The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Saraki

  • ‘Prosecute Saraki, Ekweremadu’

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ondo State has called for the prosecution of principal actors in the National Assembly crisis.

    It called for the incarceration of the Clerk of the National Assembly, Salisu Maikasuwa for his role in the saga.

    A statement by its Publicity Secretary, Abayomi Adesanya, said: “David Mark and Ike Ekweremadu were the two principal officers of the seventh Senate who were also ranking senators in the eighth Senate and custodians of the ‘Senate Standing Order’ and other documents of the seventh Senate.

    “Bukola Saraki, being the first beneficiary of this ‘forged Standing Order’ and other ranking senators, who knew of this criminal act, who ought to have the full knowledge of the contents of the text of the ‘Senate Order’ and other relevant documents in the Senate, must also face prosecution and the full wrath of law for complicity.

    “It is not possible that the Clerk and other National Assembly staff, would perpetrate this criminality without been approached by the beneficiaries of this forged document, the leadership of the seventh Senate with the support of some ranking senators loyal to Saraki.”

  • Lawyer: Saraki, Ekweremadu must resign for alleged forgery

    Lawyer: Saraki, Ekweremadu must resign for alleged forgery

    Human rights lawyer Morakinyo Ogele has urged Senate President Bukola Saraki and his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, to resign from office following the police investigation, which established a case of forgery of the Standing Rules in the Senate leadership election.

    He also advised the police and the Federal Ministry of Justice to arraign Saraki, Ekweremadu, the Clerk of the National Assembly, Salisu Maikasuwa and others who allegedly conspired to forge the Standing Rules to conduct the June 9 election.

    Ogele, who described forgery as a “very serious offence”, said both Saraki and Ekweremadu disappointed Nigerians by getting to office when they knew that the document upon which their election was conducted had been forged.

    In a chat with The Nation in Ado Ekiti yesterday, the Akure-based legal practitioner, said he was disappointed in Ekweremadu, who himself is a lawyer, for his alleged involvement in the forgery mess.

    Ogele, who is the National Coordinator of Ekiti Redemption Group (ERG), urged senators to begin the process of impeachment against the Senate president and his deputy, if they refuse to resign from office on account of the alleged forgery.

    The ERG boss called on the people of Kwara Central Senatorial District and Enugu West Senatorial District to start the process of recalling Saraki and Ekweremadu from the Red Chamber for their alleged involvement in the forgery mess.

    He explained that although the deputy Senate president is still presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, Ogele said the forgery scam has “imposed a huge moral burden on Ekweremadu, who, he said, should know”, as well as Saraki.

    Ogele added that Nigerians would never accept the leadership of the Senate by Saraki and Ekweremadu, whom he accused of bringing the integrity of the institution they represent into ridicule and odium on Nigeria.

    He warned pro-Saraki senators against “trying to defend the indefensible”, warning that Nigerians would be forced to march on the National Assembly and occupy the place, if the Senate president and his deputy remain adamant despite the weight of allegation against them.

  • Saraki, Dogara: Victory as sour

    Saraki, Dogara: Victory as sour

    Sweet moments have always been but a chanced rarity in the land. Laughter is a scarce asset that dwells mostly in the mien of its seeming monopolist owners. These are but few gurus of cash and power. Power they deploy as their majesties deem fit to command and suppress the thoughts and destiny of a sprawling but less privileged majority.

    Not even the periodic sequence of post-1999 charades either masqueraded as political parties’ primary elections or general polls craftily staged to outwardly legitimize the intrinsically illegitimate – candidate anointment, imposition and selection in flagrant disregard to the extant regulations on internal democracy or national electoral laws – were least able to restore the hope of a better tomorrow to a beleaguered people until the miraculous event of December 10, 2014.

    The inaugural edition of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Primary Election, as imperfect as it might have seemed, was indeed a fortune-changer for the Nigerian citizenry. On this day, all things answereth not to the commands of dollars amongst Nigerians politicians who, for the first time ever, voted for their conscience by offering the party’ ticket to an aspirant widely reputed for his financial incapacitation. To find Nigerian politicians being bought over by the widely-acknowledged Muhamadu Buhari’s virtues of discipline, integrity and patriotism, instead of flying filthy lucre, was indeed awesome to the average citizen in whom the long-lost hope for socio-economic and political recovery of a bed-ridden nation was instantly reincarnated.

    To the naive, it was the ‘Change’ mantra of the APC that eventually endeared the party and its candidate to the electorate on March 28. Truth be told, Nigerians have long been so wizened by innumerable past broken promises of change which predated October 1, 1960 that the most conceivably beautiful rhetoric of mankind can hardly inspire them to such a gargantuan risk. The risk of defying the globally respected and efficacious wit of the Yoruba elders which admonishes thus – a Satan that enjoys long-term acquaintance is more preferable than an unknown angel. If anything, the English, being another globally respected race of witty sayings acquiesces with this West African ethnic nation in a bird in hand is worth more than a thousand in the air.

