The Nation Newspaper

Tag: national assembly

  • The politics of National Assembly standing panels

    The politics of National Assembly standing panels

    Beyond competence, loyalty and patronage are criteria for the distribution of committees in the Senate and House of Representatives. GBADE OGUNWALE, ONYEDI OJIABOR, VICTOR OLUWASEGUN and DELE ANOFI examine the politics behind the choice of chairmen and members. 

    IT is easier for the camel to pass through the needle’s eye than for members of the National Assembly to get the chairmanship of ‘choice committees’ on merit. The politics of choosing chairmen of standing committees has always created camps in the Senate and House of Representatives. In most cases, members are not appointed to chair committees where they possess a demonstrable forte.

    More often than not in the Red Chamber, the password is loyalty to the Senate President, who chairs the Selection Committee. Senators jostling for the headship of the proverbial ‘juicy committees’ know it as a hidden rule that loyalty to the Senate President is a blind one.

    As it was in the Fourth Senate (1990-2003), so has it been up to the Eighth Senate (2015-2019). The lobbying usually starts before the inauguration of the Senate, with series of underground meetings and horse trading among key players and carpet baggers within the ranks of senators-elect.

    Clinching the position of Senate President is in itself an expensive project. The plum job is always reserved for the ‘generous’ among the senators-elect. An aspiring President of the Senate uses financial muscle and promises of headship of ‘juicy committees’ to garner support from colleagues.

    The job is made easier for the ambitious where his party enjoys a sizable majority membership, in which case he can count on the support of fellow party members to achieve his goal. This was the case in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Senate sessions when the Senate was dominated by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) . However, it was a different kettle of fish in the Eighth Senate where the All Progressives Congress (APC) has 60 members to PDP’s 49.

    In the present Senate, the process that threw up Dr. Bukola Saraki as the Senate President was the most contentious and the snafu triggered by the contest is yet to abate. And like others before him, Saraki has been playing the shuffling and reshuffling game with the headship of the standing committees for loyalty.

    The power to pick committee chairmen is perhaps the strong weapon in the hands a Senate President to wield influence. It is a double-edged sword to reward loyalty and to punish perceived political enemies.

    Last week before the Senate adjourned for a seven-week holiday, Saraki used the weapon as he tinkered with the composition of the committees. The development believed to have created a sense of gratification among some senators, left some others huffy.

    The Appropriation, Senate Services, Petroleum, Finance, Education, Power, Health, FCT, Aviation, Works, Agriculture and a few others, are ranked as ‘Grade A’ committees. Senators who get the chairmanship of any of these ‘A’ rated committees must have ‘laboured’ for it. In few instances, some members go to the extent of selling their souls to the Senate President to chair the committees. The scramble has nothing to do with the commitment to the common good. Chairing any of the committees often offers the latitude to operate in the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA) over which the committees conduct oversight functions. The chairmen act as point men for the Senate leadership in terms of ‘patronage’ and other ‘perks’ from the various MDAs.  It is either the MDAs are corralled into sponsoring programmes for a particular committee or for a group of senators, even when funds for such programmes had already been appropriated.

    Also, any discovery of financial malfeasance in the MDAs provides another avenue for the committee chairmen and members to come in. Such MDAs are summoned to investigative hearings to answer questions on missing funds, which are usually in billions, or projects captured in the budget but not implemented.

    The committee chairmen spits fire and flares up in the open hearing before series of closed door meetings are subsequently held between the committees and the heads of the affected MDAs. Then the noise gradually subsides and that would be end of the story. The committees also undertake oversight functions from time to time by visiting the MDAs for on the-spot-assessment of their performances in relation to their budgetary allocations.

    Over the years, stories coming out of these oversight functions are a deluge of personal demands being made on the MDAs. Job recruitments by these MDAs are usually seen by the committees as opportunities to push their relatives and family members forward for patronage.

    There are always a number of slots reserved for candidates of the committee chairmen and members, on merit and otherwise. Given the fringe benefits, no senator wants to lose his position as committee chairman.

    That is why last week’s rejig in committee headship by Saraki is still generating ripples among the chairmen that lost out.

    In what analysts viewed as a ‘desperate’ move to pacify some aggrieved members, Saraki had on Thursday announced a major shake-up in some of the standing committees. Some of the beneficiaries of the new committee appointments include those who petitioned the police over the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Rule 2011.

    Thirteen committee chairmen were moved in what observers described as a deft political move to assuage frayed nerves. Spokesman of the Senate Unity Forum, Kabiru Marafa was one of the major beneficiaries of the committee re-arrangement. Marafa has been the most vocal of the critics opposed to Saraki’s emergence as Senate President. The Zamfara Central senator was taken from the Committee on National Identity Card/National Population to head the ‘juicy’ Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream). The headship of that committee was taken away from Senator Uche Ekwunife, whose election (Anambra Central) was nullified by the Court of Appeal Court.

    Saraki had bypassed Senator Barau Jibrin (Kano North), who had been overseeing the Downstream Committee after Ekwunife’s election was voided.

    Another of Saraki’s opponent, Senator Suleiman Hukunyi, took over from Marafa in the National Identity/National Population. Senator  Oluremi Tinubu (Lagos Central) was redeployed from Women Affairs Committee to chair the Committee on the Environment.

    The Lagos senator said she has been overseeing the committee in an acting capacity before becoming the substantive last Thursday.

    Others are: Ho pe Uzodinma, who was moved from the Committee on Aviation to the Committee on Customs;  Adamu Aliero (from Customs to Aviation); Barau Jibril was moved to chair the Senate Committee on Tertiary  Institutions; Joshua Dariye (from Solid Mineral Resources to Public Procurement);  Babajide Omoworare (from Rules and Business to the newly created Committee on Legislative Compliance); Adokwe Suleiman replaces Enyinnaya Abaribe as the Information & National Orientation Committee Chairman; Baba Kaka Garbai takes over from Omoworare at Rules and Business and Tijani Kaura as Chairman, Committee on Federal Character.

    Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe was named Chairman, Senate Committee on Power to replace Senator James Manager, who was redeployed to head the Committee on Solid Minerals. The Delta State-born politician had chaired the committee on the Niger Delta Development Commission for two consecutive Senate sessions. Ahmed Ogembe (Kogi Central, PDP) was named Vice Chairman, Committee on Marine Transport and Ovie Omo Agege (Delta Central, Labour Party) was named Vice Chairman, Committee on Land Transport.

    Since 1999, the chairmanship of the ‘A’ list committees have always been given to senators elected on the platform of the ruling PDP which enjoyed comfortable majority in the Senate from 1999-2011. However, regardless of a majority membership of the APC in the Eighth Senate, most of the ‘juicy’ committees went to members of the rival PDP.

    Not a few believe that Saraki had to reward the PDP senators, who helped him become the Senate President against the wish of his APC party.

    How far the recent changes in the leadership of the senate committees will be determined on the extent Saraki can go in pacifying the aggrieved senators within the APC.

    Though the leadership in the House of Representatives tries to discourage the ‘juicy committee’ nomenclature, some of the 96 Standing Committees in the House of Representatives are ‘A’ rated.

    From the Sixth House under Dimeji Bankole, through Waziri Tambuwal in the Seventh to this Eighth dispensation headed by Yakubu Dogara, the politics of the selection has always been based on loyalty and interest. Beneficiaries are determined on loyalty and the long term interest of the leadership of the House.

    Ideally, the committees in the parliament as the engine room which oils the process of legislation and oversight and the effectiveness of such committees should be hinged on the concept of a round peg in a round hole, but this is rarely applied.

    In the wake of the election of the House Speaker on June 9, last year, tempers rose due to the composition of committees with the APC accusing the Speaker of sharing the committees almost equally among members of the ruling APC and the opposition PPD.

    But sequel to the election, the appeal of the Dogara camp was mainly to the PDP lawmakers because of the perceived favoritism exhibited towards his main rival, Femi Gbajabiamila by the party.

    The block votes of the PDP lawmakers gave him victory in the contest, though with promises of commensurate rewards.

    The bargain by the PDP caucus was rife, particularly about what committees they wanted or are willing to trade their block votes for, despite the Standing Orders of the House stating that “members of Committees shall be nominated and appointed by Committee on Selection, essentially, the Speaker is the head of the selection committee.”

    The selection processes often bring tremendous pressure on Speaker with members taking trips abroad on the same flight to lobby for choice positions.

    Some House members were dissatisfied with the dichotomy in the committee headships after the heated campaigns that characterised the speakership election.

    The belief of many was that the ruling APP should have at least three quarters of the committee appointments with all the ‘Grade A’ committees firmly under their grip. That, however, did not happen. Contrary to expectations APC got 47 Committee chair positions and 46 went to the PDP. The selection process and its outcome generated bitter acrimony between the two main parties.

    The Committee on Appropriations was given to Jibrin Abdulmumin, who was the Speaker’s staunch supporter before the duo fell apart.  Besides nominating Dogara on June 9, Jibrin fought the Speaker’s rival Femi Gbajabiamila to a standstill.

    The committees on House Services, Finance and Communications were given to Dogara’s avowed loyalists in the APC but the PDP loyalists also got ‘A’ list committees including Gas Resources, Aviation, Power, Health Services, Works, Petroleum Resources, NDDC and Foreign Relations.

    The allocation of committees to avowed loyalists or as a trade-off or repayment for support predated the Eighth House. In the Seventh House where Tambuwal went against the grains of the PDP’s choice of Speaker in the person of Mulikat Akande- Adeola, juicy committee allocations were given as reward for ‘good behaviour’.

    The difficulties then was between the choice of ensuring that committees would be effective by choosing the right people or giving out positions for patronage.

  • 2016 Budget scandal: I’m vindicated – Obasanjo

    2016 Budget scandal: I’m vindicated – Obasanjo

    ……Urges Buhari to be vigilant

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo on Monday said that recent happenings concerning the 2016 Budget scandal in the National Assembly have vindicated him.

    Obasanjo, who had earlier claimed that the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly were filled with armed robbers and rogues, had in January this year challenged Senate President Bukola Saraki and House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara to open the financial records of the National Assembly since 1999 to external bodies.

    The ex-President was on Monday reacting to the current budget padding accusation and counter accusation between the leadership of the House of Representatives and sacked Chairman of the House of Reps Appropriation Committee, Abdulmumin Jibrin.

    Jibrin, who was removed as the chairman of the committee last week, alleged on Sunday that the padding of the 2016 budget with N40 billion was done at a secret location with the backing of Dogara and three principal officers including Deputy Speaker Yusuff Lasun, House Whip Alhassan Ado Doguwa and Minority Leader Leo Ogor.

    Speaking with State House correspondents on whether he was worried about the issue of corruption in the National Assembly, after meeting with President Muhammadu Buhari, Obasanjo said: “Well, if you said that I have said it in the past and if there are people who didn’t believe what I said ‎in the past then, you can now see that what has come out confirms what I said in the past. Then what I said in the past is what I will say now.

    Asked if he wanted investigation into the issue of padding of the budget, he said: “It’s not question of investigation, we should get men and women of integrity in the place and the President should be very vigilant, whatever should not pass should not pass.”

    He disclosed that he was in the Villa to deliver some messages to the President.

    He said: “Not too long ago, I was in Liberia and Gambia and I have messages these two countries will want me to deliver to the president.

    “Also, only yesterday I came back from Seychelles Island where I attended this year’s Annual General meeting of Africa Export Development Bank. And there are aspects of the proceedings that I think I should update the President,” he added

    On whether he is enjoying all the travelling, he said: “Travelling is a good education, what you will learn about a country by visiting that country for two or three days you won’t learn by reading through books.

    Asked further if he was considering slowing down, Obasanjo said: “May God never let you to slow down.”

