I have continued to watch with keen interest the game that is playing out in the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly over allegation that the Senate Standing Orders 2011 (as amended) was changed without the knowledge of the Seventh session of the Senate under the leadership of Senator David Mark.
The Unity Forum, which lost the senate leadership contest to Like Minds group, adverted attention to the issue on the floor, and would not allow it to be swept under the carpet despite the ruling by the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, on a point of order by Senator Kabiru Marafa, that the chamber has only one rule book: “That is Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended).”
Conventionally, every new session of the Senate, since 1999, had its rule book, not completely different from the previous one, but benefitting, where and when necessary, from some minimal or far-reaching amendments.
Such amendments are usually ratified in plenary by the Senate.
The Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended), the document which was circulated to members of the Eighth session during the June 9, 2015 inauguration did not benefit from such ratification.
Agreed that the rule book is the business of every Senate session as argued during an interview session last Tuesday on CHANNELS TV by Solomon Ita-Enang (former Chair of the Rules and Business Committee of the Seventh senate); but the Eighth session, at the point of inauguration, had not had the opportunity to look at the book and fashion out necessary amendments. I remember it was the Fifth session of the Senate that amended the 2007 rule book (that effectively accords ranking or cognate experience pre-eminent consideration in leadership appointments) which became the 2011 rule book, as amended, in the Sixth session. Did the Seventh session, which could have amended the document, do so? If it did not, the purported 2015 rules book could not have superseded the 2011 rule book because the Eighth session, which was yet to be inaugurated, could not have amended the 2015 rules book that was circulated on June 9, 2015.
That was the point Marafa was making and I am at great pains to fault his position.
Marafa had, through Orders 110, 3(e) (i), made his pungent intervention: “Any senator desiring to amend any part of the Rules or alter any clause shall give notice to such amendment and write to the President of the Senate, giving details of the proposed amendment. The President of the Senate shall, within seven working days of the receipt of the notice, cause the amendment to be printed and be circulated to members. Thereafter, it shall be printed in the Order Paper of the Senate.”
To strengthen his position, he had claimed ignorance of any such notice, receipt of notice, printing and circulation of the notice to members and its subsequent printing in the Order Paper. Read him: “I have Senate Standing Orders 2011 (as amended), which I was given when I was sworn-in as a senator on the 6th of June, 2011. When I was sworn in two weeks ago (June 9, 2015), I was handed another Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended). I did say that day that I cannot recall… and I used the opportunity provided by the break we went-the two weeks break-to go through the Hansards of the Seventh Assembly and I could not find anywhere these rules were amended or changed. This book (Senate Standing Orders 2011) clearly spells out how it can be amended. And that is the order I have just read….” Point well made!
No explanation to counter his position has been sanguineous enough to achieve that effect. The laborious attempt made by the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, did not fly in the face of simple logic. His explanation, perhaps, at best, amounted to what could safely be described as illogicality of logic. Read him: “I would like to offer explanation to my friend, Senator Marafa.
He’s just four years old in the Senate. Some of us have been here for 12 years. From 1999 till date, this Senate has come with its own rules. There was Senate rules book of 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and now 2015. The reason is quite simple. If you look at Section 64 of the 1999 Constitution, it says that the Senate and House of Representatives shall each stand dissolved at the expiration of a period of four years, commencing from the date of the first sitting of the house.
“So, the implication is that the rule he was referring to ended with the Senate on the 6th of June. That is why we had Senate Rule Book of 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and now 2015. If he is seeking to amend any Senate rule, he can only amend the existing one, which is the one for 2015. So, between now and 2019, this particular rule will govern us and can be amended in the manner he has suggested. Between now and until after 2019, we are going to have another Senate Rule of 2019. That has been the process and procedure since 1999. And it is based on the provisions of the Constitution….”
Who amended the 2011 Senate Standing Orders to produce the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended)? When and how was it done? Did it follow laid-down procedure as circumscribed in the extant rule? Can you now see what I meant about the feebleness of the attempt to counter Marafa’s position? These are the issues the Senate should address. I believe the Senate knows the truth. I can understand that there is a whiff of desperation in the ambience of the Upper Chamber in the lingering battle for leadership position, which Saraki is currently annexing.
What the Unity Forum, which promoted the candidature of Ahmad Lawan, is aiming at through Marafa’s gambit is to vitiate the moral basis of the current leadership of the Senate. This explains the petition the group sent to the Police alleging forgery of the rule book and requesting investigations into it. What should have been an internal affair of the Senate has now been externalised due to the grudge fight for position.
The vitiation of the moral basis of the Senate leadership under Saraki would be possible as long as it can be proved that the process of inauguration was grounded on the rules contained in the controversial Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended). Even if the argument is valid and a basis for interrogation of the malfeasance of changing the standing rule book arbitrarily is established, how should the Police have responded and proceeded in their investigations?
Expectedly, the Police had already had friendly chats with the Clerk to the National Assembly (CNA), Alhaji Salisu Abubakar Maikasuwa, over the matter. The Police probably felt that being the head of the National Assembly bureaucracy, and especially being the one who performed the inauguration, he should be able to speak about the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Orders 2015. I do not share the view that the Police erred by speaking with Maikasuwa. That was the best thing to do in order not to progress in error.
That meeting, even though one is not privy to the discussions, might have provided an opportunity for him to enlighten the Police officers about the workings of the Legislature and who are the custodians of the rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives are. And once that is established, it should have, by now, been clear to the Police where to fish for the truth in the murky waters of leadership tussle in the Senate.
Sifting the submission of Adetutu Folasade-Koyi in her piece titled “Who changed the rules?” under Senatewatch Column of Tuesday, July 14, 2015, I concur that Maikasuwa is not a lawmaker; that he is a civil servant who has no business with parliamentary rules and procedures; and that he is not even the custodian of the rules of both chambers of the National Assembly. I hope the Police are now well informed as to where to go in furtherance of their investigation in quest for the truth.
I also concur with one Ariyo Dare’s views published in a number of national newspapers on Sunday, July 12, 2015 about the overall role that Maikasuwa played to ensure that the National Assembly inauguration on June 9, 2015 was not stalled. Dare’s views came against the backdrop of the subtle attack on Maikasuwa by Abbah Mahmood in his back page Thursday Column in Leadership of July 9, 2015 wherein, to use Dare’s words “he (Mahmood) magisterially declared in his treatise” that Maikasuwa yaci kasuwarsa kawai (Maikasuwa just ate his market).
But after explaining Maikasuwa’s impartial and constitutionally-guided role during the inauguration, Dare had countered Mahmod thus “Maikasuwa ya gyara kasuwan democratiyan Nigeria (Maikasuwa has succeeded in helping to strengthen democracy in Nigeria).” I find it difficult to disagree with Dare.
Ojeifo, Editor-in-Chief of The Congresswatch magazine, sent this piece from Abuja via ojwonderngr@yahoo.com [myad]