    On that epochal day at the Teslim Balogun Stadium, the open dramatization of the ‘Change’ being promised through the transparency of an open-field contest conferred irresistible admiration, affection and, ultimately, acceptance on the eventual candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, even amongst the rank and file of the then ruling party, the PDP. Yet, that APC-like risk cultivated within the PDP fold by elements disgruntled, generally, by the intra-PDP pre-election realities that were unlike the APC’s.

    Rainfall is indeed a respecter of none. Days leading to the hitherto destined February 14, therefore, turned a season of summer torrents that tormented every Nigerian soul outside the sailing Ark of Change. For the first time ever, the PDP had a cause to shiver and shudder in trepidation. Realising that every tick of the clock was an additional suppression of its own suppressive machinery by which it had always and still intended to repress the people’s wish, it stylishly caved in, forcibly snatching a sick leave to surreptitiously reinforce its tricks.

    Little did this retreating power cult know that the six-week postponement, contrived on a warped logic, would, ironically, expose it as a fallible weakling before the very crowd that, for 16 years, had dreaded it as an invincible behemoth. Regained, thus, was the long-lost sweet of the citizens which they hoped to savour from the May 29 ascension of a new order till eternity.

    Certainly, the sweetness of March 28 that begot the sugariness of May 29 was not merely the victory and ascension unto power of an opposition party but the transparency and all-inclusiveness that characterized the Presidential Election, traits that were not only reminiscent of the APC’s shadow poll, they were indeed the obvious necessities of the post-poll concession offered by the then incumbent President to the delight of all and sundry.

    But, alas! Just some few days after, specifically on June 9, some symptoms of the supposedly exiled politricks reappeared on the floor of our ‘hallowed’ chambers to once again, sour my people’s sweet, probably indelibly.

    Let no one engage in self-delusion that the Nigerian masses perceive the new Senate President, Senator Bukola Saraki, and House of Representatives, Hon, Yakubu Dogara, as products of the much-beloved democracy. Rather, to many a Nigerian, the twosome is but offspring of loathed democrazy, who crafted treachery to score off-side goals.

    Truly, what aches the masses is far from what pains the politicians. That Saraki and Dogara defied their party ranks low in the people’s scale of concern. After all, it’s no new reality under the Nigerian sun, going by the anti-party emergence of Tambuwal which actually delighted and, ultimately, benefitted the masses.

    Salient, here, is the line between the Tambuwal episode and the Saraki-Dogara drama. Critically viewed from the perspectives of the masses on whose behalf political actions or inactions are supposed to be contrived and implemented, the former is never a justifying antecedent for the latter.

    Tambuwal’s emergence was never divisive or conspiratorial, as it was engineered by an unprecedented breaking of barrier of partisanship by lawmakers, across party lines, who spoke with one voice to elect their leader. Since Tambuwal never spited his party, the PDP, with negotiated reliance on the then relatively huge strength of the opposition APC, he has entered the Guinness Book of Records as the first Nigerian Fourth Republic Speaker with an uninterrupted tenure.

    Worse-still, Saraki and Dogara with their staunch promoters within and outside the APC have, so far, failed to realise that growing popular resentment and venom against prolonged misrule by the former ruling party was the secret beneath the masses’ delight that greeted every misadventure or misfortune of the PDP, as illustrated in the Tambuwal 2011 rebellion. They also missed it, as they failed to recognize the invaluably facilitative role played by such popular anti-PDP sentiments in the eventual defeat of the erstwhile indefatigable.

    And, what is, perhaps, most unpleasant and, probably, unforgivable to the masses is that Saraki and Dogara’s victories have come with a back-door restoration of power to the cult which the long oppressed and suppressed people had not only perceived as the source of their woes but which they had prayed, fasted and deployed their constitutional sovereignty to crush in the last polls.

    As it stands, Nigerians are not unaware that, with the present configuration in our bicameral parliament, the legislative capacity of the PDP to launch a vengeful and anti-people war to reclaim their lost asset, rather than voting to aid the change that Nigerians expect from the new administration, has just been boosted. Boosted not by the twosome’s victories but by their messy manner, since posterity was already waiting close-by to exalt, particularly, Saraki, if, at that crucial moment he had opted for heroism by pushing for a considerable delay of proceedings or rejecting the nomination in honour of his absent APC colleagues. At least, we were all living witnesses to frequent delays in general elections, which were nevertheless held sacrosanct by our Temple of Justice.