  • ‘Our National Assembly’s rudderless, insensitive’

    ‘Our National Assembly’s rudderless, insensitive’

    Afenifere chieftain Senator Olabiyi Durojaiye is not happy with the image of the eighth Senate. In this interview with LEKE SALAUDEEN, Durojaiye, who was in the Senate between 1999 and 2003, bares his mind on the issues that are giving the upper legislative chamber a bad name.

    The ‘unruly behaviour’ of Senator Dino Melaye at the closed-door session of the Senate has generated so much reaction…

    Yes, I was disturbed when I learnt of the incident; every decent man would be disturbed by such indecent behaviour. Even if it were in a danfo (commercial bus) or in a motor park, one will be disturbed; not to talk of a hallowed and indeed the highest legislative chamber of the biggest country in Africa. I begin to wonder if the Senate has relaxed its rules about clearing the gallery and banning the press. I begin to wonder if the offensive words were uttered during the closed-door session, when the gallery was empty and the media were barred from covering the proceedings. But, since no one has denied the sad event so far, I am inclined to believe that some fellow senators who recorded the unfortunate incident on their handsets or modern communication gadgets leaked it. Be that as it may, the whole world now knows about the embarrassing situation, which no one has so far denied.

    Only an hour ago, a friend phoned me from Canada, expressing his utter disgust that such a thing happened in Nigeria. No amount of temptation or provocation would have justified such a verbal assault on a decent, highly respected and dignified lady as Senator Oluremi Tinubu; the wife of one of our statesmen. If I were in the Senate today, I would have moved a motion for the suspension of the man (Melaye) whose unguided lips uttered such unprintable and offensive words. He has embarrassed and disgraced not only himself, his contemporaries and all of us who have passed through that great Red Chamber, but Nigerians in general.

    Are you satisfied with the quality of representation in the Senate today, compared to your era?

    Definitely, I am not satisfied. There are two main reasons for this: The Fourth Senate (1999 to 2003) in which I served was the first full-fledged Senate that was convoked after 16 years of military interregnum; between the era of former President Shehu Shagari (December 1983) and that of former President Olusegun Obasanjo (May 1999). Our set was made up of experienced and matured members. The country had the opportunity to pick its topmost legislators from a large reservoir of experienced professionals, public servants and matured former military officers. Besides, most of us, especially those of us who participated in the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) struggle to oust the military from politics, had a constant fear that we had to behave ourselves  in a more disciplined manner, so as not to tempt the military to come back.

    Let me give a few names of personalities who had distinguished themselves and earned reputation for transparency and integrity before their election into the Senate: Consider a man like Gen. Ike Nwachukwu, who had been a military governor, Secretary of Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) Alumni Association; a versatile engineer like the late Idris Ibrahim Kuta from Niger State; an intellectual like Professor Iya Abubakar, a former Vice Chancellor; the late Professor Afolabi Olabimitan; Dr Femi Okunrounmu, formerly of University of Lagos (UNILAG); Silas Janfa from Plateau State; the late Wahab Dosunmu, an engineer and former Minister of Works; and Jonathan Zwingina, former Director-General of the M.K.O Abiola Campaign Organisation, ‘Hope 93’.

    We also had Sarkin Tafida, who had served as physician to President Shagari. Other senators with matured military training and experience were Gen. David Mark, Tunde Ogbeha and J.K.N. Waku (the lion of Benue). I remember former Governor Olusegun Osoba used to boast that the three senator from his state —Ogun – were among the first eleven in the Senate and my humble self was one of the three. I was elected into the Senate after 35 years’ service in the federal and state public service, including 28 years in the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in the Mint. I had also been President of the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) Alumni Association. I also ran for the presidency in 1991/92.

    Will you support the provision of immunity for the presiding officers of the National Assembly?

    No. With the type of personalities I referred to above, any self-serving move would not have been contemplated or voiced out. Immunity is meant for the executive arm alone. It is even on record that I recommended removal of immunity from the executive in the 1988 Constituent Assembly that drafted the 1989 Constitution. I made a recommendation that the immunity enjoyed by the executive should be withdrawn and that security vote should also be abolished. But, the idea was shut down, because it was considered as ultra-radical.

    There is a legal maxim that: “Time does not run against the state”. That is, there is no statute of limitation in favour of any public servant who committed any criminal offence while in office. It’s up to the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecution to prosecute any executive member, however high he or she may be, immediately after leaving office. The opportunity is still there.

    Does it augur well for Saraki and Ekweremadu to be presiding over the Senate in view of their trial for alleged forgery?

    If I were the Senate President or his deputy, I will voluntarily resign my position as a matter of patriotism and self-respect. You will recall a year ago, you asked me to comment on the furore that greeted the election of Saraki as Senate President. You will probably recall that my answer was that it appeared as if our party – the APC — had made some mistakes which Senator Saraki smartly capitalised on and it was better to allow sleeping dogs to lie, to ensure that there is no distraction or delay in the tremendous amount of work ahead for the party and the government. I added however that what should not be tolerated was the election of a PDP senator as Deputy Senate President when there was no prior between the APC and the PDP agreement to form a national government. It is an unacceptable anomaly. That a year after the interview, a PDP man, a minority member is still the number two in the Senate is unacceptable.

    Both Saraki and Ekweremadu are still comparatively young statesmen and one can say however they can still rise in future. My appeal to both of them is that they should voluntarily resign their posts, while still retaining their seats until the verdict of the court is pronounced. If this had been done in the past one year, Nigeria would have moved faster along the line of smoother democratic governance and recovery from the wastages of the past 16 locus years of the PDP.

    What is your reaction to the threat to impeach President Buhari?

    It is the height of lack of imagination and irresponsibility for any legislator to attempt to swim against the current of strong tidal waves of public opinion in favour of a government that is out to reform the corrupt system that had retarded the progress of our country.

    I don’t know of any previous Head of State or President of Nigeria who ever enjoyed the type of national and international acclaim and support that President Buhari is currently enjoying. It is his unique record of self-discipline and transparency and his party’s programme of change from the corrupt practices of the past that have earned him respect and applaud. Every patriotic Nigerian who believes that we cannot continue with our sordid past should join hands to support this government’s programme of “Change” for the betterment of our people and our country.

