Macabre dance by Presidency, NASS

Dating back to 1999, the executive-legislative hostility has remained a recurring decimal, with the crisis of confidence receding only to resurface again. KUNLE ODEREMI writes of the ongoing naked dance by agents of the two arms of government, the pain and other implications.

IT is a familiar path and pattern since Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999 for the two vital arms of the government at the centre. They have returned to the trenches after a partial lull. For the past few weeks, they have returned to the trenches and treating the public to all manner of theatrics over matters bordering on the governance. Their open display of crisis of confidence and suspicion has provided a veritable script for a potential award-winning movie for even a less endowed film producer and actors, going by the idiosyncrasies of the actors.

The seeming unending douse of melodrama in the face of tension and frustration among the millions of impoverished millions of Nigerians has led to a number of posers on the genesis of the whole episode in the relationship between the two arms of government in the current political dispensation. Informed commentators have queried the dog fight from the prism of the doctrine of the Separation of Powers, especially against the recurring summons emanating from the Senate. Such critics and observers often cite Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution as amended which empower the president to make major appointments to be confirmed by the Senate. The sections stipulate:

88 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, each House of the National Assembly shall have power by resolution published in its journal or in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation to direct or cause to be directed investigation into –

(a) any matter or thing with respect to which it has power to make laws, and

(b) the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry or government department charged, or intended to be charged, with the duty of or responsibility for –

(i) executing or administering laws enacted by National Assembly, and

(ii) disbursing or administering moneys appropriated or to be appropriated by the National Assembly.

(2) The powers conferred on the National Assembly under the provisions of this section are exercisable only for the purpose of enabling it to –

(a) make laws with respect to any matter within its legislative competence and correct any defects in existing laws; and

(b) expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of laws within its legislative competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by it.

89. (1) For the purposes of any investigation under section 88 of this Constitutional and subject to the provisions thereof, the Senate or the House of Representatives or a committee appointed in accordance with section 62 of this Constitution shall have power to –

(a) procure all such evidence, written or oral, direct or circumstantial, as it may think necessary or desirable, and examine all persons as witnesses whose evidence may be material or relevant to the subject matter;

(b) require such evidence to be given on oath;

(c) summon any person in Nigeria to give evidence at any place or produce any document or other thing in his possession or under his control, and examine him as a witness and require him to produce any document or other thing in his possession or under his control, subject to all just exceptions; and

(d) issue a warrant to compel the attendance of any person who, after having been summoned to attend, fails, refuses or neglects to do so and does not excuse such failure, refusal or neglect to the satisfaction of the House or the committee in question, and order him to pay all costs which may have been occasioned in compelling his attendance or by reason of his failure, refusal or neglect to obey the summons, and also to impose such fine as may be prescribed for any such failure, refused or neglect; and any fine so imposed shall be recoverable in the same manner as a fine imposed by a court of law.

(2) A summons or warrant issued under this section may be served or executed by any member of the Nigeria Police Force or by any person authorised in that behalf by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may require.”

The argument of some scholars and commentators is that the senators could not use the sections to issue blanket summons. According to them, the lawmakers cannot hide under the provision or the Power and Privileges Act of 1957 to issue such summons to anyone not captured under a matter under investigation. Some also contend that it would be against the spirit of the constitution for the senators to make a choice for the president of the country on whom to appoint into some key public offices such as that of EFCC substantive chairman of the commission. However, a United Kingdom based commentator, who carved anonymity, faulted that position and said the UK parliament has the power to call and invite anyone but not when the person (inviting himself) is under investigation. There are also issues concerning the appropriateness of the Senate being the prosecutor and judge in its own case, especially when it involved the leadership of the Red Chamber.

On the other hand, some observers are concerned that the presidency appears to be working across purposes, given the cacophonies surrounding the candidature of Magu as substantive chairman of the EFCC. While the Attorney General of the Federation favours Magu confirmation, reports claimed to have emanated from the DSS currently in the domain, have armed the Senate in rejecting Magu, apart from insinuations in certain quarters that the ongoing power tussle was a case of corruption fighting back since a number of Senators, including former governors now in the Red chamber are under scrutiny by the EFCC.

