"… the idea that once elected by a party you can just do what you like with impunity (with the sacrosanctity of belonging to, and shielded by the club of' honourables') without formally being elected to another party is fraudulent in the least."
O. Agbetuyi
No. There is no fraud if the law allows it. The party may suspend, or expel the elected member if the member has subverted her constitution. Does anyone need reminding that impunity begets impunity?
"The ease fraudulent of so called cross carpeting has been the bane of party sponsored violence in the past Nigerian republics, where internal squabbles are resolved by jumping ship into the camp of the opponent parties (ostensibly together with the followership of the turncoat being delivered to the opposing camp in retribution)"
O. Agbetuyi
Where was the sense of outrage when elected PDP legislators and governors became unelected APC legislators and governors? It was okay then was it not?
"Yes, there is freedom of choice in civilian politics but it is a freedom tempered by rules, the alternative to which is descent into chaos lawlessness and violence."
O. Agbetuyi
The rules do not say that party supremacy trumps faithfulness to constituency one represents, and the country.
There should be no "descent into chaos, lawlessness, and violence". Term elections take care of the above problem. Do not elect the dishonorable men and women the next time.
True democrats do not micromanage. They are patient, peaceful, respectful of others, and tolerant. Fascists are not. They micromanage. It is either their way or the highway.
Party politics can be an unscrupulous sport in Nigeria. It should be little surprise that sometimes, plotters become victims of their endless plotting. It has always been true that there is no honor among thieves. They stand ready to steal from each other. That is what thieves do among others.
oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Olayinka Agbetuyi
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 6:32 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: NIGERIA: KEN NNAMANI ON PARTY SUPREMACY AND THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CRISIS.-THE GUARDIAN.
With the Federal Constitution of Nigeria juridically the way it is with its pyramidal structure (and until it is changed) it is childish and fool hardy for Ken Nnamani to insist his state cannot be investigated by the federal authorities. Does that imply that the state authorities that may be complicit do a better job? What really is his wild goose chase to the Supreme Court about?
Also, the idea that once elected by a party you can just do what you like with impunity (with the sacrosanctity of belonging to, and shielded by the club of' honourables') without formally being elected to another party is fraudulent in the least. The ease of so called cross carpeting has been the bane of party sponsored violence in the past Nigerian republics, where internal squabbles are resolved by jumping ship into the camp of the opponent parties (ostensibly together with the followership of the turncoat being delivered to the opposing camp in retribution) Yes, there is freedom of choice in civilian politics but it is a freedom tempered by rules, the alternative to which is descent into chaos lawlessness and violence.
It is also true that tiny trickles ultimately make a mighty river and each of the legislators constituency 'deliveries' into the common pool accounts for the ultimate triumph of parties; so when the aggrieved legislators and their followership sense their needs have not been rewarded relative to their contributions to total victories (I know many Ekiti communities felt this way about their fate in relation to provision of amenities afforded to other communities relative to the Action Group fortunes in the 60s) there is the temptation to want to 'seek immediate remedies' relative to the stake of their constituents. And because polities take years to change electorally, populist advocates of such remedies may take people for a ride, and, as may be the case in the current circumstances deviously substitute personal travails for collective needs. Such leaders must constantly be reminded that 'immediate remedies' are always fraught with unforeseen dangers.
This is why (if it is not already in the Constitution) provisions should be inserted to shorten the term for which by elections can be conducted to an annual basis for communities and their representatives who may feel short changed, and may want to change their party allegiance in an orderly manner for expedient reasons before the full term of the legislative calender (Yes this may mean additional expenses, but chaos and disorder may cost even more in the alternative). What may not be cited as reason for change of allegiance is moves to escape accountability.