    Soiling the mood of the citizenry at a rare moment of great and sweet expectations; reversing the positive background setting of those who would make laws for Nigerians in the next four years, who have been thus polarised into warring camps by the resultant discord; and, returning Nigeria’s global perception to the low and infamous level which it was just about exiting. In these and listless other sour points lies the disservice that Saraki and Dogara’s selfish victories have done to themselves and the nation, at large.  

    • Olokode, a media consultant, writes from Ikeja, Lagos

  • Re: Saraki, Dogara – What should APC do?

    The extensive coverage and outstanding reportage of the National Assembly leadership crisis in The Nation on Sunday (June 28, 2015) is commendable. Please permit me to attempt to provide an answer to the question posed about what should APC do?  What a knotty question, as it were, considering how Dr Bukola Saraki and Mr Yakubu Dogara emerged as Senate President and House of Representative (HoR) Speaker, respectively, and their anti-party postures and activities since they assumed office!

     Let me situate the messy crisis in contextual perspective; after the last general elections which brought APC as the majority party countrywide, you did not need any prediction to suggest Sen. Saraki as the President of the Senate. He seemed to have everything – new Peoples Democratic Party (nPDP), geo-political zone, political savvy, human network, charisma and the wherewithal – in his favour. Public opinion was also not against him, as far as I knew.

    The only factor I considered against him was if APC stuck to the global parliamentary convention of fielding the Senate Minority Leader as the Senate President. In management, this is called succession planning. Surely Dogara’s candidacy for the Speaker came out of the blues! It was a strategic Plan B by some powerful tendency to wrest control of the government from a particular political personage. And his eventual election as Speaker was dramatic. But how justifiable is having the President, Senate President and the Speaker from the north? Is it not an outright violation of the provision of Section 14 (3) of the Constitution?

    The APC leadership seemed to have been in a complete daze since winning the presidential election on March 28 and appeared so lost after the president’s inauguration on May 29 or else two months were enough to nip the avoidable crisis in the bud before it snowballed into back-bench rebellion against the party. The party leadership made grave, glaring errors and President Muhammudu Buhari committed strategic error of judgment in the build-up to the NASS elections.

    First, it was a monumental error to recommend and “elect” Dr Ahmed Lawan for Senate President and Sen. George Akume for the deputy since both of them are from the north. Second, since APC did not present Sen. George Akume, the Minority Leader of the immediate past Senate, it was pertinently expedient to replace Mr. Femi Gbajabiamila, the Minority Leader of the immediate past HoR, as the party’s candidate Speaker, moreover, that he and the vice president, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, are both Lagosians from South West.

    Having the VP and Speaker from the same state or the same geo-political zone is against the spirit of the country’s federal character. Third, APC should not have dragged itself down to an abysmal point of conducting those “nursery” elections that produced Sen. Lawal and Gbajabiamila as APC’s candidates for Senate President and Speaker. At the point of going for that mock election, it was incumbent on PMB to intervene personally, maintain neutrality, calm nerves, say a few homes truths, allay suspicions, appeal for sacrifice and call into play the sheer power and authority of his personality and office.

    Unfortunately, the president chose not to be proactive in this particular matter. Fourth, how on earth will APC be relying on party supremacy which, practically, does not exist in a presidential government that is modelled on the American system? This is self-deception which may lead to self-destruction if the top echelons of the party remain none the wiser any farther! I have no much misgiving about the elections of Sen. Saraki and Dogara. But I have serious qualms about their official conducts and actions since they were elected.

    Their styles leave a lot to be desired. They ought to have embraced the party’s olive branch magnanimously and move on to real legislative business of the eight NASS. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And multiple errors won’t make sense. Just as the Senate President stated, “It is not fair to put the blame on one side because it is a combination of errors and miscalculations.” To play blame game at this juncture is to multiply the errors! But what will it take the political actors in the impasse to realise the error in their ways?

    I can think of nothing but Mr. President’s intervention. I am not the original proponent of this presidential solution. Really, it is about the wisest option for APC. As it is now, the onus is on PMB to arbitrate fair and square. The truth is that the masses of Nigerians who voted for the APC across the board in the last elections actually voted for PMB. If you take the personality of PMB away from the APC, there is little to choose between the party and the PDP.

    So, what should APC do about Saraki and Dogara? My answer is that the party should submit to the wise counsel of PMB.  This is premised on the fact that the duo of Sen. Saraki and Dogara as well as their loyalists in the APC within and outside the NASS are still wholeheartedly in the party.

    May God grant PMB the creative intelligence and innovative wisdom to deliver the goods.

    By Yomi Akinola, Ibadan.