There is equally the contention that the Senate is only trying to preserve and assert its autonomy as a critical arm of government. The feeling among some lawmakers and observers is that there is a deliberate and systematic attempt to undermine the authority and powers of the Senate by some forces in the executive.

Like in every major supremacy contest, the negative consequences are becoming too glaring for Nigerians. The 2018 federal budget under works, has suffered a serious set, so the lifespan of that 2016 currently running, has been further extended to May this year. The promise by the National Assembly to expedite action on the review of nation’s constitution hangs in the balance, just as the fate of the much-talked about Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) and other important ones appear caught in the web of serious and bizarre politicking.

Wobbling economy, volatility of the national currency; insecurity, as epitomised by wanton killings in a number of volatile parts of the country underscore the negative fallouts of the cold war and schism and loss confidence among the arms of government. A former Nigerian High Commissioner to Canada, Ambassador Dayo Bejide summarised the ongoing hostility between the two arms: “The face-off is a reflection of the deep-seated mistrust between the two arms of government. While the Senate feels that it is a fallout of the big agenda of the presidency to undermine its authority, the presidency is of the view that the faceoff is a clear demonstration of the resistance of those opposed to its anti-corruption crusade. In other words, corruption is merely fighting back using the Senate as a willing and appropriate tool. The implication of the face-off is that serious government activities and policy matters are left to suffer while self-aggrandisement, personal ambition and vendetta take the centre-stage. Already, individuals perceive as friends and agents of the presidency like Professor Itsey Sagay, Senatior Ndume and Ibrahim Magu are facing the heat of the face-off. The suspension of Senator ndume for a period of six months (which is a fallout of the crisis) is also likely to affect his contribution towards the rehabilitation of his people in Borno State.”

On the surface, however, the  hostility are on issues relating to the confirmation of Mr Ibrahim Magu as substantive chairman of the EFCC; insistence that the comptroller-General of the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS), Colonel Hameed Ali (retd) must wear the uniform of the Service when he appears in the Senate to honour its summons; Senate committee probe of the controversial of an armoured Range Rover, and the controversy over the academic certificate of the maverick Senator Dino Melaye, from Kogi State and the suspension of Senator Ali Ndume for six months for bring the Senate to disrepute over the allegations of certificate scandal and the purchase of the controversial armoured SUV.

From the past

The two week deadline issued by the Senate to the presidency following the rejection of Magu as EFCC substantive chairman, brought back memories about the drama that characterised the relationship between the national Assembly and former President Olusegun Obasanjo. The cold war between him and the Senate culminated in controversial exit of former Senate presidents, two of whom are no more: late Evans Enwerem and Chuba Okadigbo.

At a stage, the then Speaker of the House of Representatives, Umar Ghali Na’Abba also became a thorn in the flesh of the former with both camps involved in allegations and counter-allegations of gross abuse of office and gross misconduct to warrant impeachment from office. With its awesome power and overbearing influence, the executive succeeded in having its way but it was at no mean a cost. Most of the issues against Obasanjo was on the alleged haphazard implementation of the budget, monumental inadequacies, ineptitude and flagrant misbehavior. Obasanjo was reprimanded over the release of an unbudgeted N12 billion to settle debt owed to the contracting firm that handled the Abuja National Stadium with National Assembly approval.

Thus, the House set up a panel to investigate the country’s foreign revenue earnings from May 29, 1999 and December 31, 2001 and to ascertain if there were clear cases of mismanagement and discrepancies. He also set up other panels, including an ad-hoc committee to investigate the purchase by Obasanjo of 61 houses, estimated at N2.63 billion for his ministers and special aides.

Under former President Goodluck Jonathan, a similar face-off marked the relationship between the Presidency and the National Assembly. The then House had drawn a battle line with him also over purported poor implementation of the 2012 budget, which later spread to the Senate. A high-powered delegation led by the then Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator Anyim Pius Anyim was turned back from the scheduled Senate public hearing on the implementation of the 2012 budget, as the senators were angry with the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala for not showing up. The Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Ike Ekweremadu who held forth for the President of the Senate, Senator David Mark, gave Okonjo-Iweala an ultimatum to appear in person at the hearing which was rescheduled for the next day or risked arrest. The House Minority Leader, Mr. Femi Gbajabiamila, had warned: “If by September 18, the budget performance has not improved to 100 per cent, we shall begin to invoke and draw up articles of impeachment against the president.” Citing Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution, he said any action of the president defined as “gross misconduct” by the National Assembly was sufficient grounds to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

Presidency’s olive branch

In announcing the proposed committee to resolve outstanding issues between the executive and legislative arms of the government, the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed, confirmed the deep concern of executive on the its deteriorating relationship with the National Assembly.

