Tag:

National Assembly

Why Section 84(12) of Electoral Act 2022 scares Nigeria politicians

by Leading Reporters April 1, 2022

written by Leading Reporters

On March 18, 2022, a Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia Abia State, declared Section 84(12) of the newly amended Electoral Act, 2022 as illegal and a violation of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

The judge, Justice Evelyn Anyadike in her ruling, held that Sections 66(1)(f); 107(1)(f); 137(1)(g); and 182(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution already stated that appointees of government seeking to contest elections were only to resign at least 30 days to the date of the election and that any other law that mandated such appointees to resign or leave office at any time before that, was unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void to the extent of its inconsistency to the clear provisions of the Constitution.

In view of this, she directed that Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 be struck down as it cannot stand when it is in violation of the clear provisions of the Constitution.

Recall that President Muhammadu Buhari signed into law the Electoral Act on February 25, 2022. But on March 1, Mr. Buhari wrote a letter to both chambers of the National Assembly requesting them to delete Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act.

Prior to his letter to the National Assembly, Mr Buhari had expressed his dissatisfaction with that particular section of the Electoral Act. He stated this emphatically on the day he signed the Bill into law, noting that the Section constitutes a fundamental defect, as it is in conflict with extant constitutional provisions.

What Exactly is in Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act?

This particular Section of the Electoral Act states that “No political appointees at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the Convention or Congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election”.

What this means in simple terms is that a political appointee (like ministers, commissioners, special advisers, personal assistants, etc), be it at the federal or state level is not allowed to be a voting delegate or be voted for in a political party primary. And since such an individual was not allowed by the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act to be a delegate or be voted for in the political party’s primaries, thus, he/she cannot be a candidate for an election.

The only way such an individual would be a candidate is if he/she resigns before the party’s primaries, and political parties are mandated by Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act to conduct their primaries and submit the list of candidates at least 180 days (i.e 6 months) before the date appointed for a general election.

In a situation where a political party fails to comply with Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, subsection 13 of the same Section states that the political party’s candidate shall not be included in the election for the particular position the candidate has filled in for.

Perhaps because there are reports of some political appointees in this current administration intending to vie for some political positions in the upcoming general elections, or that political appointees have historically contested elections while holding their positions or intend to continue to do so, there have been several debates or push for Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act to be deleted, relying on the provisions of the 1999 Constitution which Justice Anyadike, the Judge of the Federal High Court in Umuahia, Abia State also relied upon in her ruling.

What the Provisions of the Constitution say About Appointees of Government Seeking to Contest Elections

While delivering her judgment, Justice Anyadike cited 4 Sections in the 1999 Constitution. Here’s what each Section says.

According to Section 66(1)f of the Constitution, (1) no person shall be qualified for election to the Senate or the House of Representatives (f) if he is a person employed in the public service of the Federation or of any State and has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from such employment 30 days before the date of the election.

Section 107(1)f states that (1) “No person shall be qualified for election to a House of Assembly (f) if he is a person employed in the public service of the Federation or of any State and he has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from such employment thirty days before the date of election”.

Sections 137(1)g and Section 182(1)g make reference to individuals who want to contest for election to the office of President and Governor, respectively.

Section 137(1)g says that such a person (i.e the individual contesting for the office of the President) is not qualified if he/she is a person employed in the civil or public service of the Federation or of any State, and he/she has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from the employment at least thirty days before the date of the election.

Section 182(1)g is for individuals who want to run for the office of the Governor of any state. It states that “No person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if – being a person employed in the public service of the Federation or of any State, he has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from the employment at least thirty days to the date of the election”.

It was based on these provisions of the 1999 Constitution that the Judge of the Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia directed that Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 be struck down. The judgment has however been met with mixed reactions and has generated debates among legal practitioners.

On the Umuahia High Court Judgment

Ariyo-Dare Atoye, the Executive Director of Adopt a Goal Initiative (AGI) and one of the frontliners in the push for the Electoral Act to be signed into law told us that the National Assembly acted rightly on Section 84(12). “Political appointees give the Executive arm an undue advantage during party conventions and congresses for elective office. Political appointees seeking elective office deny other aspirants a level playing field if they remain in the office during the primaries”, he said.

According to Atayo, Sections 66(1)f; 107(1)f; 137(1)g; and 182(1)g of the 1999 Constitution which the judge cited in her judgment did not cover political appointees because they are not public servants.

Mr Atoye explained that “there are a plethora of cases in which the status of a public servant has been defined. One of the cases is that of ADAMU V. TAKORI (2010) ALL FWLR (P. 540) 1387 C.A”. The Court of Appeal held that a political appointee like the Attorney-General is not a public servant employed in the service of the federation or of a state and is therefore not covered by Section 318(1) of the Constitution”.

He reiterated that political appointees are not public servants that they exist at the pleasure of the appointors who can hire and fire without recourse to the public service rule which is not the case for a public servant, as the Executive cannot fire a public servant without going through the laid down procedure in the Public Service Book.

Mr Atoye further explained that by global convention, once political appointees are interested in public office, they resign immediately before the party’s timetable is out.