    I remember the President’s inaugural speech in May last year, when he quoted from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood leads on to fortune…….. In such a tide are we now. To the favourable allow the tide to ebb without our reaching the shores of greater discipline conduct and greater prosperity and happiness”. History will never forgive this generation for such self-invoked calamity.

    It appears to be an admission of guilt, a face-saving device to evade prosecution by eliminating the prosecutor. Let those who may not like my opinion make the mistake of thinking that I am opposed to any move to impeach President Buhari, because we belong to the same party. I have always been opposed to impeachment, especially when there is no fundamental wrong doing against the officers targeted for impeachment.

    A check in the leading newspapers and in the tapes of the electronic of September 9 and 10, 2002, will show a seven-point press release I made to quell the threatened impeachment of former President Olusegun Obasanjo and the former Senate President, Senator Anyim Pius Anyim. The caption of the press release was “An appeal for stability and survival of democracy in Nigeria.”

    That statement ended the serious moves towards impeachment at that time. I was a minority senator on the platform of the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD), while the two officers targeted for impeachment were PDP chieftains. The press statement was reproduced as Appendix 3 on page 330 of the book, Guided By His Hands –my autobiography published three years ago to mark my 80th birthday.

  • PIB to resolve all sensitive issues – Dogara

    PIB to resolve all sensitive issues – Dogara

    ….says Nigeria’s oil resources enriching elites

    Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon Yakubu Dogara, Monday said no sensitive or contentious issue would be dodged as the National Assembly will engage stakeholders on contentious issues as it begins work on the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB).

    Dogara who spoke during the National Stakeholders Summit on Petroleum Industry Reforms organised by the House Committees on Petroleum in Abuja, said the legislature is determined to draft a law for the industry that will serve the best interest of Nigerians.

    His words:  “The need to make consensus and lend a voice to long suppressed agitations in the drafting and consideration of petroleum industry bills informed our decision to organise this stakeholders summit. We are optimistic that this approach will provide the crucial platform to enable us cross pollinate ideas and ventilate our positions on certain contentious issues, regardless how vexed they may be. You can rest assured that our work at the National Assembly is to do your good intention.

    “We are not unaware of the several failed attempts at redeeming the petroleum industry by our predecessors. The Petroleum Industry Bill has been down a long, tortuous, and chequered road. Most of us have been co-travelers on the journey to pass the bill into law, and have the requisite experience to avoid any pitfalls ahead, hence this resolve to seek proper consultations with you and build confidence amongst us.”

    The Speaker said a few elite Nigerians benefitting from the petroleum industry due to poor management adding that such issues will be addressed during the summit.

    “Nigeria is one of the richest petroleum regions of the world. Paradoxically, it has never been able to maximize effectively its immense oil and gas potentials and the revenue accruing from it. The downstream operates in a state of almost continuous malfunction, and for years has been characterised by comatose refineries and an inefficient downstream.

    “It operates under an inadequate legal framework, with an inefficient and poorly maintained pipeline network and depot system. The result is that Nigeria is both one of the world’s largest producers of crude oil, and one of the world’s leading importers of petroleum products, a dependency that has enriched the elite at the expense of the increasingly impoverished masses.

    “The downstream runs on a system of subsidies until recently and uniform pricing which has proved ineffective, in addition to being administered in a very opaque way. Shortages and inadequate supply have characterized the Nigerian downstream for over two decades and can be described as an example of system failure,” Dogara said.

    He lamented that the upstream has not fared better with issues like pipeline vandalism, large-scale environmental degradation, and the world’s highest levels of crude oil theft which he noted had been constants for several years.

    “Decades after the advent of Nigeria’s petroleum industry, problems which led to host community agitation remain unaddressed and highly politicized, and the question of the extent to which revenues from the industry should be shared among the three tiers of government and the people remain, as do the content and limits of corporate social responsibility. These are all crucial issues that should be addressed to guarantee and ensure a stable polity in Nigeria.

    “These examples represent just a few of the present problems of Nigeria’s petroleum industry, and are reflective of an industry that is in critical need of total restructuring, which can only be commenced through the enactment of laws that provide the legal framework that will promote the emergence of an optimal petroleum industry, ” he said.

    The Speaker noted that a defective or inadequate legislation is similar to building a house on a shaky foundation with the expectation that it will stand nonetheless.

    “We cannot afford to continue with such faulty expectations,” he said.

    Dogara said over the years, Nigeria has performed much worse than sub-Saharan Africa as a whole and much worse than other regions of the developing world in terms of human development indicators.

    He said the situation is so bad that Nigeria is regarded as a poster child for ‘how not to run a petroleum industry, adding that good laws would be enacted for the industry by the National Assembly.

  • The inanities of the 8th National Assembly

    SIR: With the benefit of hindsight, the eighth National Assembly is likely to go down as the most self-serving, disoriented and anti-people assemblage in modern Nigeria.

    Whereas the executive arm at the federal level gave all to the change imperative by fighting corruption with potency and gravitas Nigerians can resonate with, scoring mileage in the diversification drive, the upper chamber of NASS has been hopping from one court or the other trying to defend criminal infraction and holding tendentiously to the soul of the assembly.

    The lower house took idleness a notch higher by recently initiating a bill that would festoon its principal officers and that of Senate with immunity against prosecution thereby appropriating the global infamy of becoming the first assembly in the whole world to so conflate law making with lawbreaking and desperately legislating constitutional immunity to actualise the delicate mix. Life pension for senators is not only an aberrant vestige of a disillusioned Senate, but also antithetical to the austere demands of our time.

    As we speak the NASS remains far removed from the tiresome trouble shooting being explored by the executive on the issue of Niger Delta Avengers, the Bakassi dissidents, the herdsmen killings, kidnappings and other urgent matters of National importance.

    On the contrary, what we have is thoughtless summon of government officials who dare to challenge legislative impunity in the NASS.