“The executive is also quite worried and quite concerned that the relationship between the two arms of government is not as smooth as it is supposed to be,” he said. “In any democracy, it is a continuous struggle for balancing between the executive and the legislature because each of them is creatures of the law. We must strive at all times to ensure that there is that balance, amity and smooth relationship.”

It is recalled that the Senate had put on hold the confirmation of 27 Resident Electoral Commissioners over what it described as President Muhammadu Buhari’s refusal to sack the acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu. The upper chamber also summoned the chairman of the presidential committee on anti-corruption, Itse Sagay, whom it accused of making derogatory remarks against the Senate. Beyond the main issues already in the public domain and which constitute most discussions, the Senate has added to the legion of reasons for the cat and mouse relationship between the Senate and the executive.

In a response to the peace overture from the executive, the Senate through the Chairman of its Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, said expressed anger over the propensity of the executive to rubbish Senate resolutions, and the lawmakers decided to fight back. “If the resolutions are rubbished, what are we doing with the consideration of Resident Electoral Commissioners (REC)?

“If we reject any of them what happens. We therefore mandated the Senate President to convey our worry to Mr. President. We needed a response in order for us to know exactly what we are doing. We did not say we will not confirm the RECs. What we need at this time is understanding of how democracy works. If we do, democracy will work better,” the Senate spokesman stated.

But he expressed preparedness of the Senate to work with the Presidential Committee on Executive-Legislature expected to preside over by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, with the primary assignment of straightening the rough edges in the relationship between the Senate and the executive arm of government. The decision of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) to set up the committee indeed underscored the seriousness and implications of the conflict between the two arms for the polity and governance in the country, as the crisis has had some ripple effects on the 2017 federal budget.

The government has extended expiry date of last year’s budget to May this year. There is increasing erosion of public confidence in the agencies and institutions of government critical to the delivery of the dividends of democracy, just as not a few now pejoratively described the Senate as the House of Summons.

Regrettably, the image of the  National Assembly has received verbal assaults from different quarters and personalities, among them, former President Obasanjo, who accused the lawmakers of fixing and earning salaries and allowances far above what the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission approved for them, just as he alleged that most of the 109 senators and 369 members of the House of Representatives were receiving constituency allowances without maintaining constituency offices as the laws required of them. He frowned at what he perceived as the practice in the National Assembly “which detracts from “distinguished-ness” and “honourability.”

He opined: “Although the constituency allowance is paid to all members of the National Assembly, many of them have no constituency offices which the allowance is partly meant to cater for. And yet other allowances and payments have been added by the National Assembly for the National Assembly members’ emoluments. Surely, strictly speaking, it is unconstitutional. There is no valid argument for this except to see it for what it is – law-breaking and impunity by lawmakers. The lawmakers can return to the path of honour, distinguished-ness, sensitivity and responsibility. The National Assembly should have the courage to publish its recurrent budgets for the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. That is what transparency demands. Obasanjo also alleged that he was threatened with impeachment for not releasing some money to lawmakers which they had wrongly appropriated for themselves.

FG peace move: External matters

The supremacy battle within and outside the governing APC is also seen as defining the ongoing crisis of confidence between the two arms of government. Since the intrigue that brought Saraki and Yakubu Dogara, the Speaker House of Representatives, into office, the APC have been embroiled in a leadership crisis which many felt had subsided till late. A section of the party leadership is still sulking over its setback in its bid to install its favoured contender for Senate leadership of the National Assembly. This has led to the emergence of major political blocs in the APC, thereby denying the party of the advantage of having the majority in the National Assembly over the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Coupled with this is the tendencies relating to the three legacy parties that coalesced to form the APC prior to the last general election in the country. Are these forces at each other’s jugular for the soul of the party or are they looking for new political alliances that could give APC a run for its money in 2019 elections?