He stated that the matter the judgment on Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act will not stop at the outcome of the “forum shopping” in Abia State, and therefore advised that all political appointees who are seeking to contest their party primaries should not ignore the provisions of Section 84(12) until the Supreme Court has settled the matter.

Meanwhile, yesterday, the House of Representatives and Senate stated that they will appeal the judgment of the Federal High Court, Umuahia asking the Attorney-General to delete Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

April 1, 2022 0 comments

Buhari and his National Assembly friends

by Leading Reporters February 20, 2022

written by Leading Reporters

By Tonnie Iredia

Mutual distrust and suspicion between the Saraki-led 8th National Assembly and the Buhari-led Executive arm of government was an open secret.

However, the problem did not begin with delayed passage of annual budgets as some people tended to amplify; it was there from the very beginning because Bukola Saraki, the then Senate President and Yakubu Dogara, Speaker of the House of Representatives got into office against the arrangement of their party, the All Progressives Congress APC. If the 8th National Assembly was recalcitrant, the APC and the Presidency did much to hurt the leadership of the legislature. The case against Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal and the refusal of the Senate to clear certain presidential nominees for critical political offices and many other antagonistic acts were all perceived as part of the cat and rat game which characterized the era. It was obviously not the best environment for good governance and President Muhammadu Buhari never missed any opportunity to denounce the development. Indeed, it was not a conducive option for attaining national development which the different of arms of government must be collaboratively committed to.

The end of tenure of the 8th Assembly presented to a reelected President an opportunity to ensure that the rancour of the last 4 years did not recur. So, the reelected ruling APC stringently avoided the elements that prompted the unnecessary bitterness of the past. The leadership of the National Assembly had greater personal reasons to act as good party members. The new Senate President Ahmad Lawan and his colleague in the House of Representatives Femi Gbajabiamila, were the same two party members previously anointed for their jobs which were overturned. They were thus not positioned to exhibit any headstrong signs. It was therefore a good beginning for both arms of government. The lack of understanding of this background was what made some analysts to express apprehension over a likely rubberstamp legislature – an apprehension exacerbated by the publicized manifesto of the leadership of the legislature as a team prepared to support anything from the Presidency.

The current National Assembly has understandably been run like what may go down in history as the most cooperative relationship with the Presidency in Nigeria. But how genuine is this friendship between both arms? This question is relevant because while many see the National Assembly as malleable, others suspect the deliberate underdog position as a ploy to insulate its members from public scrutiny of hidden illicit gains. None of the two elements can help the country’s growth because a positive aspect of the separation of powers is the opportunity the design gives to all arms of government to function together in the interest of the people. In other words, wherever one arm goes wrong should be corrected by the other; none should by commission or omission facilitate the perpetuation of any wrong by the other. This may not be easy to attain as both parties may not wish to roughen the feathers of the other even where the silence hurts society.

The 2022 Budget and the Electoral Act Amendment Bill have however left gaps for criticisms of a supposed cooperative relationship between arms of government that is hardly beneficial to the public. At the signing of this year’s budget into law, President Muhammadu Buhari was constrained to deprecate what he called “worrisome changes” to the budget by the National Assembly. We disagree with those who misunderstood the President as envisaging a situation where the legislature would pass the budget without ensuring that it would facilitate good governance. What should bother anyone is the scope of the changes whose numerical strength could derail governance. As Buhari disclosed, as many as 6,576 new items (not previously discussed behind closed doors by the two arms) were suddenly inserted into the budget as if it was a very poorly written report by a junior staff which his supervisor had to virtually rewrite.

The President does not appear to be the only one who is worried, BudgIT, a foremost civic-tech organization engaged in the advocacy for fiscal transparency and public accountability in Nigeria has explicitly expressed greater worries on behalf of many. From BudgIT we are able to learn that there are 460 duplicated items amounting to N378.9billion in budget 2022. Worse still is that several projects were inexplicably assigned to Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). For example, the National Agency for Great Green Wall, set up to prevent land degradation and desertification afflicting parts of the country is to get N1.3 billion for purchasing motorcycles, street lights and other projects which are outside its mandate. The Ministry of Environment, which is not a security agency reportedly has N67.8million to construct ‘Gun Armouries.’ This trend ought to worry any well-meaning Nigerian more so as this is not the first time of its occurrence in our budgets. Last year, as many as 316 duplicated projects were inserted into the 2021 Budget approved by the National Assembly.

The point must be made again that the ample time which our legislature spends on scrutinizing the budget is commendable because that is more likely to bring out the best of the budget. Interestingly, they do not appear to subject the request for loans by the executive to the same type of scrutiny. This is particularly curious because despite the very loud public disapproval of the numerous loans incurred by this government, none of the requests for loans is ever rejected and no changes are ever made either to the amount needed or the nature of its components. Yet, the National Assembly is made up of the same professionals of different academic and occupational backgrounds who always pick holes in budget estimates. Could it be that the Executive arm is never able to deploy the same expertise it puts into working on loans into the preparation of budgets or are presidential liaison officers not the same for budgets and loans?

