Headline

Comparatives of Western Legislative Experience in Electing Parliamentary Leaders

Published

8 years ago

August 15, 2018

Eric

The imbroglio in the Nigeria upper legislative assembly, the Senate, resulting from the defection of the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to the main opposition, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has reached fever pitch as calls for his resignation or impeachment from a section of the APC rings the air.

Championing the calls are the national chairman of the party, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, and Senate majority leader, Ahmed Lawan, who have threatened fire and brimstone should he fail to resign his position as the president.

On the other hand, Saraki has turned down the call to resign citing constitutional provisions and precedence obtainable world over, which permits the minority group to produce parliamentary leaders through elections.

According to Andrew Kennon, a former Clerk of Committees in the British House of Commons “The House’s freedom to make its own choice among an array of volunteers probably means that any sense of it being the ‘turn’ of a particular party is out of date.

Kennon’s over 40 years in the British House of Commons made him an authority capable of speaking authoritatively on areas of legislative elections.

Below are samples of parliamentary procedures requisite for elections in developed democracies and the precedence set for others to follow:

UNITED KINGDOM

MPs elect the Speaker from amongst their own ranks. The House must elect a Speaker at the beginning of each new parliamentary term after a general election, or after the death or resignation of the incumbent. Once elected, a Speaker continues in office until the dissolution of Parliament, unless he or she resigns prior to this. Customarily, the House re-elects Speakers who desire to continue in office for more than one term. Theoretically, the House could vote against re-electing a Speaker, but such an event is extremely unlikely. Until 2001, the election of a Speaker was conducted as a routine matter of House of Commons business, as it used motions and amendments to elect. There was, however, a considerable amount of behind-the-scenes lobbying before suitable candidates were agreed upon, and so it was very rare for a new Speaker to be opposed. However, this system broke down in 2000 when 12 rival candidates declared for the job and the debate occupied an entire Parliamentary day. Under the new system, candidates must be nominated by at least twelve members, of whom at least three must be of a different party from the candidate. The House votes by secret ballot; as in Nigeria, an absolute majority is required for victory.

In recent times, from the 19^th century onwards, the Speaker has even been a member of the Opposition and not all Speakers have been the candidates proposed by the ruling Party even if they are from that Party. For example, in 1895, the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists put forward Sir Matthew White Ridley, a well-respected MP who had many years of experience, and hoped for a unanimous election as the previous Speaker had been a Liberal. However, the Liberals decided to oppose him and eventually nominated William Court Gully who had been an MP for only nine years and had been a relatively quiet presence. Gully won on a party-line vote. In 1951 there was a great demand from the Labour Party for Major James Milner to become the first Labour Speaker after he had served as Deputy Speaker for eight years. However, the Conservatives (who had just regained power) nominated William Shepherd Morrison, Conservative MP, against him. This was at the time an unusual step. The vote again went down party lines, and Morrison was elected. In 1992, Betty Boothroyd, a Labour MP who had been Deputy Speaker, contested against the Conservative former Cabinet member Peter Brooke. About 70 Conservative MPs supported Boothroyd ensuring her election. She was the only Speaker elected in the 20th century not to be a member of the governing party at the time of her first election. In 2000, most Labour MPs supported Michael Martin. However, most Conservatives felt that a Conservative Speaker should be chosen. They supported two prominent Conservatives, Sir George Young and Deputy Speaker Sir Alan Haselhurst. After a lengthy sitting of the House, Michael Martin was elected Speaker. Following the debacle of this election the rules were changed as stated above. In 2009, John Bercow, a Conservative MP was elected Speaker following an election by secret ballot in which the frontline Labour MP, Margaret Beckett, and another Labour MP, Parmjit Dhanda, participated. Labour was in Government at this time. Bercow thus became the first Speaker to be elected in the 21st century not to be a member of the governing party at the time of his first election.