Olayinka Agbetuyi
From: ogunlakaiye@hotmail.com
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: NIGERIA: KEN NNAMANI ON PARTY SUPREMACY AND THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CRISIS.-THE GUARDIAN.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 23:37:11 +0200
Whenever Nigerians want to be mischievous they start twisting words and bending laws to suit their evil intention. In May 1962, the then Governor of Western Region, Sir Adesoji Aderemi, received a paper containing 66 signatures of members of the Western House of Assembly whereby they stated that they no longer had confidence in the Premier of the Region, Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola. In his stead, the signatories had appointed Alhaji Dauda Soroye Adegbenro as their Parliamentary Leader. Since the Constitution stated that the Governor shall remove the Premier *IF IT APPEARS TO HIM THAT HE NO LONGER COMMANDS THE SUPPORT OF MAJORITY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY* the Governor acted promptly and removed Akintola. The word *IF* in the Constitution of Western Region became a problem for the overeducated High and Supreme Court Judges in Nigeria as they contended that the word *IF* connoted vote of no confidence on the floor of the House. Adegbenro appealed to the Privy Council in Britain. By December 1963, the Privy Council came with the verdict that the word *IF* had nothing to do with voting on the floor of the House and that the sixty-six signatures on the paper received by the Governor was enough to remove the Premier. However, the Federal Coalition government of NPC/NCNC maintained that the decision of Privy Council had been overtaken by events (Nigeria had become a Republic and the Highest court of Appeal in Nigeria was Supreme Court). The Constitution of Western Region was retroactively amended to imply that the Governor could not remove the Premier from office without prior vote of no confidence in him on the floor of the House. The manipulation of the constitution for the purpose of overthrowing the elected government of Action Group of Western Region by the Federal Coalition Government of NPC/NCNC was responsible to the crisis that led to the military uprising of the young Majors in 1966 and subsequent civil war. The current National Assembly crisis is as a result of manipulation of rules and laws to subvert the will of majority of Nigerians as expressed in the last Federal elections.
We are now being told that after elections the legislators are independent of the party on whose ticket they were elected. If we accept this view as the truth, why then do we need political parties? According to the electoral law in force in Nigeria, any candidate wishing to contest election should belong to a political party which shall nominate the candidate in question. Therefore, there is no room for Independent candidates to contest elections. The candidates that contested the last Federal elections on the platform of APC agreed with the party's program of *change and combatting corruption* and with the aim of eliminating it from the Nigerian society. The electorates accepted the programs of APC which was why majority of the electorates voted PDP out of power both in the legislature and the Presidency. It would amount to fraud to say that after election the APC promises before election are no longer valid and that the legislators are free to behave anyhow in disregard of the political party that sponsored them and on whose platform election was won. Ironically, legislators who are against investigation and prosecution of treasury looters are the one demanding independence from the party on whose programs they contested and won elections. Thus, while moving a motion of confidence on the leadership of the Senate on 28 July 2015, a PDP Senator, Samuel Anyanwu (Imo East), regarded the invitation of EFCC to certain individuals in their group (like mind Senators) as harassment of the Senate and Senator, the National Assembly Management and spouses of Senators. It is freedom from investigation and prosecution of treasury looters that aligns Dr Ken Chimaroke Nnamani with propagators of independence of legislators from their parties after elections. Dr Nnamani was Governor of Enugu State between 2003 and 2007, but after his tenure he was arraigned in the court, by EFCC, for looting Enugu State of the sum of N5.3 billion. Nnamani did not deny looting the state he governed for four years, instead, he argued that the Federal government had no right to investigate the account of his state. The decision of the High Court and the Appeal court in favour of the Federal Government were appealed against by Nnamani to the Supreme Court where it is still pending for decision as of date. Dr Ken Chimaroke Nnamani is one of those who have a case of treasury looting hanging around his neck and therefore must be against APC desire to bring perpetrators to justice. Without political parties, there will be no legislators and that is why common sense demands that legislators must obey and abide by the decision of their parties on which platform they rode to become legislators.
From: AnunobyO@lincolnu.edu
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:28:06 -0500
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: NIGERIA: KEN NNAMANI ON PARTY SUPREMACY AND THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CRISIS.-THE GUARDIAN.
A concern here must be that a dangerous precedent- party supremacy is not implanted into Nigeria's democratic practice as it applies to the arms of government- legislators in this instance. They must be free to choose their House/Senate leaders without the hindrance of political party leaders. Legislators swear to serve their constituents and the country and not their political parties. It is the country and not their political parties that pays emoluments. Legislators are consequently accountable not to their political parties but their constituents and the country.