The absence of a unity of direction between the Presidency and the National Assembly on the subject of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill is even more complicated. The refusal of the President to assent to the bill because of its anti-democratic feature of disallowing our political parties from having options of primary election modes cannot be faulted. But it is obvious that some legislators may have felt bad because as friends who speedily approve executive requests, Buhari should have also reciprocated by accepting the wishes of his friends to reduce the powers of governors. But then by refraining from perpetuating what is wrong, the President taught his friends a huge lesson that it makes more sense for a leader to support his friends only when their viewpoint will not hurt the public. Whereas legislators who are lawyers are fully aware that a law which is targeted at a specified group is bad law, both themselves and their other colleagues who are not learned should hereafter realize that to blindly support a friend can be injurious to both a policy and many innocent persons involved in the process.

Accordingly, our legislators who are mandated to ensure that nominees to certain public offices are fit and proper persons should stop the ‘bow and go’ contrived scheme which allows nominees with poor baggage to assume offices. The power to screen a person for an office, as we have always argued in this column, cannot be logically extended to include the power to exempt some from screening. If the Presidency nominates people for offices, the constitution requires the senate to reject those who are unfit such as partisan politicians nominated to the electoral body because the contrary would amount to perpetuation of wrong and would in turn hurt the electoral process. As President Buhari is currently struggling to reduce both our numerous institutions and government’s inability to meet University teachers’ requirements, this is not the time for friends in the legislature to be making fresh laws to create more institutions. People must learn to support their friends in office to end well.

Tonnie Iredia
February 20, 2022.

February 20, 2022 0 comments

Headlines

Tension in NASS over Plot to Remove Acting Senate Clerk

by Folarin Kehinde February 18, 2022

written by Folarin Kehinde

Crisis seems to be brewing in the National Assembly over appointment of substantive clerk of the Senate.

Some staff members of the National Assembly have threatened to embark on another round of protest over what they described as attempt to play politics with appointment of Senate clerk.

Some staff members, it was learnt, have raised alarm over attempt by the National Assembly Service Commission (NASC) to deny one of its most experienced and senior legislative staff the position of a substantive clerk of the senate.

They have, however, warned NASC against using the issue of gender to drop the acting Senate clerk, Isabella Ugochi Iloba for a male person despite her experience and competence.

This growing concerns is informed by the commission’s resolve to get a replacement for Iloba, who currently is holding forth in the office of clerk of the Senate.

The group of legislative workers noted that a situation where one of the most senior and experienced legislative staff is about to be denied the position on very irrelevant and parochial excuses is most unfortunate.

Some queried why should her gender be a prerequisite for her qualification as clerk Senate?

“She rose through the ranks to get to her present position,she should be supported and encouraged.

“Similarly, the issue of allowing two people occupying top shot positions from the same zone should be jettison particularly at a time and age like this.” The workers noted.

They posited that that legislative precedence showed that there was nothing wrong in allowing her to be Senate clerk even if she is from the same geo political zone with the clerk of the House of Representatives.

A source said: “What happened when, Ibrahim Salim and Nasir Arab from the same zone, (North West,); Abubakar Salisu Maikasuwa and Sani Omolori, (North Central,) or is it Nelson Ayewoh and Patrick Giwa who were from the same state and zone? Isabella coming from the same zone as Chinedu Akubueze who is clerk House of Representatives, shouldn’t be treated differently from others especially when they both got it based on merit and career progression,.”

They however, called on the National Assembly Service Commission to resist any divisive and retrogressive move and ensure that the right thing is done.

They should be seen to be promoting reward for service and performance rather than petty issues that may hunt them in time to come.,” they said.

February 18, 2022 0 comments

Headlines

Crisis Rocks Senate as Sacked Clerk Defies Order, Performs Duty at Plenary

by Leading Reporters February 15, 2022

written by Leading Reporters

El-Ladan was retired by the National Assembly Service Commission (NASC) last week for alleged forgery of documents and age falsification.

Members of the Senate on Monday watched with shock and disbelief when the Senate President Ahmad Lawan, allowed the sacked Clerk of the red chamber, Ibrahim El-Ladan, to perform his official duties.

El-Ladan and two other permanent secretaries have been accused of forgery and age falsification, a situation that earned them sanctions from the NASC.

The commission had ordered El-Ladan and another officer, Adebayo Anthony Adebanjo, to proceed on retirement with immediate effect, while Michael Okpara should retire in six months.

Isabella Ugochi Iloba was appointed by the NASC as acting Clerk to the Senate to take over from El-Ladan.

The letter obtained by us on Tuesday and dated February 9, 2022, is with reference number NASC/PF/69/184.

It was titled: ‘Retirement from service’ and addressed to the Clerk to Senate, Dauda Ibrahim El-Ladan.

Part of the letter read: “The Commission at its 547th meeting held on Wednesday, 9th February, 2022, has approved your retirement from service with effect from 9th February, 2022.

“The Commission wishes to acknowledge your immense contribution to the growth and development of the National Assembly Service.

