When will they resume? This is the question watchers have been asking since former Senate Leader Ali Ndume and former House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Chair Abdulmumin Jibrin were suspended. Jibrin’s supporters claim he has since served out his suspension, but his colleagues want him to withdraw his case in court before he will be recalled. Their return was the source of heated debate in caucus meetings last week, reports Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu
At the two chambers of the National Assembly and across the country, there is fresh confusion following disagreements over the resumption of former Senate Majority Leader, Senator Ali Ndume, suspended for six months and the former Chairman of House of Representatives Appropriation Committee, Hon Abdulmumin Jibrin, suspended from the Green Chamber for 180 days.
Since lawmakers resumed from their last recess, the cases of the two former principal officers in the two chambers have taken the centre-stage at the various caucus meetings.
Ndume was suspended on March 29, 2017, over allegations he made against the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki and the lawmaker representing Kogi West Senatorial District, Dino Melaye, while Jibrin was suspended on March 29, 2017 over allegations he made against the House leadership.
It would be recalled that Jibrin, in his petition to the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), State Security Services (SSS), and the Police headquarters, had accused the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon Yakubu Dogara, and three other principal officers of padding the 2016 budget.
The other lawmakers he also accused were the Deputy Speaker, Yussuff Lasun; the Chief Whip, Alhassan Ado-Doguwa; and the Minority Leader, Leo Ogor. In the reaction of the legislative chamber to the allegation, Jibrin was suspended for not taking “due process before filing the petition”.
Although their suspensions were described by critics as evidence of lawmakers’ resolve to suppress opposition, it has remained a major subject of debate, especially because of the ripple effects on their constituents, who would not be represented at the federal chambers for such a long period of time. As a result, patriots have called for a review of the suspensions though the affected lawmakers have gone to court to seek justice. They called on the two chambers to consider the effect of the suspension on the affected constituencies.
But up till yesterday, different interest groups could not agree on the fulfilment of the conditions for the return of the law makers and the way they have tackled their various chambers in court, in a bid to fault their suspensions.
Besides the ongoing legal battles, it seems both political observers and the federal lawmakers themselves are not agreed on the actual date the two lawmakers would resume and what would constitute the conditions precedent to their resumption.
It would be recalled that in the middle of September, just before the resumption of the lawmakers from recess, supporters of the suspended member of the House of Representatives for Kiru/Bebeji Federal Constituency of Kano State, Hon. Abdulmumin Jibrin, said he had concluded his 180 days suspension and that he would resume with his colleagues.
The spokesperson of the House, Abdulrazak Namdas, had told newsmen then that such a decision would be taken by the lawmakers when they resume from their recess.
Notwithstanding the assurance, Jibrin’s critics had insisted he could not have concluded his suspension, since the said 180 days refer to 180 legislative days.
According to such critics, “180 legislative sitting days amount to a period of one year as the House only conducts plenary sessions three days in a week.”
Aside the actual meaning of the number of days the suspension would last, another issue that has in a way made reconciliation difficult is the condition that the lawmakers must render apology to their colleagues before he would be allowed to resume.
Controversy over this issue is not particularly new. It started the very day the suspensions were handed down. Shortly after his suspension was announced, Jibrin had told journalists that he would never apologise to anybody in the House, adding that he did nothing wrong.
“For me, it’s a non-issue and complete nonsense and it is not going to stand anywhere in the world,” he had said.
Our investigation shows that this has remained a major stumbling block to the early resolution of the matter as a lawmaker, who confirmed that the matter generated heated debate in one of the caucus meetings, claimed on Friday that if the affected lawmakers had admitted their errors and apologised, the matter would have been resolved differently.
Another matter the lawmaker confided to be a stumbling block is the refusal of the affected lawmakers to withdraw the cases they instituted against their chambers.
It would be recalled that on the case instituted at the court by the embattled Senator Ndume, the court had adjourned judgement to October 13th while Senate leadership had said he is due to resume at the Red Chamber by November 15th with a proviso that he must withdraw the case he instituted against the Senate before he would be allowed to resume, since, according to the lawmakers, he cannot be fighting against the institution he wants to serve in.
Ndume had dragged the upper chamber to court to challenge his suspension, saying it did not go through legal process.
Dr. Francis Omonigho, a political analyst in Lagos, told The Nation on Thursday that the implication of the development is that if the court’s ruling on the matter favours the senator, it will overrule whatever condition the senate leadership has given as the condition for his return, but if the ruling is not favourable to Ndume, his insistence on taking the matter to court may worsen his case.
As the controversy rages, observers said Ndume and Jubrin’s cases remind Nigerians of the hi-wired politics that have been part of the lot of the 8th National Assembly. While some said the two lawmakers represent decent voices being maltreated for daring to speak up against corruption in high places, others wonder why they had to speak up only after they have lost their plum positions.
The argument is if Jibrin, who was Chairman of the Appropriation Committee in the House of Representatives, and Ndume, who was, until January, the Majority Leader of the Senate, would have done what they did or said what they said if political pendulum had remained in their favour.
However, their supporters said the primary issue is not the speculation on what they would have done if they were still occupying the plum positions but what they did, which should be applauded by all as brave effort at furthering the fight against corruption. They argued that the National Assembly leaders, who were accused in the two cases, are only witch-hunting their perceived opponents.
Even before his suspension, Ndume made that allegation. “I have always stood on the side of the truth. Maybe that is why I sometimes run into troubled waters,” he said after he was stripped of his position as the Senate Majority Leader in January.
After the suspension, he remained adamant. Though some lawmakers had said all he needed to do was to apologise, Ndume has continued to vow that he would not apologise to the Senate President Bukola Saraki in order to be reinstated.
He had maintained that his suspension was not just because of his call for his colleagues’ investigation but because of “a series of other events.”
For example, he once told a gathering at the palace of the Emir of Biu that he did not regret what he has done. “I will not remain a Senator for the rest of my life; but for the time I serve as the representative of my people, I shall continue to do and tell the truth. I know if I had erred, I would not have been received here. But I enjoy the support of my people because they know my suspension was because I spoke the truth.”
He explained what he believed was the real reason for his suspension thus: “Firstly, I know my trouble with them started because of my support for the policies and ideals of President Muhammadu Buhari. Secondly, when Ibrahim Magu’s name was brought to the Senate as nominee for the Chairmanship of EFCC, some group in the senate insisted that he would not be cleared. And in my position as the then Senate Majority leader, it was incumbent upon me to support any nominee sent in by the Executive. Besides that, the same nominee is from my state, Borno; besides, he had committed no offence to be denied the senate clearance.
“Above all, the majority of Nigerians loved him because he is doing the job well even as an Acting Chairman of EFCC.
“Thirdly, when he was brought in for screening and it was not successful, I took courage to tell them that they were acting out of the Senate order.
“And lastly, my position on the allegation levelled on the Senate President as well as the issue of Senator Dino’s certificate by a news medium was the final straw they needed to break the camel’s back.”
Whatever is the real cause of the suspension of the two lawmakers, observers are of the view that such an action must affect their constituents negatively. They therefore demand for immediate resolution of the matter in the interest of democracy.
