidy regime on petroleum products relates to the Federal Government’s revenue.

    “This case, therefore, clearly falls within Section 251(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. See N.D.I.C. v. Okem Enterprises Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107 at 182 para. H,” he said.

    Lawan said the application before the court by Otedola and Zenon did not disclose any cause of action because no White Paper had been issued by the Federal Government on the said report of the Ad Hoc Committee.

  • A wave of legislative and oratorical nostalgia

    A wave of legislative and oratorical nostalgia

    Most readers of The Nation newspaper probably missed a short letter to the editor written by Mr Ehimare Godfrey from Benin City and published on Page 20 of this newspaper’s October 31 edition. In it, the writer complained that since his representative, the excitable and bombastic Hon Patrick Obahiagbon, left the House of Representatives, neither the Oredo Federal Constituency, which he used to represent, nor the entire National Assembly had come up to scratch in excitement and boisterousness again. He regretted that fact, he said, and wished that the man of purple prose could find his way back into the House of Representatives to liven things up a bit, relieve the somnolent chamber of its depressing staleness, and return Oredo constituency to some renown.

    Hardball had once had to refer to Hon Obahiagbon in this place and even quoted him at length. His philippics, when he was in the Reps, were doubtless not too remarkable, and his words were stringed together clumsily and ponderously, but he kept lawmakers awake in a chamber where everyone struggled not to doze. His speeches might be riveting for their sheer ability to exorcise dullness and depression from vulnerable minds, and they often ended without anyone making sense of what he meant to say or where he feigned to go, but there was always activity when he got on his feet. Mr Godfrey probably remembered all of Obahiagbon’s glorious moments and the fact that he kept the name of Oredo constituency alive, and he wished to relive them. This columnist can assure him he is not alone. In fact, Hardball himself, being an aficionado of the delectable art of parliamentary oratory, had long given up on the National Assembly, a place he considers so barren of both oratory and great debates that the Sahara desert looked like lush greenery.

    Both Hardball and Mr Godfrey are also not alone. In a 2008 piece by one Andrew Roberts in the London Daily Telegraph, the poor quality of modern parliamentary oratory was also denounced. Roberts described the debates in the British House of Commons as dull company reports rather than “life-enhancing literature.” He quotes Sir Winston Churchill talking to someone and saying, “‘I was never a bird on the unpinioned wing. You see, my boy, when I got up to speak, I always knew precisely where every noun and adjective would go and how every piece of punctuation would bed into my speech. By contrast, the best parliamentary orators, like Lloyd George, FE Smith, Timothy Healy the Irishman, or even that s— Aneurin Bevan, their phrases were dictated by some inner God within.” Then Roberts asked in his piece, “Why is the ‘inner God within’ so absent from today’s parliamentary debates? Why is reading Hansard akin to ingesting a company’s report and accounts, when in earlier periods of our (British) history it read like life-enhancing literature?”

    Judging from Obahiagbon’s sometimes unique dress sense, it was the same parliamentary boredom and mediocrity referred to by Roberts in his Daily Telegraph article that the Nigerian lawmaker tried to relieve us of. He didn’t succeed because though he stirred emotions and warmed the cockles of our hearts, and had an inimitable, vibrant and joyous style, he never really achieved anything – not one fantastic legislation sponsored by him and passed by his colleagues, and not one piece of legislation overthrown either by the force of his words or the encompassing wit and logic of his arguments. He might have failed, but that failure does not detract from the fact that in the National Assembly of today there is not one example of the brilliance demonstrated by Demosthenes when, by his oratory, he stirred the Greeks against Philip of Macedon. Ah, yes, there was Mallam Farouk Lawan with his mellifluous voice and unbroken flow of persuasive grammar and beguiling cadence. But he neither rose to the rarified height of matchless oratory nor eased into the solid bedrock where character and passion become the bulwark for oratory.

    If you could, imagine that Nigeria operated a parliamentary system instead of a presidential system. Could you visualise a Goodluck Jonathan summoning the temperament and the disarming wit to checkmate the opposition or rebellious backbenchers during Prime Minister’s Question Time? That’ll be the day. Hardball has Mr Godfrey writing from Benin City to thank for reminding us how sterile our National Assembly is, and indeed has always been. Is there any hope of redemption anytime soon? Hardly, for Nigerian politics is shaped in such a way that brilliance and oratory amount to nothing. Family affair rules, and it’s OK. Maybe, too, money rules, and it’s even more OK.