“As you proceed on retirement, please hand over your office and other government property in your possession to the Deputy Clerk, Senate (Legislative), Ilobah Isabella Ugochi.

“On behalf of the Commission, I pray that Almighty God will continue to grant you good health and success in your future endeavours.”

The letter was signed on behalf of the Executive Chairman of the NASC, Ahmed Kadi Amshi.

However, El-Ladan carried out his official assignment in the Senate Chambers on Tuesday unhindered.

Attempts to get the reaction of the NASC on the matter failed on Tuesday, as the Director of Information of the agency, Mrs Janet Mambula, did not answer repeated calls made to her phone.

She had not replied the text message sent to her as of the time of filing this report.

February 15, 2022 0 comments

Headlines

Northern coalition advocates S/East’s speedy exit from Nigeria

by Leading Reporters October 26, 2021

written by Leading Reporters

Some members of the Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG) have approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking it to order the National Assembly to ensure the exit of the South East from Nigeria.

The members said the exit could be made before the conclusion of the ongoing constitutional amendment.

The plaintiffs, led by Nastura Ashir Shariff, Balarabe Rufa’I, Abdul-Aziz Sulaiman and Aminu Adam, explained that their action is informed on the need to curtail violence and destruction as a result of the agitation for secession championed by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

They noted that they are strongly against a repeat of the 1967 to 1970 civil war in Nigeria that cost the country millions of lives and property worth billions of naira.

The Attorney General of the Federation, the Senate president, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the National Assembly were listed as defendants in the suit.

IPOB, led by Nnamdi Kanu, has been agitating for self-determination. They claim marginalisation by the government is their main driving force, insisting that a referendum is conducted.

Kanu was last week sent back to the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) after his plea to be sent to the Kuje Correctional Centre was turned down at the Abuja Federal High Court. He was repatriated to Nigeria from Kenya, where he was rearrested after jumping bail to flee Nigeria in 2017. He claimed the Nigerian military had laid siege to his home in a bid to kill him.

October 26, 2021 0 comments

Headlines

Continuous Borrowing will Mortgage our Future – PRP

by Folarin Kehinde October 9, 2021

written by Folarin Kehinde

The National Chairman, Peoples Redemption Party, (PRP) Falalu Bello has said that the continuous borrowing of money to fund budget and implement infrastructure deficit is tantamount to mortaging the future of Nigerians.

Falalu while speaking over the weekend at a press briefing in Abuja stated that continuous borrowing in the face of reduction in revenue earnings is wrong and akin to mortaging the Nigerian future particularly to the foreign lenders thus, gradually again taking the Nigerian Nation and future into servitude.

According to Falalu, Nigeria’s public debt stock in the 5 years has increased by 161% with total debt at N35.5 trillion with debt servicing at N3.34 trillion, a very serious and dangerous trend.

Similarly, Falalu expressed disappointment over the huge cost of governance stated that it was wrong to spend 35% of the of the 2020 budget on wage bill and suggested that cost of running governments at the federal level be drastically reduced.

Falalu opined that there should be reduction in the executive arm of government at all levels inclusive of the presidency, reducing the unacceptable debt profiles of the federal and some state governments putting pressure on revenues on debt servicing while
MDAs with duplicative functions should be merged.

He however appeal to the National Assembly to stop these further borrowing and ensure that the executive show to us the immediate use of past borrowings, how the government intend to service these debits and what steps are being taken to increase foreign exchange earnings of the nation with room for growth and meaningful exchange rate as servicing of foreign debts is done in foreign currencies.

In order to achieve these, Falalu noted that the party will through the Nigerian Press ask Nigerians to start a text protest to members of the House of Representatives and the Senators by asking the Nigerian Youth to reach out to leadership of House of Representatives and Senate as well as the members representing them to protest increase in borrowings and request the reject current additional borrowing.

October 9, 2021 0 comments

Headlines Opinion

The cost of toying with insecurity.

by Leading Reporters May 14, 2021

written by Leading Reporters

Security or the lack of it is a very serious issue. In Nigeria, neither the government nor the people are doing anything about the bourgeoning insecurity beyond the usual condemnation.

The National Assembly is making permutations for the next round of elections in 2023. Remi Tinubu for instance, is already seeing herself in the seat of the first lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Her desperate ambition would make her dismiss anyone who dares speak against the chaos in the land as a wailing opposition member. Her husband is no better either.

Tinubu of the ‘where are the cows’ fame sees the presidency as his legal right, and whatever hurdle in his way must be removed, even if it is the entire south west. If he has to rule over the ashes of a burned down Nigeria, so be it.

Muhammadu Buhari, the president of Nigeria is laid back. He watches as the conflagration continues to consume the country. One cannot tell whether he is incapable or unwilling to arrest the situation. He is just there, managed by abusive, ambitious and arrogant sycophants such as Femi Adesina and Garba Shehu. These two unprofessionally dish out statements that ought to be heard at peppersoup joints as ‘presidential’ position on sensitive issues of security.

