Before proceeding on the Sallah and Easter break, the House of Representatives passed through second reading about 150 bills. However, three of the bills drew flaks from a cross section of Nigerians. PHILIP NYAM examines the bills in question

The House of Representatives is currently reviewing the 1999 Constitution with a view to enacting new laws and amending the existing ones as a response to the yearnings and aspirations of Nigerians. Consequently, the House embarked on a bill passing spree, passing about 150 bills in one week and referring them to the Special Ad hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution led by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, for further legislative actions. Three of these bills attracted criticism from many stakeholders compelling the lawmakers to quickly retrace their steps on one of them. The bills include, “an Act to alter the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (with alteration) in order to review the requirements that qualifies a person to be elected as president, vice president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, governor and deputy governor of a state of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and for related matters.” Others are a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to qualify the immunity conferred on the president, remove the immunity conferred on the vice president, the governors and their deputies, in order to curb corruption, eradicate impunity and enhance accountability in public office and for related matters” and a “Bill for an Act to Alter the Provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to provide for the Office of the Prime Minister as Head of Government and the Office of President as Head of State and to provide for a framework for the mode of election to the said offices and for related matters.”

Age-limit bill

The bill, sponsored by Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere (PDP, Imo), titled “An Act to alter the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (with alteration) in order to review the requirements that qualifies a person to be elected as president, vice president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, governor and deputy governor of a state of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and for related matters” is being criticised in many circles because it tends to alienate “senior citizens” from leadership positions. The bill is seeking to bar individuals above 60 years from contesting for the offices of president and governor in Nigeria.

Hence, if passed and signed into law, would make President Bola Tinubu, who will be 75 years by 2027, former vice president and presidential candidate of the PDP in 2023 elections, Atiku Abubakar, who will be 81 and 2023 presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, who will be 66 and former Kaduna state governor, Nasir El-Rufai, who will be 67, ineligible to contest in the next general elections. Ugochinyere is seeking the amendment of section 131 by altering paragraph (d) of the section to read:

“A person shall be qualified for election to the office of President if (d) he has been educated up to at least university level and has earned a bachelor’s degree in his chosen field of study. Section 131 (e) he is not more than sixty (60) years at the time of vying for the Office of President.” The same requirements apply for governorship and deputy governorship candidates as prescribed in the amendment of Section 177.

However, many commentators have argued that leadership is not a function of age, hence there is no rationale in making the requirement for contesting or vying for particular positions a preserve of a certain age grade. They contended that passing such a bill will be counterproductive and it should be jettisoned.

Immunity bill

The second bill that drew the ire of many was the bill seeking the retention of immunity for the office of the President and the removal of the same from the vice president, governors and deputy governors. Sponsored by Hon. Solomon Bob (PDP, Rivers), the bill is seeking the amendment of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution to guard against abuse of office and to ensure transparency in governance.

It is titled: “A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to qualify the immunity conferred on the President, remove the immunity conferred on the Vice President, the Governors and their deputies, in order to curb corruption, eradicate impunity and enhance accountability in public office and for related matters.”

Key amendments include changes to Section 308 of the Constitution, which currently grants immunity to the president, vice president, governors, and deputy governors while in office. The proposed bill will amend subsection 3 to ensure that immunity only applies to the President and the vice president when acting as president under Section 145 of the Constitution.

Additionally, a new subsection 4 will be introduced to make the immunity clause inapplicable if the office holder is acting in an unofficial capacity, engaging in actions beyond the powers of the office, or involved in criminal conduct. According to the sponsor, “the bill seeks to foster transparency and strengthen the fight against corruption by making public officials more accountable for their actions, both in and out of office.”

It added: “Section 308 of the principal Act is amended by:(a) substituting a new subsection (3) as follows: “(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Vice President only when acting as President, in line with Section 145 of this Constitution.

“Creating sub section (4) thereto as follows: ”(4) the foregoing provisions of this section shall be inapplicable where the person to whom this section applies is acting in an unofficial capacity or where the conduct of the person is beyond the powers of his office or the conduct is criminal in nature.” Unlike the other two bills, the lawmakers were forced to rescind their decision on this bill and it was consequently withdrawn.