  • Saraki decries needless deaths in Arepo explosion

    Saraki decries needless deaths in Arepo explosion

    Senate President Bukola Saraki yesterday decried what he called unnecessary loss of human lives in the petroleum pipeline fire incident at Arepo, Ogun State.

    He expressed shock that over 100 people were roasted beyond recognition due to the activities of oil pipeline vandals.

    Saraki was irked that corpses of victims could not be immediately evacuated by relevant agencies owing to inaccessible terrain.

    In a statement by his Chief Press Secretary, Sanni Onogu, he said: “The incident saddens me because I realise that these are Nigerians who have met their untimely deaths in such gruesome circumstances.

    “I must say that the fire incident in that area was one too many at a time one would have thought that we have put issues of pipeline vandalism blamed for the fire incident, behind us.”

    The Senate President also urged Nigerians to be wary of scooping fuel from busted pipelines, saying it was capable of causing unimaginable calamity to lives and colossal economic waste.

    He assured the federal government would continue to enjoy the support of the National Assembly in all its current efforts aimed at securing the lives and property of Nigerians.

    Saraki called on the joint task security teams to urgently secure all national assets across the nation and equally ensure that bodies yet to be retrieved from the Arepo inferno are immediately evacuated.

  • Why we want Saraki, Ekweremadu sacked

    Why we want Saraki, Ekweremadu sacked

    The seven Senators seeking the removal of Senate President Bukola Saraki and Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu  by  the Federal High Court, Abuja, are arguing that the inauguration of the 8th Senate based on  Standing Orders 2015, was  strange, irregular and unknown to the Red chamber.

    Senators  Abu Ibrahim, Barnabas Gemade, Ahmad Lawan, George Akume, Kabir Marafa, Suleiman Hunkuyi and Gbenga Ashafa are also insisting that  the subsequent conduct of  business and proceedings in the Senate on June 9,2015 were similarly out of place.

    They are,  therefore,  asking the court to declare  Standing Order 2015 (as amended) as illegal, null and void.

    The plaintiffs in their suit said that  since the election of Saraki and Ekweremadu on June 9 was based on the faulty Standing Orders 2015, there was no way they could remain in office.

    They are seeking  the following reliefs:

    “A declaration that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 as amended is inoperative, void and lack of legislative competency for having not been made by due process of law in accordance with the provision of Section 60 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Order 110 of the Standing Orders of the Senate 2007(as amended).

    “A declaration that the Senate Standing Order 2015(as amended) is unconstitutional and ultra vires and the maker(s) for violating the provisions of Section 60 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) as well as Order 110 Standing Order of the 2007(as amended) made pursuant to the said Section 60 of the Constitution.

    “A declaration that the Standing Orders of the Senate 2007(as amended) is the extant Order of the Senate having not been altered and or amended in accordance with the due process of law.

    “An order of court annulling and voiding all legislative business or businesses carried out by the 8th Senate predicated on the use of the said Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended).

    “An order of injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, agents, servants and privies from using the Senate Standing Orders 2015 and or refusing to use the Standing Orders of the Senate 2007 (as amended).”

    The affected Senators urged the Court to ask the Clerk to the National Assembly, the President of the Senate to explain when the Senate Standing Orders was amended.

    They said paragraph 110 of the Senate Standing Orders 2007 (as amended) was explicit on the procedures for an amendment to the Orders.

    They said: “For ease of reference, the procedures are set out  below: “110(1) 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 the proposed amendments.

    “The President of the Senate shall, within seven working days of the receipt of the notice, cause the amendments to be printed and circulated to members. Thereafter, it shall be printed in the Order Paper of the Senate.

    “The Mover or Movers of the amendments shall be allowed to explain in detail the proposed amendments. Thereafter, the Senate shall decide by simple majority votes whether the amendments should be considered or rejected.

    “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 and such amendments shall form part of the rules of the Senate.”

    The aggrieved Senators asked the court to determine five issues including the determination of the fact that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 was “strange, manipulated and illegal.”

    • Whether in the light of the provision of Section 60 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) which donated power to the Senate to regulate its procedure, donates or confers on any other body or authority power to amend the Senate Standing Orders 2007 the extant Standing Order (as amended) contrary to or in clear violation of Order 110 Standing Order 2007(as amended).
    • Whether in the light of provision of Section 60, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) Senate Standing Orders 2015 as amended which was and still being used by the 8th Senate is not invalid for violating the provisions of Order 110 of the Standing Orders of the Senate 2007 (as amended) made pursuant to the said Section 60 of the said Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
    • Whether in the light of the combined effect of Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) and Order 110 Standing Order of the Senate 2007(as amended) the Senate Standing Orders 2015(as amended) is not unconstitutional, unlawful, and ultra vires the maker or makers and consequently null and void.
    • Whether in light of all of the above, all parliamentary business of the 8th Senate predicated and conducted with the use of the Senate Standing Orders 2015(as amended) is not unlawful, illegal, ultra vires, null and void.
    • Whether all proceedings conducted with the use of the Standing Orders of the Senate 2015 (as amended) are invalid and illegal having not been made pursuant to the Standing Orders of the Senate 2007 (as amended) which was in use by the 7th Senate and remained the extant Rules of the 8th Senate having not been amended.

