The presidency and the National Assembly are at loggerheads over the
Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2018 passed by both chambers of the
National Assembly. Where is the ‘war’ headed and who blinks at last?
These are the questions on the lips of Nigerians immediately the
president communicated his decision to veto the bill. Throughout last
week, the battle festered and right now, new dimensions are being
introduced. Group Politics Editor, TAIWO ADISA, who has followed the
developments, reports.
AS largely expected, President Muhammadu Buhari, last
Tuesday, vetoed the Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2018 transmitted to him
two weeks earlier by the National Assembly. The bill, which has come to
be known
as the election re-ordering bill, had caught
the eyes of political actors and even political watchers since January
when the House adopted the amendment to Section 25(1) of the Electoral
Act 2010 to re-order the sequence of elections.
Several
commentators, including legal minds and political stakeholders, jumped
into the fray as soon as the House of Representatives adopted the
amendment to Section 25(1) of the Electoral Act.
The legal advice that faulted Buhari’s veto
The
legal advice read: “The president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
vetoed the 2018 Amendment of the Electoral Act of 2010 passed by the
National Assembly in the exercise of his constitutional powers under
Section 58(4oi) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as
amended following reasons.
Each of the legal and constitutional reasons advanced by the president as a basis for the veto were examined in details below.
1.)
the president claims that the amendment introducing a specific sequence
for elections under Section 25 of the Principal Act 2010 infringed the
discretion of the Independent National Electoral Commission to,
“organise, undertake and supervise elections,” the legal advice
maintained that the argument was flawed, noting that the correct legal
position was that by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
1999 First Alteration Act 2010, Act No. 1, specifically, Section 5
provides that Section 76 of the Principal Act is altered thus: “(a)
Subsection (1) in line 2, by inserting immediately after the word
‘commission’ ’the words’ ’in accordance with the Electoral Act. ”
“From
the above amendment, it is crystal clear that the power to regulate the
principal elements of all Federal Electoral process were expressed by
the above amendment, removed from the Independent National Electoral
Commission land vested in the Assembly (N.A) which has the power to make
laws for peace, order and good government” of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria and any part thereof.
Furthermore, the phrases
“organise, undertake & supervise” elections under section 15(a) of
the 3” Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
according to the President, allegedly infringed the discretion
guaranteed” to lNEC by Section 25 of the of the Principal Act.
“2.)
The argument of the president that the sequencing of the elections
under section 25 infringed the discretion of INEC without expressly
pointing out what specific aspects or ways and manner cannot be a basis
for legal or constitutional argument or decision. With due respect, the
opinion expressed is too general to establish a basis for the exercise
of a legal or constitutional power more so because “discretion” is a
principle governed by the rules of Administrative Law and not that of
Constitutional Law which the President claimed to have anchored his
arguments.
“3.) Thirdly the terms “organise, undertake
and supervise” may have conferred a wide discretion on lNEC in matters
of all logistics in the preparation and conduct of elections, the issue
of discretion only comes to fore in the actual details of the
preparation, organising and conducting elections. It is respectfully
submitted that the sequencing of the elections in a Bill as to which was
scheduled as first or last in the conduct does not in any way hamper or
affect the discretion and capacity of INEC to organise, undertake and
conduct these elections into various constitutional offices provided.
“The
new subsection (3) introduced into Section 138 of the Electoral Act,
which the president argued repealed two crucial grounds upon which
elections could be challenged is not entirely correct and the view could
be misplaced for the following reason: “a. The new Subsection (3) to
section 138 actually clarifies the ambiguity contained in subsection 1
of the Principal Act and reinforces the constitutional standards
specified in Sections 65, 106, 131 and 177 of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. In addition, it further provides that
no person shall be qualified to contest elections in breach c any of the
‘Sections 66, 107, 137 or 182 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria as amended.