The People’s Democratic Party, Nigeria’s main opposition party is still trying to reconcile itself to the fact that it is not a non-government organisation but a political party whose major concern ought to be putting the monstrously chaotic APC on its toes. The PDP is still weeping from behind its secretary’s keypad, typing absolutely boring press statements that ordinary Nigerians are too hungry to read.

The people are more likely to be worse that all the political stakeholders mentioned above. They sit in the market, in the buses, in beer parlours, church fellowships, jumaat services and their village meetings talking in hushed tones about the unfolding carnage but none has the balls to join Sowore, Adeyanju and Aisha Yesufu in protesting.

So, we allow the marauders to go on rampage unabated. They kill, maim, rape, close down schools, destroy economies, scare people from the farms and do as they please. To make matters worse, the fear of the kidnappers and killers has caused schools to close down.

Recently, we heard that the horde of killers are converging on Abuja. And the army had taken steps to form a ring around the Villa, NNPC and the barracks. This sends only one signal to the vulnerable people: you are on your own. Veritas University and other schools around Abuja hurriedly closed down and students sent home.

No one is taking time to analyse the implications of these now until we appear in other countries after ten years from now and being to act like people from the stone age. The implications are too far reaching to be over emphasized. One of the results of this enchanted complacency and docility is that we are going to have to triple our efforts to catch up, if we ever will, with other countries in terms of technology and development, after Buhari’s reign of anachronism. Forget the joke about a certain Digital Economy. We know that we are opposite of being digital.

Microsoft and the Federal Government have decided to partner in the interest of the masses. According to reports, the partnership is to create thousands of direct jobs and hundreds of thousands of downline jobs. This is a very good initiative. It is quite commendable that the government is this thoughtful. But would Microsoft set up their office in a country where the president begs terrorists to release their victims? Would they endanger the lives of their staff to send them here only to be kidnapped? Would they take the most unreasonable risk of setting up an office with multimillion dollar equipment only to be bombed to ashes by a bad of pampered terrorists who would be arrested and rewarded?

Already, we have a very archaic educational system that churns out misfits for the evolving manpower demand. Then we are closing schools. In a decade from now, there would be a yawning human resources gap in Nigeria. We would have to import expertise and even mid level know how to man sensitive positions, leading to huge financial haemorrhage from an already pauperised economy.

Unless the next administration is manned by a learned, committed, patriotic and technocratic leader, the country is going to be so broke that citizens would migrate to hitherto poorer countries.

Another major consequence would be the already glaring famine. Given that bandits, herdsmen and Boko Haram have combined to kill farmers and farming in Nigeria, food supply has declined internally. Then the government has decided to block food importation. The only option left is to scramble for the little that’s within the country at very exorbitant prices. This is inflation. Now, the government is pronouncing itself broke. It is going to cut salaries but not that of the legislature and executive. Theirs is sacrosanct. The masses who form the bulk of everyday transactions are being rendered powerless. It can only mean one thing. Increased prices and inadequate purchasing power. A trader can’t sell below his cost price, and the buyer cannot buy at his new price. That’s a dilemma.

Another foreseeable problem is brain drain. We must not kid ourselves, many people are running out of this country daily. Forget Lai Mohammed’s tantrums. The country is emptying its best into other countries. Doctors, engineers and other professionals are all running away from a collapsing Nigeria. After spending decades studying in Nigeria’s excruciating education climate, no one would wait for an unlettered member of a rag tag army of Boko Haram to waste him. The best is to run away.

The next president of Nigeria has a lot of work on his hands in an attempt to lift Nigeria out of the current abyss it has found itself in. And we all have a job on our hands before we begin to look up to Benin republic for regional leadership.

The time to salvage our country is now. We must all stand up to be counted.

To be continued.

Alex Agbo,

Writer, researcher and public policy analyst writes from Lagos.

May 14, 2021 0 comments

Headlines Opinion

It Is Time For Legislators To Extend Their Oversight visit To Sambisa

by Leading Reporters May 14, 2021

written by Leading Reporters

Last Thursday, I was slightly amused listening to Senate President, Ahmed Lawan pouring encomiums on the service chiefs of Nigeria’s military.

When the report by the broadcast media on the event started playing, I had thought it was a valedictory session where some war veterans were taking a well-deserved bow. But when it became clearer that the day’s celebrants were the General Lucky Irabor led new service chiefs, I had to put off my initial doubt to watch more closely to find that the colorful reception by the Senate for the team was real and that it departed substantially from the old familiar song whose chorus was that no one knows into what use the military had put the huge resources appropriated and allegedly received by them.

It was as if the Senate had just discovered how well the funds had been meaningfully utilized. If so, what was the source of the new information? I mean was it credible evidence obtained from oversight function? I just hope the Senate’s position was not informed by the predictions of any of our vision-seeing members of the clergy!

Whatever the source, one thing which is certain, is that no one can blame a television viewer for being cynical; after all, the general narrative on ground has been one of despondence in which the public had been made to believe that funds meant for the military were usually diverted by the top hierarchy leaving nothing for the troops to prosecute the insurgency war.