    The NASS remains insular to the issue of restructuring even though everyone knows that restructuring is at the behest of the NASS to initiate constitutional platform for referendum. Self-serving Nigerians have latched on this legislative lacuna to harangue Buhari to abandon his governance agenda and begin to implement Jonathan’s National Conference Report.

    It is disheartening that the gale of overweening self-entitlement looming large at the NASS is driving the country to the precipice with principal officers now on autopilot of legislative obstructionism.

    The leadership of APC should for the love of the country forget the politics of rent seeking and compensatory entitlement based on political patronage.

    Nigerians did not vote for Buhari to use scarce national resources to patronise sponsors of his election. The president’s body language on political patronage is clear and Nigerians are standing by him on this so the earlier the APC apparatchik realise this and come out of hibernation to lend a political solution to the abnormally at the NASS the better for the country.

    Lastly, Ekweremadu’s belligerent posture as the second man in the NASS, relying on the braggadocio of number even though convention reserves his seat for an APC lawmaker, is unhelpful.

    Saraki and Ekweremadu should forge a bipartisan compromise to save the legislature for when the chips are down and the embattled senate headship would use impeachment as the last option to scuttle the will of the people, contingency of number may give way for the exigencies of a positive national consensus on the Buhari’s presidency.

     

    • BukolaAjisola,

    Victoria Island, Lagos.

  • National Assembly reviews capital market laws to deter abuses

    •Listing to be prerequisite for special licences

    The House of Representatives has commenced a thorough review of major capital market laws to strengthen the enforcement capacity of capital market regulator and the severity of sanctions for any individual or company that violates market integrity.

    Speaker, House of Representatives, Rt. Hon Yakubu Dogara, during a visit to the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) at the weekend, said the National Assembly would make enabling laws to enhance investors’ confidence in the market.

    He said market integrity is the fulcrum for sustaining investors’ confidence, noting that the inability of the capital market regulators to sanction some individuals and companies that were found to have abused the market in the past was responsible for low investors’ confidence.

    He also hinted that the impending national auction of telecommunication spectrum would be tied to commitment to listing shares of telecoms companies on the stock market.

    He added that the House of Representatives would undertake review of the privatisation agreements to ensure that emergent companies from the privatisation deals of the government honoured the listing of shares clauses in the agreement.

    “We believe haven a robust stock market will go a long way in engendering economy prosperity for our citizens who are putting their money in capital market. We will take this market seriously,” Dogara said.

    He reiterated the supports of the legislative arm for the implementation of the Nigerian capital market master plan noting that the plan has the capacity to develop the market.

    Dogara said the National Assembly was undertaking review of Nigerian laws to create a favourable business environment that encourages wealth creation.

  • How National Assembly can improve elections in Nigeria

    How National Assembly can improve elections in Nigeria

    The Chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Mahmood Yakubu, highlights the role of the National Assembly in the sustenability of electoral reforms for democratic growth.

    On behalf of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), I want to express our profound appreciation to the Senate Committee on INEC in particular and the leadership of the Senate in general for the kind invitation to address this Summit.  The letter of invitation requested me to speak on how to improve election administration and management.  I have taken the liberty to do so but with particular reference to what the NASS can do to improve elections in Nigeria through legislation, in line with the theme of the Summit – “Legislating for Electoral Reform”.   Therefore issues of logistics, terrain, recruitment and training of staff, etc that are purely administrative and therefore do not require training, are left out of my presentation.

    Having said so, distinguished Senators, I consider this Summit important for the novelty of the idea and the pro-activeness of the Senate Committee on INEC.

    First, it is really refreshing to convene a forum of this nature to discuss the challenges arising from the processes, procedures and actual conduct of the 2015 and more recent elections, and thereafter fashion out appropriate constitutional/legal response.  I am particularly glad that this is a Summit, distinct from a public hearing, for the amendment of the Electoral Act, but our constitutions are intended to enrich the legislative process.  This is a new and commendable approach to legislation.

    Secondly, this initiative is coming relatively early in the life the 8th National Assembly.  Previous attempts came literally on the eve of General Elections and were focused more specifically on legal amendments rather than reform.  The first Electoral Act under the current democratic dispensation was amended in 2002 – or the eve of the 2003 General Elections. The 2006 amendments came just before the 2007 Elections and in 2010, the Act was further amended in the run up to the 2011 General Elections.  Most interestingly, the amendment to the Electoral Act 2010 was only assented to on the 26th of March 2015, barely two days to the last General Election, a copy of which only surfaced several months after the election. Consequently, the amendments were not used for the 2015 elections.  Therefore, there is a history of acting too late, and sometimes too little as well, which makes the current effort truly unique.

    In addition, there is also a context unique to the current effort.  The number of elections conducted by the present INEC is the highest in the history of elections in this country outside the context of General Elections.  The statistics are highlighted in four categories as follows:

    1. Forty-nine (49) re-run elections in 16 states of the federations out of 80 elections nullified by the courts.
    2. Ten (10) By-elections in 8 states across the country, caused by death or resignation (but mainly death) of elected members of the National and State Assemblies.
    3. Three (3) end-of-tenure Governorship elections in Kogi, Bayelsa and 68 Area Council Constituencies in the FCT.
    4. The Courts have so far upturned 23 Constituency elections (Senate, House of Representatives and State Assembly) and ordered the Commission to withdraw Certificates of Return from those adjudged not to have been validly elected and issue same to the rightful winners. We have since complied.

    When I addressed a similar forum organized by the House of Representatives about 2 weeks ago (May 27), I reported that INEC had conducted 127 elections since the 2015 General Elections.  About two weeks ago, we conducted two more by-elections in Kwara (Oke-Ero State Constituency) and Nasarawa (Nasara/Toto Federal Constituency).  The new figure of elections conducted by INEC in the last six months is 129.  And we still have 31 more to conduct, which we hope to round up by next month i.e. July 2016.