    No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit which was filed yesterday on behalf of the plaintiffs by Chief Anthony A. Adeniyi; Ibrahim Muhammed Sani; Adetunji Oso; I. K. Olarenwaju; Umar Abdulhameed; Rotimi Olorunfemi; Alabi Lawal; S. B. Oladeinde; K. Kokowei; and Kester Oyibo.

    The courts are  currently on vacation, but the  lead counsel, Chief Anthony Adefuye, has filed an affidavit of urgency to enable a vacation judge to take charge.

  • Saraki wants insurance cover, fat pay for journalists

    Saraki wants insurance cover, fat pay for journalists

    President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki, has called for a comprehensive insurance cover and better living wage for journalists in the country.

    He also harped on incentives for media practitioners in order to lift their morale and increase their productivity.

    Saraki made the call in Abuja on Friday at the opening session of the 5th triennial national delegates conference of the Nigeria Union of Journalists.

    The Senate President, who was represented at the event by the Senator representing Kaduna Central, Senator Shehu Sani, said recent events in the national, cross-border and global polity, have undoubtedly put a lot of emphasis on the safety, sustainability, value, rights and moral standing of the average journalist.

    He noted that journalists put themselves through difficult and often uncharted channels to ensure that democracy has its highest expression.

    Saraki said, “It is thus incumbent on us, the custodians of this democracy, to bring to the fore viewpoints that will enhance the productivity and efforts of these professionals.

    “That is why I associate myself with the call for journalists to be provided insurance cover by their employers, be it government or private. I also want to canvass enhanced salaries for the professionals.

    “However, this demands that journalists, through their associations should strictly enforce adherence to professionalism and code of ethics of their profession. There must also be penalty for those who violate the ethics or behave in a manner unbecoming of a professional.”

    He noted that the media have indubitable influence on diverse issues in the society, with multi-dimensional influence on democracy and setting agenda for the public.

    “However, as seemingly basic as the above roles might seem, the unwavering impact of the attendant consequences cannot be glossed over. So the effectiveness of the media in discharging these set duties will all but depend on the quality of media personnel, ownership, poverty level, ethnicity, civil society, professionalism, ethical and moral orientation of the media, religion, influences on the media such as powerful groups, advertisers and public relations people.”

    Saraki added that no nation can underestimate the importance of the media in the art of governance, because the roles they play are primarily and centrally placed in national, regional, and local affairs.

    The Senate President said it is necessary to urgently review the training curriculum in Journalism institutions to accommodate parliamentary journalism and other necessary skills to prepare potential reporters for challenges in the legislative journalism.

    “Developmental and citizen Journalism should be emphasized by the mass media with a view to fostering national unity, national interest and national cohesion.

    “It is also worth knowing that beyond the business of governance, which is pivotal to our societal sovereignty, the press also commands indomitable powers in influencing the economic and social decisions of the society.

    “It is therefore on all aforementioned assertions that the plea is hinged on for the media to heed this democratic call in the discharge of her duties.

    “This in no way undermines the strong commendation I must give the media in the way and manner it handled this change transition by giving prominence to the Project Nigeria and the plight of her people.

    “I strongly believe that journalism is first and foremost a public trust and one that should be held in the utmost esteem requiring those who hold this trust, even under extreme circumstance to refrain from its abuse.”

    He commended the NUJ for holding the conference with the theme: “Fostering Safety of Journalists and Building Synergy with Agents of the State.”

    Earlier in his remarks, the outgoing National President of the NUJ, Mallam Mohammed Garba, said he was leaving behind a more peaceful union, having helped to restore normalcy to troubled state chapters of the union.

    He said that the leadership of the NUJ is committed to providing enabling environment for journalists so to carry out their professional duties without molestation.

  • ‘Saraki, Ekweremadu’s elections are a nullity’

    ‘Saraki, Ekweremadu’s elections are a nullity’

    Frontline lawyer and rights activist Jiti Ogunye examines the crisis at the National Assembly. His opinion: the election of Senate President Bukola Saraki and Deputy Senate President Ibe Ekweremadu should not stand.