Indeed, when the last service chiefs left office, there were reports of jubilation in military circles especially at the war front which tended to validate the rumour that military funds were truly misappropriated. Although there were official attempts to clarify the statement credited to the National Security Adviser NSA that weapons and equipment that should have been bought were not bought, the general feeling which subsisted was that the funds were missing. There was in fact the allegation by the International foundation against corruption that about N10.02 trillion spent on the security sector in Nigeria has had no audit report from 2015 till today.

So, why was the Senate President presenting a vote of thanks in favour of the military? Could it be that the legislature suddenly discovered that the military leaders were innocent of all charges against them and that the funds reportedly appropriated for the military never got to them? I found that slightly hard to believe because Zainab Ahmed, our Minister of finance, budget and national planning who should know, had confirmed two days earlier, that all the funds were released. The Minister spoke at an interactive session with members of the Senate Committee on the Army.

She also asserted that apart from funding the budget of the army almost 100 per cent, there had been a lot of instances where the security leaders went to the president, got special approvals and still got the funds. Interestingly, the Chairman of the same committee, Senator Alli Ndume had continuously complained that funds for the Army were not received by the Army. How then, can one understand our insurgency fight where the appropriation, delivery and receipt of the resources for the fight are turned into a story of several versions?

This confusion would not have arisen if oversight functions are implemented creditably in Nigeria. But painfully they are not. Elsewhere, what touches a nation most is the concern of all; in which case, Nigerians should have been mobilized by government to focus on our current major problem which incidentally concerns the security and welfare of the people. The legislature represented by her several committees on the military should have designed a monitoring framework covering when a request is made by the military, when it is approved, when it is dispatched, when it is received and how it is spent.

We ought not to have subjected our military to the distraction of spending much time pursuing approved funds. In other words, a team of legislators should have since been stationed in Sambisa by way of symbolically carrying supervision to the very point of assignment as they do, all the time, especially with lucrative agencies such as the NNPC. If that had been done, the new service chiefs would not have, on assumption of duty and indeed before settling in, be called to account for purchases made by their predecessors. Why was there no oversight at the appropriate time?

Honestly, oversight functions by the legislature have in the last one year dropped significantly. In August 2020, thirty-nine (39) Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) issued a joint statement accusing the National Assembly of not only a drop in her oversight functions but a general lack of commitment to duty. The CSOs arrived at this conclusion after a study of the performance of the lawmakers for the legislative year beginning from June 2019 to July 2020 in which they found that the legislators sat for only 149 days instead of the 181 days prescribed by the constitution. This may have been caused by the propensity of the legislators to enjoy several holidays and adjournments. For example, although all other public sector services had only two days declared as public holidays last month for Easter, the legislators were away for the same festivity for three weeks.

They have in the last three days already begun their own Sallah holidays, yet to be officially declared by government and they are not expected back till May 18th. We therefore agree with the CSOs that there ought not to be a drop in legislative activities by the National Assembly at a time when its role has become more critical than ever before, in joining the Executive to find solutions to the unprecedented challenges currently facing the country.

We also believe that our legislators should revive their mechanism for their constitutionally approved oversight functions provided, they remove from it, the tendency to commercialize the subject. The old order whereby legislators blackmailed some Ministries, Departments and Agencies into settling their travelling costs etc. must be halted. In addition, there is the need for the legislature to always get to the logical end of every investigation. Not many were pleased for instance, with how the allegations made publicly that NDDC contracts were cornered by legislators was swept under the carpet.

This attitude has always adversely affected public expectations whenever the legislature jumps into every matter as if nothing must go past them without their input. The posture no doubt has a fair share in the failure of Nigeria to have strong institutions. When for example, there is some emergency in any part of the country, and the very next day the legislature passes a resolution ‘directing’ NEMA to help the victims of the occurrence, it suggests that the entity has no capacity to independently face its mandate. It also removes from them, personal initiative and discretion. Such interventions are only rational in cases where the resolution was provoked by transparent lethargy on the part of the relevant societal institution.

It is worse when the legislature disrupts the schedule of duties of public bodies through incessant summoning of chief executives who are never allowed in what looks like ‘a show of ego’ to delegate their appearance. It is particularly offensive when it is done to the military that should be encouraged to completely face the nation’s current difficulty of incessant killings in several parts of the country.

By Tonnie Iredia

May 14, 2021 0 comments

Opinion

National Assembly should avoid distracting the military

by Leading Reporters March 30, 2021

written by Leading Reporters

Tonnie Iredia

Section 89 of the 1999 Constitution, provides that the National Assembly can summon ANY person in Nigeria to give evidence before it over any matter that the Assembly can enact legislation.

Although what the provision on its face value confers on our legislators is huge power, a few knowledgeable persons in the polity have argued that there are people that cannot be summoned by the legislature. One of those cited to have such privilege is President Muhammadu Buhari.

According to Abubakar Malami, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, a plan by the National Assembly to summon the President over security issues was wrong because “the management and control of the security sector is exclusively vested in the President.” Those who didn’t agree with Malami had their points but what much can the legislature do to a President or indeed a state governor who can shun an invitation and get away with it by virtue of their constitutional immunity?