    Most importantly, for the purpose of this Summit, is that some of the recent elections have challenged our electoral jurisprudence.  For instance, in Kogi State, a candidate died in the middle of an election before the declaration of result.  The Kogi experience was indeed a legal conundrum, not envisaged in our Constitution or the Electoral Act.  INEC had no recourse to judicial interpretation because, as we were advised, our courts are not advisory institutions.  They are courts of litigation.

    In Nigeria, we have no Constitutional Court.  We were advised, one way or another by some lawyers, almost all of them, on the basis of logic rather than clear constitutional or other legal provisions.  Under the circumstances, INEC had to rely on Section 36(1) of the Electoral Act, which is the most proximate section of the law to get out of the conundrum.

    Any electoral reform, going forward, must make clear provision against such a possibility.  In doing so, we should look beyond the Governorship candidate.  What if it happens that a Presidential or Deputy Governorship candidate dies in the middle of an election before the declaration of result?  What if it happens in the case of the Senate, House of Representatives, State Assembly elections, or in an FCT (Federal Capital Territory) Area Council Election conducted by INEC?  These are scenarios that sounded far-fetched before the Kogi experience.  Now, they have become possible and there must be appropriate legal response.  This is part of the comprehensive proposals for legal reform that we are submitting for consideration by the National Assembly.

    Another area that has already attracted public attention and commentary is the status of the Smart Card Reader (SCR) in the light of the recent Supreme Court judgment.  One legal opinion says that in the light of the power conferred on INEC by the 2015 amendment of the Electoral Act to determine the mode of elections, there is no longer any prohibition to the deployment of technology, including the SCR, for elections.  However, others feel that there should be explicit provision in the Electoral Act. Already, proposals to that effect have been tabled before the two Chambers of the National Assembly by way of private members’ bills.

    INEC feels that while there is need for a more explicit provision in the Electoral Act, it should be generic enough to cover the use of technology generally rather than a specific type of electronic device. Doing so will allow for flexibility without breaking the law in case the Commission introduces a new device other than the SCR. A generic provision will also cover some of the new innovations we intend to introduce ahead of the 2019 General Elections, especially with regard to electronic collation and transmission of result.

    I have earlier referred to the large number of nullified elections, resulting in Court ordered re-runs in 80 constituencies nationwide.  In addition to obeying Court Orders, we have carefully studied the court judgments with a view to learning lessons. One clear lesson is the large number of nullified elections, arising from the disqualification of candidates earlier declared winners.  Here culpability lies with the political parties. The judgments show that in some cases, names of candidates were submitted to INEC without (the candidates) going through valid primaries. In other cases, political parties failed to do due diligence on their candidates, with respect to their personal integrity, academic qualifications, failure to resign from public office within the time frame allowed by law before joining politics and, most extraordinarily, even age.

    Under Section 31 of the Electoral Act, INEC has no power to disqualify a candidate duly nominated by a political party. The failure of political parties leads to the nullification of elections and wholesale re-run of the elections. Here, we are not asking for the restoration of INEC’s powers to disqualify candidates.  Rather, parties should contribute to deepening our democracy by conducting their primaries and forwarding the names of properly screened candidates to INEC.

    The Electoral Act should be amended to make a clear provision that where an election is nullified because the winning candidate was disqualified, there should be no re-run election in that Constituency. Rather, Certificate of Return should be issued to the runner-up. Doing so will compel political parties to toe the path of propriety and save the nation the cost of conducting re-run elections arising from candidate disqualification.

    However, the most intractable challenge in the administration and management of elections in Nigeria can be summarised in the phrase –”do-or-die” –  by some (not all) of our political actors. Often this is expressed in open violence or the threat of violence leading to the subversion of the popular will of the people.  Our responsibility as the electoral umpire is to ensure that votes truly count, but this cannot be achieved where election has become akin to war. While INEC has been strenuously applying our Guidelines as well as provisions of the Electoral Act, those determined to ignore the law and the Guidelines appear undeterred.

    Our staff have been harassed, intimidated, compromised or even killed.  Consistent with our Guidelines and the Electoral Act, INEC has declared some elections inconclusive and conducted supplementary elections.  In some other cases, elections were cancelled in entire constituencies or in specific polling units based on the powers of the Commission under Sections 26 and 53 of the Electoral Act, in order to ensure that votes truly count and the people ultimately decide who their leaders are.

    Where suspects were apprehended, we have worked jointly with the police to prosecute them under Section 150(2) of the Electoral Act

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) believes that the time has come to revisit the issue of Electoral Offences Tribunal to deal with violators of the Electoral Act, whoever they are – political actors, INEC staff – whoever.  We are submitting a proposal to that effect for appropriate legislation by the National Assembly.

    There are a number of other areas requiring constitutional and legal amendments such as:

    1. Diaspora voting (including the power of political parties to organize abroad and maintain foreign accounts);
    2. The duration for Presidential/Governorship run off elections (Sections. 134 and 179 of the Constitutions provide only one week);

    iii. Clear provision in the Electoral Act, in line with subsisting judgments of the Supreme Court, on which organ of a political party should submit list of candidates to INEC;

    1. Clear provision on the time limit in the Electoral Act, for the determination of pre-election matters, similarly to election petition cases so that they do not drag on for too long (Ondo – State Assembly and Kebbi Governorship – still on-going one year after).

    Let me conclude the way I started this presentation by once again commending this laudable and unique intervention by the Senate Committee on INEC. I hope work on the Electoral Act will be concluded very soon so that there will be ample time to plan for the next General Election in 2019 on the basis of additional legal provisions.

    I want to say that there is really no time.  The 2019 General Election is to be held at least 30 days to the handing over date, which is 29th May 2019.  This means that elections must be held latest by the end of April 2019.  There is really no much time considering the fact that we have approximately 1,087 days to the last date for the elections.  If you removed the weekends and public holidays, we have approximately 750 working days to the next General Elections. We therefore have to proceed in earnest.

    I thank the distinguished Senators very much for the honour to speak at this Forum.