    For example, a judgment that is given without jurisdiction, or a judgment which is a nullity, which is liable to be set aside, cannot  give birth to a good execution. It does not even matter that the Judgment sought to be set aside has been executed. In such a situation, both the judgment that is liable to be set aside and the execution that is predicated thereon will suffer the same fate. The oft-cited dictum of Lord Denning in the case of  Macfoy v. U.A.C. Ltd (1961) 3 W.L.R. 1405 at p. 1409 P1] comes to mind here. He said: “any purported exercise of any function being without any legal or constitutional authority was null and void and of no effect.

    If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without much ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding, which is founded on it, is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”

    Thus, it does not matter that following the purported election of Saraki and Ekweremadu, they were subsequently sworn in and they later administered the oath to the other senators. All that is a grandiose nullity.  And also it does not matter that following that farce of an election Senators Saraki and Ekweremade have been receiving courtesy visitors, including the Nigerian Bar Association Leadership ( a big shame!) and some funny civil society elections monitors. This sham of an election is incurably defective, and cannot be cured by this ineffectual showmanship.   .

    Also, it does no matter that the APC and  the APC Presidency have accepted the sham election in the Senate  as a successful  coup d’état. They said “ a somewhat constitutional process has taken place” and that  they  are ready to  live with it. No sirs. You are wrong.  There can be  no equivocation on the critical question of whether an act in constitutional or not. If politicians prevaricate, the law does not. It is either a constitutional process has taken place or it has not taken place. An unconstitutional act cannot become “somewhat constitutional” because of the disposition to condone and accommodate such an act, based on political expediency or naïveté .

    It is thus our submission that consequently, any  Nigerian, be he a senator or not who is affected by  that election and is aggrieved  has a right under Section 6(6)(b)  of the 1999 Constitution, as amended,  to invoke the Court’s power of judicial review and the Court  is empowered  ex debito justitiae to nullify the purported election. Mercifully, before his glorious transition, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN & SAM, of blessed memory had helped in liberalizing the anti-public interest litigation rigidity of the legal principle of locus standi ( standing or capacity to sue).

    Secondly, even if the election in the Senate had been conducted on the basis of the Senate Standing Orders, 2011, it still would have been flawed, for not following the due process and for lack of compliance with the provisions of the Senate Standing Orders, 2011.

    Order 2 ( Rules 1-3) in Chapter II of the Senate Orders, 2011, provides for the first sitting of the Senate as follows: “on the first sitting of a new Senate, pursuant to the proclamation of the first sitting of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Senators-Elect shall assemble at the time and place so appointed;  ( 2) Senators-elect, having assembled,  the Clerk to the National Assembly shall: (a) read the proclamation for the holding of the first session of the Senate; ( b) call the Senate to order, and proceed to the roll call and confirmation of writs of election as well as declaration of assets and liabilities of the Senators- Elect in alphabetical order; and ( c) after the roll call, but before their swearing in, preside over the election of the President and Deputy President of the Senate;  ( 3) each Senator Elect called shall present the writ of election and the receipt for declaration of assets and liabilities which shall be laid upon the table by the Clerk.”

    The above stated procedure for convocation and inauguration of the Senate was not complied with on the 9th of June, 2015, when the election purportedly took place. All the senators-elect did not assemble before the Clerk and his cohorts committed their grand fraud. It is after the senators-elect ( not 57 or 75 of them, but all of them, save those who  may be unavoidably absent, for example in the case of death, illness, detention in police or prison custody, or  deliberate, clear  and willful abstention from or boycott of the inauguration) had fully assembled that the Clerk can legally proceed to read the proclamation. By reading the proclamation to a half empty Senate Chambers, the Clerk willfully committed an act of illegality.  But this is not the only procedural error knowingly committed by the Clerk on that date. Upon reading the proclamation to a Senate Chamber that was half empty, the Clerk persisted in his aberration by not proceeding to the roll call and  confirming the writs of election as well as declaration of assets and liabilities of the Senators- Elect ( again, we posit, not 57 or 74 of them, but all of them, save those who  may be unavoidably absent, for example in the case of death, illness , detention in police or prison custody, or deliberate, clear  and willful abstention from or boycott of the inauguration)  in alphabetical order. The Rules say each Senator Elect called shall present the writ of election and the receipt for declaration of assets and liabilities which shall be laid upon the table by the Clerk. Being part of a conspiracy to foist a fait accompli on the absent senators, the Clerk was in a hurry to consummate an infamy.