IRELAND

The Ceann Comhairle (“head of the council”) is the chairperson (or speaker) of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas (parliament) of Ireland. The person who holds the position is elected by members of the Dáil from among their number in the first session after each general election. Despite this, a government usually tries to select a member of its own political party for the position, if it has enough deputies to allow that choice. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle holds office as the Deputy Chairman of Dáil Éireann under Article 15.9.1 of the Constitution. In the absence of the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle deputises and performs the duties and exercises the authority of the Ceann Comhairle in Dáil proceedings. By tradition, the position is reserved for the Opposition, but the appointment is made by the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of the day.

AUSTRALIA

The President of the Senate is elected by the Senate in a secret ballot. The Clerk conducts the election. The Presidency has always been a partisan office and the nominee of the government party has nearly always been elected, although this cannot be guaranteed since the government of the day does not necessarily have a majority in the Senate. The President is assisted by an elected Deputy President.

The traditional practice has been that the government nominates a Senator to be elected as President, and the Opposition nominates a Senator to be Deputy President. If there are no other nominations, no election is required, however the Australian Greens in 2005 and again in 2007 put forward Senator Kerry Nettle as a rival candidate when the position of President was vacant. Neither Government nor Opposition Senators supported that candidacy. After the 1996 election, the Labor Party refused to nominate Colston to become Deputy President of the Senate. In a bid to win him over, the Howard Coalition government offered to support him. Colston resigned from the Labor Party by fax message at 11:30 a.m. on 20 August, and he took his seat as an independent that afternoon. In the evening, he was elected Deputy President, on the nomination of the Coalition.

UNITED STATES

The Constitution designates the Vice President of the United States as President of the Senate. The Constitution also calls for a President pro tempore to serve as the leader of the body when the President of the Senate (the Vice President) is absent. In practice, neither the Vice President nor the President pro tempore customarily the most senior (longest-serving) Senator in the majority party actually presides over the Senate on a daily basis; that task is given to junior Senators of the majority party.

The Senate Majority and Minority Leaders are two United States Senators who are elected by the party caucuses that hold the majority and the minority respectively. These leaders serve as the chief Senate spokesperson for their parties and manage and schedule the legislative and executive business of the Senate.

Party leaders and whips of the United States House of Representatives are elected by their respective parties in a closed-door caucus by secret ballot and are also known as floor leaders. The U.S. House of Representatives does not officially use the term “Minority Leader” although the media frequently does. The House instead uses the terms “Republican Leader” or “Democratic Leader” depending on which party holds a minority of seats.

In common U.S. Congressional Republican caucus legislative usage, the caucus chair is styled conference chairman and is outranked by the Speaker or Senate President pro-tempore, and the leader or whip of his or her party.

CANADA

In Canada, the elected members of each party in Parliament, including senators, or a provincial legislature, elect among themselves a caucus chair who presides over their meetings. The exception to this norm is the Conservative Party of Canada, whose caucus chair is appointed by the party leader. This person is an important figure when the party is in opposition and an important link between cabinet and the backbench when the party is in government.

FRANCE

The Senate is the upper house of the Parliament of France, presided over by a president. The senators elect a President from among their members. The current incumbent is Gérard Larcher. The President of the Senate is, under the constitution of the Fifth Republic, first in the line of succession in case of death, resignation or removal from office (only for health reasons) to the Presidency of the Republic, becoming Acting President of the Republic until a new election can be held.

Elected by secret ballot at the beginning of the legislative session by members, the President of the National Assembly represents the Assembly and directs discussion and debates.

The President normally comes from the largest party represented, assisted by Vice Presidents from across the represented political spectrum.

The above is a testimony that the President of the Senate has not fallen short of any constitutional provision, and should not be in any form of pressure to relinquish his position, or be threatened with impeachment before his party might be in the minority.

The case of John Pam West of the Senate and Edwin Ume-Ezeoke of the Nigerian Second Republic are clear evidences of the what must be.

Headline

Why Nigerians Must Reject INEC’s Revised Timetable – ADC

Published

4 days ago

February 28, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), during the week, released a fresh elections timetable, with major amendments to accommodate the just passed and signed Electoral Act 2026 by the National Assembly and President Bola Tinubu respectively.