    • Prof Yakubu delivered this paper at a Summit organized by the Senate Committee on INEC under the theme: Legislating for Electoral Reform, on June 6 in Abuja.
  • I have not spoken on Saraki forgery trial- Atiku

    I have not spoken on Saraki forgery trial- Atiku

    Former Vice President and chieftain of All Progressives Congress (APC) Atiku Abubakar said yesterday that he has not made any comment on the ongoing battle between the leadership of the Senate and the Attorney General of the Federation over the forgery trial of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki and his Deputy, Ike Ekweremadu.

    In a statement made available to the media in Abuja on Monday by his Media Adviser, Mazi Paul Ibe, the former Vice President said the last time made any comment on National Assembly matters was in July 2015 during the leadership crisis in the legislature.

    The statement said that the former Vice President was taken by surprise that a section of the media choose to take his 2015 comment, rework it and credited same to him in the current battle of supremacy between the Senate and the Attorney General of the Federation.

    He said that the last time Atiku Abubakar issued a statement on National Assembly matters was on July 2, 2015, when he called for an amicable resolution of crisis of confidence that arose from the election of principal officers, which bitterly divided the party leaders and their supporters. That statement was titled “It is time to shift ground and move to the centre.”

    The statement said further that “it was not within Atiku Abubakar’s power to intervene in support of either side when his intervention was not sought”

    It said further that though the former Vice President is not in support of “any row between the executive branch and the legislature, which causes needless distractions at the expense of governance issues demanding attention, his July 2, 2015 statement over internal party tension should not be twisted, reworked and attributed to him in order to make it look like he made a recent comment on the NASS vs AG crisis of confidence”

    He admonished the media to treat people fairly by not attributing to them statements they didn’t make; dredging up old statements on different issues and make them appear like their reactions to current issues that have no bearing on each other.

  • Saraki, Ekweremadu’s forgery case, not a National Assembly matter -SGF

    Saraki, Ekweremadu’s forgery case, not a National Assembly matter -SGF

    ……SGF to Saraki, Ekweremadu: Allow judiciary do its job,
    The Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir David Lawal on Wednesday said the trial of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki and his Deputy, Ike Ekweremadu for forgery was not a trial for the Senate or the National Assembly as a body.

    In a statement he personally signed, Lawal said that a case of forgery is usually preferred against individuals, pointing out that such case of certificate forgery led to the resignation of the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Salisu Buhari.

    Noting that bringing the National Assembly as a body into the new court case is unwarranted; he said that such action can only be for other purposes and reasons outside the investigation and legal proceedings.

    He said: “Since the arraignment of the President of the Senate, Senator Bukola Saraki and, his Deputy Senator Ike Ekweremadu before the Federal High Court on Monday, June 27, 2016, the two leaders of the Senate, have issued two separate press statements conveying messages that are far from being complementary to the person and government of President Muhammadu Buhari.

    “Senator Saraki in his statement clearly insinuated that Mr. President is not in control of his administration and that a cabal now runs the federal administration.  On the part of Senator Ekweremadu, he insists that President Buhari is exhibiting dictatorial tendencies that can derail our democracy.

    “From their statements, the two leaders of the Senate also gave this erroneous impression that by their arraignment, it is the entire Senate and indeed, the Legislative Arm of Government that is on trial.

    “They want the public to believe that their prosecution is utter disregard by the Executive Arm of government for the constitutional provisions of separation of powers and that preferring the forgery case against them is a vendetta exercise.

    Since the case is in court, he said that the Judiciary should be allowed to do its job.

    He stressed that the case only involves the four accused persons.

    He added: “And should not be presented to the unsuspecting public as involving the entire Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  The complaint leading to the forgery investigation was reported to the Police by some aggrieved Senators who specifically accused certain persons.

    “It is not the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that is involved and definitely not the House of Representatives.  To bring the National Assembly as a body into this court case is totally unwarranted.  It can only be for other purposes and reasons outside the investigation and legal proceedings.

    “A case of forgery is usually preferred against individuals.  This is not different. As was the case with a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who was accused of certificate forgery, what he did was to resign, honorably. The matter did not even go to court.

    “In that particular case, it was never orchestrated as a matter for the National Assembly.  The individual involved did not drag the entire Legislature into the matter.” He said

    He pointed out that the separate statements by the Senate President and his Deputy were contradictory.

    He said: “While Senator Saraki believes Mr. President has abdicated his powers and that a cabal is in charge of Federal Administration, Senator Ekweremadu says President Buhari has become a dictator.

    “Our democracy is still evolving and being deepened. The provisions of the separation of powers are entrenched in our Constitution and should guide everyone in our conduct. The rule of law is indeed supreme.

    “This particular case is before the judiciary and is not being decided by the Executive Arm of Government.  All that has transpired is still within the confines of our laws. These are the rights to accuse, to be investigated and be arraigned before the court.

    “To impute other considerations to the process is unfortunate.  We should allow the process to take its course, in consonance with the dictates of the law and total obeisance to the cardinal democratic principle of the separation of powers,” he stated.

  • Senate rules forgery: Ex-NASS, Clerk, others blame Deputy Clerk

    Senate rules forgery: Ex-NASS, Clerk, others blame Deputy Clerk

    Top officials of the National Assembly are already trading blames over the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Orders/Rules 2015 ahead of the expected arraignment of Senate President   Bukola Saraki, his Deputy Chief Ike Ekweremadu and two others in court tomorrow over the incident.

    The immediate past Clerk to the National Assembly, SalisuMaikasuwa and the Deputy Clerk to the National Assembly, Benedict Efeture are to face trial alongside Saraki and Ekweremadu.

    Maikasuwa and the Clerk of the Senate Committee on Rules and Business, Dr. NmaOgozy, in their separate statements to the police said onlyEfeture could account for how the amendment came about.

    The statements,sighted by The Nation, form part of the proof of evidence attached to the charge sheet.

    Ogozy,for instance, claimed that the 7th Senate did not consider the report for the amendment of 2011 Rules and there was no record on Senate Standing Orders/Rules 2015 (amended).

    It was learnt that the trial court will now be saddled with the task of unraveling how the Senate Standing Orders/Rules 2011 was allegedly forged and printed as 2015 amendment.

    Ogozy, in his statement to the police, said: “I have worked in the National Assembly since May 2004 and that I have been the Clerk of the Senate Committee on Rules and Business since 2006.

    “As the Clerk of the Rules and Business Committee, it is my schedule to receive bills, get them gazetted and schedule them on the Order Paper for the legislative processes that lead to their passage.

    “Also, it is my schedule to prepare the presiding officers’ brief for every plenary session and produce the Senate legislative calendar among others.

    “The committee had collated proposals for amendment of the Senate Standing Rules (2011 as amended) and had sent or laid the report on the table of the Senate for further legislative.

    “The Senate had not formally considered the report before the end of the 7th Senate on June 4th, 2015.

    “Because there were no copies of the 2011 Rules (as amended) left at the close of the 7th Assembly, my assumption is that the 2015 Rules (as amended) publication may have been issued by the leadership of the Senate since even the National Institute for Legislative Studies had also printed some copies of the 2011(as amended) Standing Rules when the committee ran out of copies before the induction of the 8th Assembly Senate.

    “It is my considered suggestion that any further information as to the differences found between the 2011 (as amended) and 2015  (as amended) Standing Rules would require the attention of a more senior staff of the National Assembly such as the Deputy Clerk of the National Assembly. This is all I have to say.”

    On his part, the immediate past Clerk to the National Assembly, Maikasuwa said Efeture is in the best position to clarify the status of Senate Standing Rules 2015(as amended).

    He said: “I became the Clerk to the National Assembly on 16th August 2010. On Tuesday, 9th June, I inaugurated the 8th Senate. I did not refer to any Standing Order to inaugurate the 8th Assembly.

    “I used the format/ procedure for the opening of a new parliament and also the proclamation for the holding of the first session of the National Assembly.

    “After the inauguration, I conducted the elections of the Senate President and his deputy. When nominations were made, I called the Deputy Clerk to the National Assembly, who is also the Clerk to the Senate to read out the guidelines for the election.

    “I do not know the current Standing Orders being used by the Senate now. The Senate Standing Orders used in the 7th Senate was not known to me.

    “The Clerk of the Senate is in a position to know. I am not aware of any amendment that was made to the Standing Rules of 2011.

    “I am also not aware of the amendment of the Senate Standing Orders 2015. I only appear in chambers three times: During joint sittings, during inauguration and valedictory sessions.”

    But Efetureasked the police to hold the leadership of the 7th Senate headed by ex-Senate President, Chief David Mark, accountable.

    He said on oath as follows: “I am the Deputy Clerk of NASS. The senate leadership ordered the 2015 Standing Rules as amended by their convention and practice. Standing orders 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 follow similar practice.

    “In Congress and in Parliament, amendment of Standing orders is by practice not necessarily by procedures.

    “The Ruling of the Senate President that standing rules of 2015 is the authentic is relevant please. Refer to the debates of the Senate on Wednesday 24th June, 2015 Senate leadership referred to that of the 7th Senate.”

    A source at the National Assembly who is familiar with the situation, said: “There is no doubt that there is Standing Rules 2015.

    “But the question is: who influenced the bureaucrats to produce it? This is the knot which the court will un-tie. There was a bit of politics in the alleged forgery of 2015 Rules.

    “It is an interesting case that will provide a few lessons for the management of the National Assembly.”

    The federal government has already lined up 14 prosecution witnesses against the accused persons.

    The prosecution witnesses,according to court documents obtained by The Nation, include the Special Adviser to the President on National Assembly Matters, Senator ItaEnang and the Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters, Senator BabafemiOjudu.

    Others are Senators Suleiman Hunkuyi; Solomon Ewuga; Ahmed Lawan; Abdullahi Gumel; KabiruMarafa; Gbenga Ashafa; Robert Boroffice and Abu Ibrahim as well as Dr. OgozyNma, D.J.Adem, ex-DIG Dan’Azumi J Doma and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) David Igbodo.

    The police report with reference CR: 3000/X/FHQ/ABJ/VOL.186/88 dated July 14, 2015  said: “On the 9th of June, 2015, a document titled “the Senate Standing Order 2015 as amended” was distributed to Senators of the 8th Senate for their inauguration as members.

    “The contents of the Senate Standing Oder 2015 as amended are substantially different from the Senate Standing Order 2011 as amended. Sections 2 (IV), 3(3) E, I, ii, iii, G AND H, 5 and 7 of the Rules are different in the two Orders.

    “The Senate Standing Order 2015 as amended was used by the clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate as the Senate Standing Orders to inaugurate and conduct elections into the offices of the presiding officials of the Senate viz the Senate President, the Deputy Senate President etc.

    “The testimonies of some members of the 7th Senate including that of the Chairman of the Business and Rules Committee and Senators of the 7th Senate indicate that the Senate Standing Order 2011 was not amended during the tenure of the 7th Senate, which ended on the 8th of June, 2015.

    “The procedure for the amendment of the Senate Standing Order as contained in Section 110 of the Senate Standing Order 2011 as amended stipulates that any amendment to the Senate Standing Orders should be in line with the following procedures:

    • Any Senator desiring to amend any part of the Rules or adding any new clause shall give notice of such amendments in writing to the President of the Senate giving details of proposed amendment.
    • The President shall within seven working days cause the amendment to be printed and circulated to members. Thereafter it shall be printed in the Order Paper.
    • The mover or movers of the amendment shall be allowed to explain in details the proposed amendments, thereafter in details the proposed amendments, thereafter the Senate shall decide by majority votes whether the amendment should be considered.
    • If the decision is to consider the amendments, then another date shall be set aside by the Rules and Business Committee, whereby opportunity would be given to Senators to further propose amendments but must strictly be confined to the original amendments. “Two- third majority shall decide the amendments but must strictly be confined to the original amendments.
    • Two third majorities shall decide the amendments and such amendments shall form part of the Rules of the Senate.