    We submit that having failed or refused to comply with the Senate Rules contained in Order 2 ( Rules 1-3) in Chapter II of the Senate Orders, 2011,  the  condition precedent to the election of the senate president and deputy senate president was not satisfied , and  thus all the steps taken thereafter, including nominations, acceptance of nominations,  declaration as being elected unopposed, voting, conducting the president-elect to the chair of the Senate President, administering of oaths, all  are a nullity.

    To the rabblerousing defenders of the illegality that took place in the Senate Chambers on that day who are contending that a quorum was formed to constitute the leadership of the Senate with 57 Senators, and later 75 Senators being in attendance, we say that you are wrong.

    These rabble-rousers bandy, in isolation,  Order 10 (1) of the Senate Standing Orders ( Quorum) to justify their contention that there was a quorum to elect the Senate leadership. But Order  10 ( Rules 1, 2 and 3) of the Senate Standing Orders, 2011 provide thus: “(1) The quorum of the Senate shall be one-third ( 1/3) of members of the Senate; ( 2) if, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question is raised by any senator as to the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall within 15 minutes forthwith, direct the Clerk to call the roll and announce the result and these proceedings shall be without debate; ( 3) whenever after such roll call, it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, the President of the Senate may direct Sergeant at arms to request and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion except to adjourn or to suspend sitting shall be in order”

    Section 54  of the Constitution also provides more forcefully  in subsections 1-4 as follows:  “(1) the quorum of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall be one-third of all the members  of the Legislative House concerned. “; “(2) the quorum of a joint sitting of both the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall be one-third of all the members of both Houses.”;  “(3) If objection is taken by any member of the Senate or the House of Representatives present that there are present in the House of which he is a member (besides the person presiding) fewer than one-third of all the members of that House and that it is not competent for the House to transact business, and after such interval as may be prescribed in the rules of procedure of the House, the person presiding ascertains that the number of members present is still less than one-third of all the members of the House he shall adjourn the House.”; and “ (4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply in relation to a joint sitting of both Houses of the National Assembly as they apply in relation to a House of the National Assembly as if references to the Senate or the House of Representatives and a member of either Houses are references to both Houses and to any member of the National Assembly, respectively.”

    When the provisions of Order 10 ( 1-3) of the Senate Standing Orders and the above-cited provisions of the Constitution are properly read and construed, it becomes clear that those provisions do not apply to the first sitting of the Senate, and in particular the election of presiding officers of the Senate. They do not. In constituting the leadership of the Senate, all senators-elect not only have the right to contest in the election, but they also have the right to participate in the election. They have the right to vote and be voted for. Therefore, none of them can be excluded, based on the forced application of the  “one-third ( 1/3) of members of the Senate” quorum clause. The quorum clause applies to the ordinary sitting ( or daily sessions) of the Senate, its committees or its joint sitting with the House of Representatives. It does not apply to the first sitting of the Senate, which, in the context of the  Senate Standing Orders, is not a sitting, properly so called. At the inaugural first “sitting” of the Senate, all senators-elect are expected to assemble and participate in the election. Not one-third of them.

    A sitting of the Senate, to which “one-third ( 1/3) of members of the Senate”  quorum clause applies can only start or take place  after the first “sitting” of the Senate, that is after the election of the Senate’s presiding officers, and not before. The Senate cannot sit without presiding officers. A court cannot sit without a judge or panel of judges presiding. Gathering to elect a leadership of the Senate may be a  meeting or an assembly, but certainly not a sitting.

    Order 5 of the Senate Standing Orders provides that after their respective elections,  “the President and Deputy President of the Senate shall take and subscribe to the oath/ affirmation of allegiance and membership prescribed in the Constitution before the Clerk to the National Assembly”. Order 6 of the Senate Standing Orders provides that “ having been sworn, the President of the Senate returns his acknowledgment to the Senate for the honours confirmed upon him, thereupon takes the Chair, and then the mace ( which hitherto lay under the table shall be laid upon the table).” Order 8 of the Senate Standing Orders provides that “ every senate elect shall, before taking his seat, take and subscribe to the oath/ affirmation of allegiance and membership prescribed in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, before the President of the Senate.” And Order11 ( contained in Chapter III-Sittings of the Senate)  of the Senate Standing Orders provides that “(1) the President of the Senate shall allocate a seat to each senator; and ( 2) a senator may only speak from a seat allocated to him, provided that the President of the Senate may change the allocation from time to time”

