Controversy trails proposed immunity for NASS leaders
A bill currently before the House of Representatives is seeking to alter the 1999 Constitution to provide immunity for the presiding officers of the National Assembly (NASS). Our correspondent examines the controversies surrounding the bill and the rowdin
The bill, sponsored by Minority Leader Leo Ogor (PDP, Delta), seeks to amend Section 308 (3) of the 1999 Constitution. The section provides immunity for the president, vice president, governors and deputy governors.
However, Ogor, in his amendment, wants the inclusion of the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, the Deputy Senate President, the Deputy Speaker, speakers of the various states’ houses of assembly and their deputies, among those to enjoy immunity.
This threw the House into a rowdy session that lasted for about 20 minutes. At the end, Speaker Yakubu Dogara passed the bill for second reading, albeit in a controversial circumstance.
Based on the practice, the speaker was supposed to subject the bill to a voice vote, after which he would rule, either in favour or against its second reading. If the majority of lawmakers were for the bill, he would call on the clerk to read it for a second time and then refer it to a committee; but if otherwise, the bill would be deemed to be rejected.
In cajoling his colleagues to allow the bill scale second reading, Dogara said: “We should know that the bill before us is seeking to amend a section of the constitution. A bill of this nature is usually referred to the special ad-hoc committee. The bill can die at the level of the committee.”
Ogor, in his argument, said the amendment was purely for the independence of the legislature as an arm of government, saying the ongoing forgery case against Senate President Bukola Saraki and his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, was an act of interfering with the independence of the legislature; hence the need for immunity.
“The essence of the amendment is to address any mischief on the National Assembly as we’re seeing today,” he explained.
Similarly, Rep Ossai Nicholas Ossai (PDP, Delta), in supporting the amendment, said the provision of Section 308 as currently obtained, favoured only the executive.
He said that based on the constitutional provision on separation of powers, the presiding officers of the National Assembly should be granted immunity to avoid unnecessary distraction.
Also, the chairman of the House Committee on Tertiary Education, Rep Aminu Suleiman (APC, Kano) told our correspondent via a text message that he would support immunity but with a caveat.
“With the benefit of hindsight, reminiscing the situation where the security aides of the then speaker were withdrawn and the NASS invaded and members teargassed, I will vote for immunity.
“But I also agree with those who posit that the timing is wrong in view of the current litigation facing the leadership of the Senate. I will rather we thread softly to avoid public misconception against us,” he said.
In the same vein, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Rep Ibrahim Babangida Mahuta (APC, Katsina), said the purpose of granting immunity to the president and governors was to enable them discharge their responsibilities without “unnecessary distraction from litigation, especially from people perceived to be political opponents.
“The law still allows them to answer questions on both criminal and civil charges after leaving office. In this case, there is nothing wrong in granting immunity to the presiding officers of the National Assembly,” Mahuta said.
Rep Abdullahi Idris Garba (APC, Niger), argued that if a state governor could enjoy immunity, there was no reason why the Senate President and Speaker shouldn’t.
“The Senate President is number three, while the Speaker is number four in the country, but where do you place a state governor? So, I believe they should also enjoy immunity. For me, it’s not about the personal interest of anybody,” he said.
The chairman of the House Committee on Legislative Budget, Rep Timothy Golu (PDP, Plateau), said: “Our presiding officers need immunity like those in the executive. They should be protected from distractions and any form of intimidation and harassment by the executive.
“To consolidate on the independence of the legislature, our leaders need peace and freedom to do their work. The executive, at all levels, are fond of destabilising the legislature for their interest. The presiding officers are the leadership symbols of the legislature, and once they are caged, the entire House is in trouble,” he said.
Leading the opposition against the proposed amendment, House Leader Femi Gbajabiamila (APC, Lagos), said that as representatives of the people, they could not afford to make a law to take care of the interest of few individuals.
“Mr. Speaker, we’re here for members of our constituencies. If we throw this bill to the people, would they support it? The answer is no. This bill has a very wrong timing,” he said.
“There’s no way we can convince Nigerians that this amendment is not about what is happening in the Senate. I want the sponsor of this bill and the proponents to tell me any country in the world where the heads of the legislature enjoy immunity,’’ he said.
The chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, Rep Abdulmumin Jibrin (APC, Kano), also opposed the bill. He was seen displaying an inscription on a piece of paper, which read, “No to immunity.”
Rep Aliyu Sani Madaki (APC, Kano) came with two points of order that day. First was the law of conscience while the second was under the House rules.
He said: “Nobody in Nigeria should enjoy immunity. We should protect our integrity. What they want to do is ungodly and unjustifiable. They want to use this amendment to satisfy the selfish interest of an individual. The bill cannot scale through. Why should we look for immunity?”
The chairman, House Committee on IDPs, Refugees and North-East Initiatives, Mohammed Sani Zorro (APC, Jigawa), described the proposal as “the worst piece of law to be contemplated in the 8th NASS.
“It is against public interest. It is capable of encouraging current and future presiding legislative officers to perpetrate corruption and betray the people’s trust under the cover of constitutional protection,’’ he said.
Rep Muhammad Usman (APC, Kaduna) said: “I don’t believe in immunity for any public officer. This is because people hide under it to perpetrate criminality. Most governors today abuse immunity. Look at the case of bail-out. The best thing is to remove this immunity for everybody.
Rep Abubakar Lado Suleija (APC, Niger) told Daily Trust on Sunday that, “They want to legalise corruption. Nobody in the National Assembly needs immunity at this time. We’ll make sure we kill it and mobilise Nigerians against it. In fact, the argument should have been to remove immunity for governors. This is really a selfserving venture.”
Rep Bello Abdullahi (APC, Kogi) also said, “From the point of view of a lawmaker, I don’t support it. It’s not ideal for now. Even the immunity enjoyed by governors is being abused, and if you extend that to the National Assembly, the abuse may continue. I was speaker of a state assembly and I didn’t need immunity to operate.
“Even if the National Assembly passes it, we’ll go to state assemblies for them to vote against it. You need at least 24 states to support every amendment before it can scale through,” he said.
The executive director of the Civil Society Legislative and Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Awwal Musa Rafsanjani, told our reporter on telephone that the effort to grant immunity to the National Assembly presiding officers was an attempt to perpetrate impunity.
“If they don’t have anything to hide, why do they need immunity? As responsible leaders, they shouldn’t look for an opportunity to hide and violate the law.
“If you give them immunity now, another set of public officers will come up tomorrow and say they want immunity. In fact, a councillor will one day seek for immunity. If you do something wrong as a lawmaker, you should face the law.
“As far as Nigerians are concerned, this is unnecessary and an attempt to perpetrate impunity. This is like a vote of no confidence on the leadership of the National Assembly since they believe they can’t stand without immunity. Even the immunity enjoyed by the president and the governors has limit because they can be impeached,” he said.
“If they don’t have anything to hide, why do they need immunity? As responsible leaders, they shouldn’t look for an opportunity to hide and violate the law