Following the repeal of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the enactment of the Electoral Act, 2026, which introduced adjustments to statutory timelines governing pre-election and electoral activities, the Commission has reviewed and realigned the Schedule to ensure full compliance with the new legal framework.

Accordingly, the Commission has resolved as follows:

Presidential and National Assembly Elections will now hold on Saturday, 16th January 2027 as against the earlier stated February 20, 2027
Governorship and State Houses of Assembly Elections will now hold on Saturday, 6th February 2027 as against the former date of March 6, 2027

Also in accordance with the approved Schedule of Activities, the electoral bidy noted in the revised timetable that:

Conduct of Party Primaries, including resolution of disputes arising from primaries, will commence on 23rd April 2026 and end on 30th May 2026.

Presidential and National Assembly campaigns will commence on 19th August 2026.

Governorship and State Houses of Assembly campaigns will commence on 9th September 2026.

As provided by law, campaigns shall end 24 hours before Election Day. Political parties are strongly advised to adhere strictly to these timelines. The Commission will enforce compliance with the law.

But in a swift reaction, the opposition coalition, African Democratic Congress (ADC), rejected the revised 2026–2027 general election timetable, describing it as a politically biased schedule designed to favour the re-election agenda of President Bola Tinubu, and calling on all Nigerians to speak up enmasse to reject the revised timetable.

The ADC, in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, on Friday argued that the new deadlines and compliance requirements under the Electoral Act 2026 create near-impossible hurdles for opposition parties seeking to field candidates.

On February 13, INEC initially scheduled the 2027 Presidential and National Assembly elections for February 20, 2027, while the Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections were fixed for March 6, 2027.

The timetable, however, faced objections from some Muslim stakeholders who noted that the dates coincided with the 2027 Ramadan period.

Following the concerns, the National Assembly amended Clause 28 of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, reducing the required election notice period from 360 to 300 days, allowing INEC to adjust the election dates.

Subsequently, INEC released a revised schedule on Thursday, signed by its Chairman, Joash Amupitan, moving the Presidential and National Assembly elections to January 16, 2027, and the Governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections to February 6, 2027.

Reacting, the ADC said the requirement that political parties submit a comprehensive digital membership register by April 2, 2026, effectively bars opposition parties from participating.

The party stated: “The African Democratic Congress rejects the updated 2026–2027 electoral timetable released by the Independent National Electoral Commission. What has been presented as a routine administrative schedule of the upcoming general elections is, in fact, a political instrument carefully structured to narrow democratic space and strengthen the incumbent administration ahead of the 2027 general elections.

“According to the timetable, party primaries are to be conducted between April 23 and May 30, 2026, just 55 to 92 days from today. However, more significant is that, pursuant to Section 77(4) of the Electoral Act 2026, political parties are required to submit their digital membership registers to INEC not later than April 2, 2026.

“That is only about 34 days away. Section 77(7) further provides that any party that fails to submit its membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate. These are not routine administrative rules but are deliberately constructed barriers designed to exclude the opposition from participating in the election.”

The party further noted that Section 77(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 requires the digital register of members to contain name, sex, date of birth, address, state, local government, ward, polling unit, National Identification Number (NIN) and photograph in both hard and soft copies, while Section 77(6) prohibits the use of any pre-existing register that does not contain the specified information. It warned that failure to meet these requirements would lead to disqualification.

The ADC questioned the fairness of the digital membership requirement, noting that the ruling All Progressives Congress began its registration process in February 2025, long before the requirement became mandatory.

“It is not a product of foresight but insider advantage. They knew what was coming. They therefore had one full year to carry out an exercise that other political parties are expected to complete in one month, during which they must collect, process, collate and transmit large volumes of digital data to INEC under the threat of exclusion. This is practically impossible.

“Democratic competition is based on a level playing field that does not give any contestant an undue advantage. A system where one party exploits incumbency to gain a one-year head start on a requirement that other parties only became aware of when it was nearly too late is a rigged system.”

The ADC said it has joined other opposition parties in rejecting the Electoral Act 2026, adding that the INEC timetable is equally rejected as it appears designed to serve what it described as a self-succession agenda.

“Let it be clear that ADC will not take any action that appears to confer legitimacy on a fraudulent system. We are reviewing our options and will make our position known in the coming days,” the party said.

The party also called on civil society organisations, democratic stakeholders and Nigerians to scrutinise the timetable and demand fairness, stressing that democracy cannot survive when electoral rules are structured to produce predetermined outcomes.

The party has consistently accused the Tinubu-led All Progressives Congress (APC) of scheming to silence the opposition as the 2027 General Elections draw closer, citing his manipulation of state governors and Assembly members from jumping ship, and settling with the ruling party.

Presently, the president’s party has a total of 31 out of 36 states governors, more than majority of the national and states Houses of Assembly.

A frontline publisher and chieftain of the ADC, Chief Dele Momodu, has warned that Tinubu is gradually transforming into full-blown dictatorship, stressing that his second term in office would turn state governors into ‘total slaves’.

Headline

Second Term for Tinubu Will Turn Governors into Total Slaves, Dele Momodu Warns

Published

5 days ago

February 28, 2026

Eric

Chairman, Ovation Media Group, and former presidential aspirant, Aare Dele Momodu, has expressed strong concern over what he described as growing political support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu among state governors across the country.

Speaking during an interview on News Central TV, Momodu said he was shocked by the level of backing the president is reportedly receiving, warning that Nigeria’s democracy could face serious risks if the current political trend continues.

The media entrepreneur cautioned that allowing Tinubu to secure a second term in 2027 could, in his view, lead to excessive concentration of power. He particularly criticized what he described as a growing wave of opposition figures aligning with the ruling All Progressives Congress> (APC).

Momodu referenced reports of opposition governors, including Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri, allegedly moving closer to the ruling party, describing the development as politically troubling.

According to him, some governors are allegedly competing to demonstrate loyalty to the president ahead of future elections.

“The governors are fighting to ensure Tinubu wins a second term, fighting to be the biggest thug for him. If a man in his first term can capture the bodies and souls of Nigerians this way, imagine what he would do with a second term. It will be a full-blown dictatorship, and the governors will regret it as they become total slaves to him,” Momodu said.

He concluded by urging Nigerians to remain vigilant and actively protect democratic institutions, warning that unchecked consolidation of political power could threaten the nation’s democracy and future stability.

Gistmania

Headline

Court Validates PDP 2025 Convention in Ibadan, Affirms Turaki-led NWC

Published

5 days ago

February 27, 2026

Eric

The Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan has affirmed the validity of the 2025 Elective Convention of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), which produced Dr. Kabiru Turaki as the substantive National Chairman of the party.

Delivering judgment on Friday, Justice Ladiran Akintola upheld the convention in its entirety, ruling that it was conducted in full compliance with the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions governing party elections in Nigeria.

The decision marked a significant legal victory for the party’s leadership and brought clarity to the dispute surrounding the convention’s legitimacy.

The ruling followed an amended originating summons filed by Misibau Adetunmbi (SAN) on behalf of the claimant, Folahan Malomo Adelabi, in Suit No. I/1336/2025.

In a comprehensive judgment, the court granted all 13 reliefs sought by the claimant, effectively endorsing the processes and outcomes of the Ibadan convention.

Justice Akintola held that the convention, organised by the recognised leadership of the party, satisfied all laid-down legal requirements as stipulated in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Electoral Act 2022 (as amended), and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.

The court found no breach of due process or statutory non-compliance in the conduct of the exercise.

In the same proceedings, the court dismissed the Motion on Notice seeking a stay of proceedings and suspension of the ruling, filed by Sunday Ibrahim (SAN) on behalf of Austin Nwachukwu and two others. The applications were described as lacking merit.

Earlier in the proceedings, the court had also rejected a bid by Ibrahim to have his clients joined in the suit.

Justice Akintola ruled at the time that the joinder application was unsubstantiated and consequently dismissed it.