It was also canvassed that in certain cases, the National Assembly could not summon a Minister. A former Minister of Petroleum, Mrs. Diezani Allison Madueke, once told a court that both the Senate and the House of Representatives were required by law to first obtain the President’s consent before they could validly summon her.

To back her claim, she cited Sections 88 and 89 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999, as amended and Section 8 of the Legislatives Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap. L12 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010. Veteran constitutional lawyer, Itse Sagay had similarly opined that not being a civil servant or a member of any commission, he was outside the group that the legislature could summon.

The cases cited above were however never fully tested to ascertain the true position of the law as Sagay, Madueke and the President did not appear before the legislature. In fact, some other Nigerians successfully shunned summons from the legislature without repercussions.

But beyond legal arguments, it is rational to accord the legislature such powers to enable her gather ample data to make or amend laws; and to expose “corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of laws or the disbursement of funds appropriated for it.” If so, what encourages some citizens to think they can ignore our National Assembly? The reasons are many but one of them has to do with the conduct of some of our legislators.

Such law-makers usually depicted much of ego chasing with their summons – a posture which tended to imply that the summons were deployed just to establish the superiority of the legislature over other bodies. Sadly the summons often disrupted organized schedules in other segments of government because the legislators would insist that office holders must put off whatever they were engaged with to personally answer any legislative summons. Who says such summons are more useful to society than the functions they forcibly disrupt?

The more unacceptable aspect of the rather combative summons is that which discountenances the usefulness of delegation of duties. Why would legislators insist that only the chief executive of an organization can appear before them? Is it offensive for a deputy to deputize for his boss who is unable to break-off from a prior commitment? Interestingly, on many occasions, we see principal officers of the National Assembly representing the Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at functions.

If that is allowable in the legislature, does it mean that the principle of delegation of duties is in order only when employed in the legislature? Of course, that is not true because the principle is permissible worldwide. Thus when applied to the Nigerian Army, it is not out of place for Major General Charles Ofoche, Commandant of the Nigerian Army War College, to represent the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen, Ibrahim Attahiru at a crucial meeting. As a result, the anger expressed on national television the other day by the ad hoc committee auditing arms and ammunition procured by the military only because the Army Chief was represented by Ofoche was unnecessary.

Both the Legislature and the Military are partners in the task of national development- none should derogate from the other. Both have different strategies of doing their jobs and the nature of each ought to be appreciated by the other. While the job of legislators especially in Nigeria is laced with pleasure, that of our armed forces is lined with harsh conditions. That seems to explain why Nigerian legislators have the leisure of functioning as armchair censors.

Last week, they began a 3-week holiday to mark the Easter season while other public officers, are yet to begin their only two days’ break. Our military on the other hand, may find themselves paying the supreme sacrifice on Easter Sunday making even a one-minute break impossible. What this implies is that because the job schedule of the military is exceedingly tasking and markedly different from that of legislators, the latter ought to help the former by ensuring that nothing is done to disrupt their job strategies.

Asking General Attahiru to give priority to a chat with the legislature over and above his tactical schedule of understanding the state of affairs within the first few weeks of assuming duty is to our mind a distraction. This is more so, when the issue agitating the legislators was handled by former military leaders that the same law-makers had just given a clean bill of health through a fast clearance to become ambassadors.

Our premise is that if the relevant committee of the legislature had done an effective oversight through proper monitoring of the arms purchase business, what the nation is looking for now would have been easier to uncover before Attahiru took office. Instead, the immediate past service chiefs that the entire nation including legislators appeared dissatisfied with were hurriedly cleared without being tasked on accountability. Such attitude of ‘wisdom after event’ is to our mind shadow chasing.

At the beginning of the tenure of the current service chiefs, President Buhari gave them a tough order to end insurgency before the rainy season which was some 5 weeks away. The team led by the Chief of Defence Staff; Gen. Leo Irabor offered assurances that they would deliver. Many Nigerians particularly those in the North East were happy with the officers who had previously acquitted themselves creditably in their assignment in the fight to end insurgency.

With such commendable track record, admonishing them at a point when all their attention is focused on routing out the insurgents could be counter-productive. The expectation of the military from the rest of us is not a reproach but the provisioning of non- kinetic strategies that can push the war effort to success.

The National Assembly should therefore seek to boost the morale of our armed forces by mobilizing the entire nation to prioritize the fight against insurgency. It would be a different result, if as it is now, the nation’s political leadership remains more pre-occupied with the politics of 2023 such as organizing defections and compiling membership register by the ruling party and political engineering efforts by the main opposition party to regain power.

We must all learn to avoid distracting the military from the current All-important task of bringing peace back to Nigeria.

March 30, 2021 0 comments

Opinion

Nigeria’s Minimum Wage: Labour has a point

by Leading Reporters March 14, 2021

written by Leading Reporters

By Tonnie Iredia

Last Wednesday, state capitals across Nigeria witnessed protests by members of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) against the plan to remove the country’s minimum wage from her Exclusive Legislative List.