“The amendment to Section
152 (3)-(5), which collectively imposed an obligation on the State
independent Electoral Commissions to apply the standard of “free, fair
and credible elections in the conduct of Local Government elections” is
within the competence of the National Assembly to make laws in respect
of the procedure regulating elections into the Local Government Councils
in accordance with item 11 (Eleven) of the Concurrent Legislative List
of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
“What specific
aspects or ways and manner cannot be a basis for legal or constitutional
argument or decision? With due respect, the opinion expressed is too
general to establish a basis for the exercise of a legal or
constitutional power more so because “discretion” is a principle
government by the rules of Administrative Law and not that of
Constitutional Law which the President Claimed to have anchored his
arguments.
“It is, therefore, not entirely correct, with
all due respect to Mr. President, to argue that the amendment may raise
constitutional issues over the competence of the National Assembly to
legislate on Local Government elections. The Supreme Court of Nigeria
has decided on this issue in the famous case of Attorney General of Abia
State & Ors v Attorney General of the Federation & Ors,” the
legal advice read.
Armed with the legal advice, the
National Assembly appears set to override the Presidential veto, the
second time in this Fourth Republic. In 2000, former President Olusegun
Obasanjo suffered the first of such defeat when the National Assembly
overturned his veto of the NDDC bill. The bill eventually became law.
It
was gathered that the leadership of the National Assembly have become
emboldened that they were on the right path, following the
interpretations by the legal minds in the legislature. The question now
is whether the lawmakers can sail through with the plan. They would be
guided in their action by Section 58 (4 & 5) of the 1999
Constitution, which provide the procedures by which the National
Assembly may override the veto where a president withholds assent to a
bill passed by both chambers.
Section 58 (4) reads:
“Where a bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall within
thirty days thereof signify that he assents or that he withholds assent.
Section
58 (5) also reads: “Where the President withholds his assent and the
bill is again passed by each House by two-thirds majority, the bill
shall become law and the assent of the president shall not be required.”
APC, govs, ministers move against Senators, Reps
At
the weekend, at least four groups have emerged in the bid to stop the
raging fire. The calculation, according to sources, is that if the bill
sails though, the president would have lost huge moral and political
face in the polity, something which could prove disastrous for his 2019
second term bid.
If the lawmakers lose out, it is also
being interpreted to mean a huge loss for the Senate President and the
Speaker, Yakubu Dogara, who, sources said, would then be at the mercy of
his governor, who it is believed, would readily corner Dogara’s seat
for another member of the party.
It was gathered that the
game of numbers has been intense, with the Presidency’s coordinators
said to be a minister from the South-South, a governor from the
North-West and other governors and some senators. A North-Central
senator was said to have offered his property outside the Federal
Capital as a meeting venue.
Besides the honorarium which
sources said is being made available for attendance at the meetings,
those who would stand against the bill from scaling the two-thirds
huddle were also being promised return tickets to the Senate and the
House of Representatives, sources said. It was also gathered that those
opposed to the line of the ruling APC and the president were being told
to forget 2019 return tickets to the chambers.
It was
learnt that the vote on the bill was being planned for next week until
an injunction from a Federal High Court on Wednesday, which restrained
the Assembly from going ahead with the bill.
With the
resolve of the Senate to write the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN)
and demand adherence to the principles of Separation of Powers, the
lawmakers could get back to business as fast as they can.
A
source close to the ruling APC, described the situation thus: “Just
like it happened in January, the bid to tackle the Senate and the House
has been started. The move this time is to stall the two chambers from
securing the two-thirds majority required for the National Assembly to
override the veto. A minister is the arrowhead of the four groups that
came together for this project. He is joined by two serving governors
and some senators as well as some ministers on the fringes.
“They
are painting the agenda as that of the APC and they are warning that
the party would deny those who support the bill a return ticket to the
National Assembly in 2019. But we have since discovered that with
secret ballot we can vote without being identified.”
For
now, it appears there is no retreat and no surrender on the path of the
lawmakers in the bid to override the president’s veto of the Electoral
Act amendment bill, erroneously called order of elections bill. But the
following week will be crucial to the whole show.
No comments:
Post a Comment