It is neither healthy nor helpful that non-members of legislative houses, holding political party offices, interfere in the management and process of the legislature for the same reasons that the same people should not and must not choose members of the president's cabinet. The houses of legislature together, are an independent arm of government- independent of other arms of government and their party leaders too. The said independence should not be compromised to assuage political party leaders' ego or feed their greed. If House/Senate rules were broken, corrections should of course be made. Party supremacy as in this case, must be seen for what it is- an unlawful, meaningless proposition or imposition that is very likely to corrupt the system and undermine the conscientious performance of legislators constitutional duties.
There are too many bad practices in Nigeria's government/political process already. The country does not need any more of them.
oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Assensoh, Akwasi B.
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 9:27 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Cc: anthonyakinola@yahoo.co.uk; Afoaku, Osita; rigodan
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Fw: NIGERIA: KEN NNAMANI ON PARTY SUPREMACY AND THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CRISIS.-THE GUARDIAN.
Home / Lead Story / Why Party Supremacy Can't Be Enforced In Legislature, By Ken Nnamani
Why Party Supremacy Can't Be Enforced In Legislature, By Ken Nnamani
- By Azimazi Momoh Jimoh (Abuja) on July 26, 2015
Saraki
Dogara
Former President of the Senate, Ken Nnamani, reviewed the controversy generated by the leadership crisis in the National Assembly (NASS) and concluded that the desire by some leaders of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to take party supremacy to the National Assembly was at the root of the matter.
He noted that once lawmakers are elected and sworn in, issues of political party affiliation are immediately thrown to the background.
From your experience as former President of the Senate, how do you think the crisis rocking the two houses in the National Assembly can be resolved? How do you think political party issues can be separated from legislative matters?
THERE is a world of difference between theory and practice. When we talk of democratic process and presidential democracy, we are talking about following due processes. In parliament, you don't prove morality but you talk about justice. We must understand that legislature is an arm of government. The political party is not an arm of government. It is true that political parties form government when they win elections but once they have formed government, government takes a life of its own. It becomes the government of the federation. You are governing those who belong to a party, as well as those who don't belong to a party, and even those who are not dreaming of joining a political party. So, the government is bigger than the political party that formed it. That party that formed the Federal Government takes a back seat, to prepare for another election, and would, from time to time, be advising the government in a subtle manner, but not that it will take the front seat.
It also applies to the legislature. A legislator is one who is capable of thinking independently. He or she quite understands that the party is supreme and that it was the platform, the vehicle that brought him to the parliament. So, having reached the legislature through the party, the lawmaker has to show loyalty to the party that offered him the platform. There is also party loyalty and party discipline. Hence the National Assembly, as an institution, is not a party secretariat; you don't go there to enforce party discipline. It is expected that a party should have prepared its lawmaker well enough before sending him out for an election.
However, the moment a party candidate emerges as a lawmaker, he owes a lot to Nigeria, because if we are taking about the Senate, he is the senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and not a senator of the APC or PDP. You owe loyalty to the party but there is an overriding superior constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. If there is no Nigeria, there will be no party.
As a lawmaker, your loyalty lies with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Senate. The party takes a back seat. If there is a claim that the party is bigger than the legislature, you will be making a great mistake, which may not work. If the party is so special as is claimed now, let the party submit the list of ministers to show its supremacy. You will notice that it will not work. The executive branch of government has the constitutional role to submit the list of ministers. The President himself is a product of the party, but the party will not submit the list of ministers to the President. NASS is not a party secretariat. It's Senate of Federal Republic of Nigeria and not Senate of the PDP or APC.
Gbajabiamila
Similarly, the Senate President or the Speaker must show loyalty to his party. The confusion that I noticed, which if care is not taken, might go on throughout the life of the administration…you cannot enforce what you should have done behind the scene, on the floor of the National Assembly. You don't come to the chamber to say that you are enforcing your party's supremacy. That was what triggered the fight witnessed in the House of Representatives, the other time, which should not be the case. The party should have played its role prior to the inauguration of the legislature. Like the issue of the party writing letters to either the Speaker or the Senate President, I am not aware of any such communication channel, but there is a channel of communication between the executive and the legislature.