Expectedly, several elite voices have since condemned Labour on the subject. While some, such as governors elected on the platform of the ruling All Progressives Congress APC, faulted the approach of the workers, others have described the protests as an attempt to stop the legislature from doing its work.

No one appears to remember that the National Assembly from where the bill was initiated is expected to consist of the people’s representatives whose primary obligation is to be on the side of the people. If so, which people in Nigeria requested their representatives to help them remove the minimum wage item from the exclusive legislative list or who are the legislators helping?

Opposition against the bill can hardly be surmounted. Already, many state legislators who addressed the workers’ protest last week expressed support for Labour making the reasoning of those in support of the removal to be unclear to everyone. It is argued that because some poor states may not be able to pay what others can afford, each state should have power to negotiate directly with its workers.

The argument is comical because a national minimum wage is supposed to be a figure that every state can pay; leaving more viable states with the option to pay far more than the barest minimum. In which case, is it not rational to leave the determination of such a benchmark to a central, neutral level? Against this backdrop, one is persuaded to agree with Labour that perhaps those against our apex workers’ union are yet to understand the ordinary meaning of ‘minimum’ as a term.

Why can’t Nigeria determine the least pay for her citizens in every part of the country? After all, the United States that our people constantly cite probably because our constitution is modelled after theirs has a national minimum wage. At the last count, no less than 29 American states had set their own minimum wages above the federal figure.

With respect to the reasonableness of the decision of Labour to organize protests against the bill which seeks to reorder the status of the minimum wage, one is tempted to conclude that our leaders are probably unable to appreciate that protests are legitimate and that they are covered by law in our country and elsewhere.

A peep at sections 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the Nigerian Constitution would reveal a combined effect of a fundamental human right of the people to assemble with like-minds to voice out their displeasure, disappointments and indeed their support for a policy. It is therefore unfair to echo the rather old-fashioned perspective in many parts of the country that persons who engage in protests are either unpatriotic or anti-establishment. It is hoped that this unprogressive stance will wear out soon, so that our nation is not dispossessed of what it takes to move side by side with other enlightened societies.

There is also nothing new or strange about the decision of Labour to protest. Perhaps some people would have preferred the option of dialogue, which at this point makes little sense in view of the long-drawn out dialogue which preceded the determination of the current minimum wage of N30, 000 that was done by Labour, Government at Federal and State Levels and the Private Sector. Six governors, one per geopolitical zone represented the states. The figure was negotiated over and over again and agreed upon before it was made into law. Labour imagines that it is states who have since breached the law that are now seeking a new path through a bill that removes the subject from the Exclusive Legislative list.

One would have thought that having reached a consensus earlier within the tenure of our current President, the determined minimum wage should have been allowed to work instead of looking for ways to thwart an agreement. Besides, we need to give peace medals to the current labour leaders who have not towed the path of their aggressive predecessors that harassed previous administrations on the same issues that are still begging for solution today.

We honestly cannot blame Labour now because many of the issues they have raised are not being tackled. For instance, Labour says minimum wage is a global phenomenon about which Nigeria should not seek to be an island on its own. They contend that the issue of a national minimum wage in the Exclusive Legislative List was settled as far back as June 16, 1961 when Nigeria joined other Sovereign nations to ratify the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 26 which prioritized the subject.

Another important point that has remained ignored is the issue of what happens to the informal sector when the minimum wage is put in disarray. Who will fix the minimum wage for the private sector and our numerous unskilled workers? In addition, if it is unfair for workers to earn same wages in different states that are not equally endowed, is it fair for governors of poor states to be equally remunerated with governors of more viable states? Would it not have been more palatable if the need to readjust wages began with our leaders who should lead by example?

The take-home pay of our national legislators has remained a disgusting issue. Each time it is raised, legislators team up as a union to place a smokescreen on the allegation. Those who publicly speak on the subject reveal only their basic salary, what about the outrageous allowances that even the body established to fix their remuneration has always disowned? Some even tell us of the ratio of funds available to the three arms of government to justify what the legislature gets. Is it only funds that should be shared by ratio, what about workforce? Those who speak privately for fear of suspension confirm millions of Naira at the disposal of federal legislators in Nigeria every month – a posture that is not amusing to the ordinary citizen. This probably explains the general belief that it is only the working class in our country particularly the lowly paid that are required to make sacrifices to stabilize Nigeria during this precarious financial situation.

History tells us how our leaders many years back without prompting, cut their expenses during periods of national financial difficulty. During the Murtala/Obasanjo military regime for example, austerity measures introduced to revitalize the nation began from the top when the most expensive official vehicle for top office holders was reduced to a Nigerian-assembled Peugeot car.

Today, the more the financial crisis, the more imported vehicles are procured for legislators and executives as if they belong to a group beyond the people they claim to represent. What this suggests is that if states are over-empowered at this point in time to determine wages, some of them will not only strangulate workers, they may procure private jets for retrieval of their own special allowances which being so high, might be in the sky. It is therefore hard to not agree that in the current agitation for workers’ survival, Labour has a strong point.

March 14, 2021 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts