On Wednesday, five thugs
allegedly walked into the Senate, seized the mace, the symbol of authority of
the Senate, walked out, entered a waiting SUV and drove off. After their
departure, all hell broke loose. An emergency closed session was held to
discuss the brazen challenge to Nigerian democracy, which some described as an
attempted coup.
It was said that: “This
action is an act of treason, as it is an attempt to overthrow a branch of the
Federal Government of Nigeria by force, and it must be treated as such. This
action is also an affront on the legislature, and the leadership of the House
has come to express their support against this action”. The Senate leadership
marched to the vice president to report this breach to our democracy.
The senators gave a 24-hour
ultimatum to the director general of the Department of State Services (DSS),
Lawal Daura and the Inspector General of Police Ibrahim Idris to recover the
mace and apprehend the culprits. The members of the House of Representatives,
led by Deputy Speaker Yusuf Lasun paid a solidarity visit to the Senate
chamber. Then it turned out there was a spare mace, and then the stolen mace
was recovered near the city gate and so on. The story is too complicated for me
and I don’t get it.
The National Assembly is
one of the most protected sites in Nigeria today. According to the headline in
yesterday’s Daily Trust, there are over 500 security men attached to National
Assembly and half of that number is on duty on working days. They are made up
policemen, agents of the Department of State Services (DSS) and the
sergeant-at-arms staff. The report explains that the five persons had arrived
at the main entrance of the National Assembly in a black Range Rover SUV and
reportedly told the security that they were together with Senator Ovie
Omo-Agege (APC, Delta) who was entering the premises at the same time.
I can understand they came
in through a ruse but how could they have left unchallenged with so many armed
policemen around? And, why were they not chased? How come the three control
points and gates were not closed to block their escape? How come there were
tons of images of all the drama that were circulated almost immediately, as if
cameras had been stationed to shoot a Nollywood film?
The drama had ben initiated
with the suspension of Senator Omo-Agege, who had been punished because he
disagreed with the majority view in the Senate and had remarked that the
amendment to the sequence of elections was targeted at President Muhamamdu
Buhari. Why should agreeing with the president and disagreeing with your parliamentary
colleagues earn anyone long periods of suspension? Parliamentarians are highly
respected in liberal democracies, not because of who they are but because of
who they represent – their constituents, the people. Suspending legislators
from the chambers denies the people their constitutional right to be
represented and the consequence is destroying the legitimacy of the parliament
itself. The legislators are destroying their own power by the repeated
suspension of members over partisan disagreements and the earlier they realise
it, the better for them.
The legal position on the
issue has been clear for a long time. On May 30, 2013, the High Court in Bauchi
had ruled that the suspension of Rifkatu Samson Dannah, member of the Bauchi
State House of Assembly for over one-year was arbitrary, illegal,
unconstitutional and violated the rule of law.
The Court ruled that
legislators do not have the right to deny Rifkatu’s constituents who voted her
into office their constitutional rights of representation with the suspension.
The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. Why was she suspended? The House had
passed an executive bill, which sought to relocate the headquarters of Tafawa
Balewa Local Government to Bununu. The move was one of the ways the then
governor, Isa Yuguda’s administration thought it could end the recurrent
communal clashes between the dominant Sayawa ethnic group and the Hausa-Fulani
in Tafawa Balewa town. Such clashes had on several occasions led to the burning
of parts of the council secretariat, thereby paralysing government business and
disturbing the peace. The governor and the majority of the members of the
Assembly thought the bill in question was the solution.
Hon. Rofkatu Dannah, who
was elected by the constituency in question, disagreed and was severely
punished by her colleagues. She was doing exactly the job she was elected to do
– defend the interest of her constituency, as she understood it. In spite of
the judgment delivered, our parliamentary assemblies continue to suspend
members who disagree with them.
In the case of Senator Ovie
Omo-Agege, his suspension was based on his support for the president in an
intra-party quarrel between the president and the Senate leadership. It was an
attempt to fortify the faction of the Senate president, who has been involved
in a dogfight with the president.
By suspending the senator
as a show of strength indicating that the Chamber could stand against the
president, considerable democratic damage is done not to Omo-Agege but to the
voters who sent him to the National Assembly. There have been allegations that
he brought the thugs to steal the mace but he has denied it.
The important point however
is that the Senate is weakening itself and eroding its own legitimacy by the
action. It was interesting that throughout the pandemonium, Omo-Agege remained
at his seat until the end of the session. He witnessed the day’s sitting,
including the closed-door session. After the session, he was arrested briefly
and then released.
If he was involved in the
attack, then he is a thug and should be prosecuted. The decision should be for
the courts and not for his colleagues who do not like what he said. Legislators
are by definition protected to say what they think and we should not seek to
change that if we want to protect our democracy.
I checked the website of
the Senate of the United States. They assert the right given by Article I,
Section 5, of the United States Constitution, which provides that “Each House
[of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members
for disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a
member.” In practice however, since 1789, the US Senate has expelled only
fifteen of its members and of that number, fourteen were charged with support
of the Confederacy during the Civil War. In other words, except during the
terrible conditions of the civil war, they had sought to avoid denying
constituents their representation. Our legislators should learn the lessons of
the consequences of the abuse of power.
A professor of Political
Science and development consultant/expert, Jibrin Ibrahim is a Senior Fellow of
the Centre for Democracy and Development.
No comments:
Post a Comment