The most critical thing in a democracy is process; it is more important than the outcome. Instead of writing a letter from the party, the leadership of the APC should have invited the Senate President and the Speaker to its secretariat and advised them on what the party wants.
The party has a channel of communication with the Senate President and the Speaker, being members of the party. The party leadership would have insisted on what they wanted. It will then be the responsibility of the Senate President to know how to sell the idea among his members, by lobbying. He would lobby other members to help him actualize the position of the party, as the presiding officer. He would know the language to use with them to enable them support him. That is cross-fertilization of ideas.
You don't write a letter to be read to the entire Senate. That would mean setting a dangerous precedence. Very soon, Labour Party will write theirs and market women will write theirs. The APC has written. The PDP will write theirs too. The Senate will do nothing again but read letters. There is no process like that. When you hear about correspondence, it's not that an individual would write the Senate President and read it to the Senate in plenary. It doesn't make sense. There are Senate committees handling petitions. The Senate President is the Number Three citizen of the country; he cannot be reading memos from ministers.
I am happy that the letter sent by the party to the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, was not read. If he had read it, he would have set a dangerous precedence for himself. And he would not be able to control it because everybody would write him a letter. This thing has to follow a procedure.
Certain things are conventional; they are according to the standing rules of the Senate. I am talking specifically about the Senate now. Some party chiefs, I think, by their own right, are sophisticated in politics, but they don't understand legislative proceedings, otherwise they should not have engaged in all these fights, which have made them lose two months already. And the end is not in sight because it has now become a personality ego. It is true that APC is the ruling party but they don't have the majority to impeach any presiding officers of the Senate or House of Representatives. The majority is lean in both chambers. That is why we referred to them as senators of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Therefore, they have to work with others. That is why we don't need to emphasise that on the floor of the Senate. Party discipline is inculcated in the members before they are elected to the Senate. The party should not overemphasize it on the floor of the House. The danger of what is happening now in the National Assembly is that they cannot get much accomplished if they keep on emphasizing party supremacy.
They should emphasise the Senate. The legislature is an arm of government because they have to work as a team. How do you pass budget? How do you screen ministers, if you hold your party tenets and principles? The APC and PDP senators have to mix up. During my time as Senate President, my party leaders told me that I could not appoint committees headed by the opposition, other than the two that is allowed by the constitution, statutorily. The first is Public Accounts, while the other is Ethics and Privileges. I said, 'okay'. But I went on and appointed four extra. Why? Because I needed the support of the APP, who had big senators like Dan Sadau, Zodangi and Yeri Gandi, among others. You can't do without those people because they are knowledgeable and they come to the chamber with their Constitution and the standing rules of the Senate. They know the rules very well. You cannot scheme them out, and they are many. Some even have PhDs. They were not in the PDP. In fact, I ended up making Sule Yeri Gandi, who is now late, the Senate Committee Chairman on Special Duties, and he worked close to me. I had to buy the peace and stability of the Senate.
My party leaders called me a rebel and warned me that we could only appoint two. I said we were talking about the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and not the Senate of the PDP. At that moment, Ahmadu Ali flared up and was very angry with me. He said, 'Nnamani, you have come again! You are a rebel.' I said, 'Yes, I am a rebel with a cause,' because I needed to pass Mr. President's bills. If we say it should be a PDP affair, we would not pass even the budget.
That is why I warned that if this thing going on continues, it might affect this administration till its last day. They will not know any peace. They must strike a balance. Emphasis on party would not make the legislature work. The Senate must work as a team, if anything must be done. The President will come to realize this when he starts sending bills to the Senate. And when debates start with people holding on to their party's supremacy, nothing will work. No minister would scale screening and none of the party has superior majority in terms of numerical strength. There must be a meeting of minds where the party will swallow their pride and know that they are talking about the Nigerian Constitution, which is above any party constitution.