    In the same vein, and foundationally,  Section 52. (1) of the Constitution of Nigeria provides that “every member of the Senate or the House of Representatives shall, before taking his seat, declare his assets and liabilities as prescribed in this Constitution and subsequently take and subscribe the Oath of Allegiance and the oath of membership as prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to this Constitution before the President of the Senate or, as the case may be, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but a member may before taking the oaths take part in the election of a President and a Deputy President of the Senate, as the case may be, or a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Section 52(2) of the Constitution provides that “the President and Deputy President of the Senate and the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representative  shall declare their assets and liabilities as prescribed in this Constitution and subsequently take and subscribe the Oath of Allegiance and the oath of membership prescribed as aforesaid before the Clerk of the National Assembly.”  And Section 53. (1)(a) of the Constitution  provides that “ at any sitting of the National Assembly –  (a) in the case of the Senate, the President of the Senate shall preside, and in his absence the Deputy President shall preside;”

    Reading these orders and cited provisions of Sections 52 and 53 of the Constitution  together, in relation to the “one-third ( 1/3) of members of the Senate”  quorum clause, it should be very clear, even to the dull and unintelligent, that until the  President and Deputy Senate President are sworn, take the Chair, the Mace of the Senate is laid on the table, every senator-elect is sworn and takes his seat, and the President of the Senate allocates a seat to each Senator, there can be no sitting or session of the Senate to which the “one-third ( 1/3) of members of the Senate”  quorum clause can apply.

    • To be continued
  • Minority Leader: Court refuses to restrain Saraki, others

    Minority Leader: Court refuses to restrain Saraki, others

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja, yesterday refused to restrain the Senate President Bukola Saraki and 17 others from bypassing the Senate’s standing rules in the appointment of the Minority Leader for the Eighth National Assembly.

    Two members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) – Alaye Don Pedro (Ward 8 Akuku-Toru Local Government Area, Rivers State) and Okechukwu Ibeh of Umukegwu/Umuopia in Ide Ato Local Government Area, Imo State – had, in an ex-parte motion sought to restrain Saraki and 17 members of the PDP Southsouth Senate Caucus from choosing the Minority Leader outside the provision of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended).

    The plaintiffs contended that the alleged plot by some individuals to make former Akwa Ibom State Governor Godwill Akpabio (a first term Senator) the Senate’s Minority Leader, was in violation of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended).

    Named with Saraki as respondents are Akpabio, Nelson Effiong, Bassey Albert, Emmanuel Paulker, Ogola Foster, Ben Murray Bruce, John Owan Enoh, Gershom Bassey, Rose Oko, James Manager, Peter Nwaoboshi, Ighoyota Amori, Clifford Ordia, Matthew Urhoghide, George Thomson Sekibo, Olaka Nwogu and Osinachukwu Ideozu.

    Ruling yesterday, Justice Kolawole refused the plaintiffs’ prayer for “an order restraining the second to 18 respondents from selecting or appointing the Minority Leader by a procedure in breach of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended) pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

    The judge also refused their request for an “order prohibiting the first respondent from accepting, recognising, announcing or giving effect to the appointment of a Minority Leader of the Senate, whose appointment is in breach of Order 3(2) of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended) pending the determination of the substantive suit.”

    Justice Kolawole, who noted that the plaintiffs were neither members of the Senate nor contestants for the position of Minority Leader, said he could not grant their prayers because they failed to establish the interest they sought to protect.

    He said being members of the PDP from Imo and Rivers states was not sufficient to warrant granting their prayers.

    The judge declined the plaintiffs’ request for the abridgement of time within which the respondents could file their responses to the substantive suit. He also declined to grant accelerated hearing of the main suit.

    Justice Kolawole, however, granted the plaintiffs’ prayer for substituted service of court documents (processes) in relation to the suit through substituted means by media publication. He directed that the processes be published with an enrolled copy of his orders.

    He adjourned to October 5 for mention, but said the case file would be returned to the court’s Chief Judge for reassignment when the court resumes from vacation.

  • Hearing begins in petition against Saraki’s election

    Hearing begins in petition against Saraki’s election

    Hearing at the Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital, began yesterday. The election of Senate President Bukola Saraki of the All Progressives Congress (APC) is being challenged by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Alhaji Abdulrahman Abdulrazaq.

    Saraki represents Kwara Central.

    The petitioner came with a witness, Mallam Oloyin Abdullateef Adebayo, who is his private personal assistant.

    The witness, who was led in evidence by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. John Obumse, was cross-examined by the respondents’ counsel.

    Obumse told the tribunal that he had an application dated June 17, which was filed on June 29 and thus sought adjournment, based on three grounds.

    He said the date of the printout of the card reader to be collected at the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) headquarters in Abuja, meant to be used for the petition, was yet to be obtained.

    The lawyer said Mallam Adebayo was the only witness in court.

    He sought adjournment to move the application. The respondents’ counsel did not object to the motion.

    The tribunal Chairman, Justice Joshua Majebi, adjourned the matter till July 31 for the continuation of hearing of the petition and the hearing of the application filed by the petitioner.