While withdrawing the bill just 24 hours after it was passed, the deputy speaker, Kalu, who presided over the session said the decision on the bills is to enable the House to conduct a more robust debate by the lawmakers. His words: “We want to apologise to the sponsors of the bills, but this action is to enable the House to have a further debate considering the importance of the subject matters.”

Return to parliamentary system

Another bill that attracted attention was “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to provide for the Office of the Prime Minister as Head of Government and the Office of President as Head of State and to provide for a framework for the mode of election to the and offices and for related matters,” sponsored by the minority leader, Hon. Kingsley Chinda (PDP, Rivers) and 59 others.

Although the lawmakers are proposing a take-off date 2031 for the return to the parliamentary system, questions are being asked for the real motive behind the idea.

But reacting to the criticisms that greeted the proposal, Chinda said “We have listened to some criticisms, particularly that of Babatunde Fashola, a former governor of Lagos State, who is of the opinion that we should tell Nigerians why the First Republic failed before we start the journey back to the parliamentary system.

“But I want to assure you that we are not building castles in the air. We took our time to look at the current system of government, to look at the problems within the polity, and how, as parliamentarians, we can assist in resolving some of these problems through legislative intervention. “In the process of this introspection, we found out that the entire system that we are practicing is skewed towards failure.

First, considering our background, our experiences, our diversity, which, of course, should be an advantage to us, we can see that we seem headed in the wrong direction. “If you look at other nations that copied systems of government, they considered their culture, they considered their beliefs; they considered the nature of their society in adopting a system of government.

“But in Nigeria, we either copy from the United Kingdom or we copy from the United States, without recourse to our background and that is why we are asking for a homegrown system of government. Perhaps, because we don’t have the proper word to describe it, what we envision is closer to a parliamentary system.

So, today, we are asking that we amend our constitution to introduce a homegrown parliamentary system of government.” On why the parliamentary system failed, the House minority leader explained:

“Now, have we studied what led to the failure of the First Republic? I will answer Governor Fashola by saying, yes, we have studied it. We have studied deeply the First Republic, the conduct, the successes, and the failures of that era.

“In doing that, we have even gone to Kano to meet with the only surviving member of the First Republic, Alhaji Dantata and we asked him this question directly.

Why did it fail? Some of his responses were that during the First Republic, a lot of them were not very well informed about the rudiments and the practice of the system, which they inherited from the colonialists. So, to him, one of the reasons why the parliamentary system failed was ignorance.

“Secondly, our various tribes and religious beliefs created avoidable divisions among the political elite and then the selfish attitude of the individual politicians of that period concerning the exercise of power and abuse of discretion. Unfortunately, these problems are still with us today.

“Another challenge then was the constitutional provision that has to do with the sharing of power between the centre and the regions. He (Dantata) told us that all these factors, especially the power tussle and struggles among politicians, culminated into the crisis we had in the Western region, which led to the failure of the First Republic.

“So, having heard this, we have also taken into consideration these issues and that’s why we keep saying that it would be wrong for you to introduce a system of government without taking cognizance of your background, where you’re coming from.

“I will give you an example. Ask a Nigerian public office holder to exercise discretion today on an issue and he will be influenced by either religion or tribe. Very few public officers in Nigeria will exercise discretion dispassionately and see issues from a neutral perspective.

“Now, if you ask a public officer who is a Briton or an American to exercise the same discretion, most often they will look at the nation first in exercising that discretion.

So, because we have this inherent challenge, it will be difficult for us to import laws that have to do with discretion and bring them hook, line and sinker to Nigeria and expect them to succeed.

They will not succeed. “We must tweak it to consider our peculiar background and that’s why we say the time has come for us to move forward.

We have been talking about the cost of governance and government after government have been making attempts to take care of that, either by merging agencies of government or by slashing allowances and salaries of public office holders.

How far has that taken us?” The concerns over the bills, notwithstanding, analysts are of the view that the fears raised will be addressed during the zonal public hearings to be organised by the House ad hoc committee.