That is the danger I am seeing in this thing going on. Our party leaders are misunderstanding party loyalty and party supremacy with the legislative arm of government, which is an institution. Parties come and go, but the National Assembly remains. As long as we are using the presidential democratic process, there would always be a legislature, which is an arm of government. Party is not an arm of government; it is a vehicle to enable people get to where they are going. They have to manage it in such a way that they will still be loyal to their party but would remain most loyal to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as epitomised by the legislative arm of government.
The danger is, if you over emphasise party supremacy, it will get you to a point of ridicule. If the party is so special, as is claimed now, let the party submit the list of ministers to the President. That is why I am still surprised that a sophisticated party, like the APC, would, on a day it should receive its price on June 9…I thought they would be the first to be seated in the chamber, but they fixed a party meeting outside the premises of an institution. Who is to blame? That singular mistake would follow them throughout this administration. It was a fatal mistake, which they did not think of addressing. It was an error because the process was that the senators sat and nobody raised the issue of quorum but actually there was a quorum.
On the aspect of talking about morals, the court is a court of justice and not morals. The legislative arm is not a court but it acts like a court, at times, by following a process. That 51 senators were absent at the inauguration is immaterial; there were those who were present. So, the moral aspect of it, saying that somebody was not on seat does not arise. The time of inauguration is 10am prompt. Once it's 10am, we start the business. Since nobody raised any point of order, even if there is such observation, the senators on ground formed more than a quorum.
The fact that senators-elect could not talk on the floor made it more serious, drawing the attention of the Clerk to the fact that some senators were absent. The people in attendance were more than 50. I though that the people who were going to claim their price for victory would have arrived on time and taken the front seat, to make sure that they captured it, since power was changing hands. That was not the day for holding meetings. We held the general election on March 28 and the second one on April 11. We had enough time for meetings. But on June 9, that morning, you fixed a meeting. People should look inwards. Whoever arranged that meeting, whoever agreed to go that meeting, that was the genesis of what is going on today. People should ask themselves whether they did the right thing. Why do you have to hold any meeting on such day?
Party is not an arm of government. The APC formed government, and after that it should take the back seat. You don't come and brag that the government is ours. It has become everybody's, even those who didn't vote.
The opposition party has produced a Deputy Senate President. Will it be able to play its role as opposition?
The ruling party has already made a serious error. The question we have today is: is PDP willing to be a party in government and at the same time a party in opposition? For instance, PDP already has a Deputy Senate President. The question is: is PDP prepared to be a party in opposition and a party in government?
Why did you say so?
Now, PDP has a Deputy Senate President. Where does that take the PDP? I have been expecting people to come up with this question. I want people to think deep and say, giving this situation, is PDP better off being a party in opposition or a party in government? I will leave it hanging. I am not going to decode it. This matter is going to play out over a period of time.
I once told our party, the PDP, in a board of trustees meeting when some people cross-carpeted, including a governor with all his commissioners, to join PDP, people were rejoicing. I raised my hand. Obasanjo was seated, and I told them that this thing we are encouraging would one day come to haunt us. They said, 'Nnamani, you have come o!' I said, 'How can you leave a party that elected you and carry their mandate to join another party without you going back to the electorate, because you campaigned and the people voted for the party? You now made it your own and decided to pull out. We may be clapping today that we are getting members, but it will come to haunt us one day. I did predict more than four years ago that there would be an implosion in the PDP.
Was that the reason you formed the PDP reform forum?
Yes, I advocated internal democracy and I was suspended by the party, alongside Peter Odili, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, Aminu Tambuwal and Aminu Masari. I was the chairman, while Masari was my deputy, because we believed that we could not give what we didn't have. We must have internal democracy, but they said no, that we wanted to overthrow the party. Chief Raymond Dokpesi was our member and we used the AIT extensively.
What is your reaction to the crisis rocking the Senate over alleged forgery of standing orders?
I am not aware and I don't want to comment on what I don't have a serious understanding of, so as not to give misleading information. I am not aware, at all, but I have a way of finding out because some of these key actors and players are alive and documents have not been burnt. So, a little research can be done.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment