Headline

Comparatives of Western Legislative Experience in Electing Parliamentary Leaders

Published

6 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own choice among an array of volunteers probably means that any sense of it being the ‘turn’ of a particular party is out of date.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

You’re Non-Existent, Fubara Tells Amaewhule-led Rivers Assembly

Published

20 hours ago

May 7, 2024

Eric

Rivers State Governor, Similaya Fubara, has taken a swipe at the Martin Amaewhule-led group of lawmakers at the state House of Assembly and declared that they do not exist anymore in the eyes of the law.

“Let me say it here, those groups of men who claim that they are assembly members, they do not exist. I want it to be on the record,” Fubara declared

The governor stated this when he received on courtesy visit the Bayelsa State delegation of political and traditional leaders, led by former Governor of the State, Senator Seriake Dickson, at Government House in Port Harcourt on Monday.

Fubara and 26 members of the assembly loyal to former governor, Nyesom Wike, have been at loggerheads after the move to impeach the governor was thwarted.

He told the delegation that he has been showing restraint since the political crisis escalated in the state.

The governor further stated that despite wielding state powers that he can deploy to achieve his aim, he has continued to act as the big brother in the face of intimidation and unwarranted attacks.

“So, I want you to see the sacrifice I have made to allow peace to be in our state. I can say here, with all amount of boldness, I have never called any policeman anywhere to go and harass anybody.

“I have never gone anywhere to ask anybody to do anything against anybody. But what happens to the people that are supporting me? They are being harassed, they are being arrested and detained.

“There is no week that somebody doesn’t come here with one letter of invitation for trump-up charges and all those things,” he said.

The governor added, “I am saying all these because of what my senior said here. I don’t think the other party has shown any restraint. I am the one who has shown restraint in the face of this crisis.

“I am the one that is badly hit, even when I have all the government instruments to shake up the table. But, why will I do it? I believe that peace is the best relationship to cultivate.”

He revealed that he had always been present at any meeting that was called to resolve the crisis in the state but after each meeting, he was met with a new dimension of the crisis from the opposing side.

He, however, vowed to continue to be peaceful, acknowledging that power is transient.

“We might have our division, but I believe that one day, we could also come together, but it has gotten to a time when I have to make a statement that they are not existing. Their existence is me allowing them to exist. If I de-recognize them, they are nowhere. I want you to see the sacrifice I have made in allowing peace to reign in our state,” he concluded.

The Punch

Headline

Yahaya Bello vs EFCC: The Tussle Continues

Published

2 days ago

May 5, 2024

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

With the declaration of the Apppeal Court, sitting in Abuja over the weekend, ordering a stay of proceedings in the contempt charge instituted by Yahaya Bello, former Kogi governor, against Ola Olukoyede, chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the stage seems set for an elongation of legal fireworks between the two feuding entities.

The declaration was a follow-up of Bello, who approached the Kogi High Court, seeking an order to issue and serve the respondent (EFCC chairman) with “form 49 notice” to show cause why an order of committal should not be made on him.

The judge, after listening to the arguments of the applicant’s counsel, the submission and the exhibits attached in the written address, granted Bello’s prayers and ordered Olukoyede to be summoned to appear before the court to answer the contempt charge.

However, while it is believed that the crisis of apprehending the former governor for prosecution is an institutional matter, many on the other hand, has accused the EFCC chairman of attaching a lot of personal interest in the matter going by the way he is fighting tooth and nail to see Bello in custody.

In a chat with editors at the EFCC Headquarters, Jabi, Abuja, the anti-graft agency chairman swore to follow the prosecution of Bello to the logical conclusion.

He also vowed that all those who obstructed the arrest of the former governor would be brought to justice.

The EFCC is seeking to arraign Bello on 19 counts bordering on alleged money laundering, breach of trust and misappropriation of funds to the tune of N80.2 billion.

“If I do not personally oversee the completion of the investigation regarding Yahaya Bello, I will tender my resignation as the EFCC Chairman,” Mr Olukoyede had vowed, adding that those who obstructed the arrest of the former governor would be brought to book. This was a veiled accusation against the governor of Kogi State, Usman Ododo, who used security agents to forestall the arrest of Bello in Abuja.

Olukoyede had also accused Bello of paying his children’s school fees upfront with funds from the atatae coffers.

“A sitting governor moved $720,000 directly from the government account to the Bureau de Change and used it to pay for the school fees of his child in advance in a poor state like Kogi, and you want me close my eyes under the guise that I’m being used. Use by who? At this stage of my life? By who for crying out loud?

“I didn’t initiate the case, I inherited the case file,” he retorted.

The EFCC had sought to arrest Yahaya Bello following his absence from court, and an order by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja after his absence in court.

He was absent from court for his arraignment on a 19-count charge of alleged money laundering to the tune of ₦80bn.

The judge relied on sections 384(4) and (5) of the Administrative and Criminal Justice Act 2015, directing the counsel to the immediate past governor to receive a copy of the charge.

The court held that where it had become impossible to effect personal service of a legal process on a defendant, such could be done through substituted means.

Justice Nwite further held that it was clear that the former governor failed to appear in court for his arraignment.

Notable minds including veteran journalist, Dele Momodu; human advocate and constitutional lawyer, Mike Ozekhome among others have said that the brazen nature with which Olukoyede is going about the matter smacks of personal vendetta, noting that now that the court of appeal has ordered a stay of execution of the contempt of court charges against Olukoyede, everyone must maintain status quotes, and allow Bello to respond to court summon, as the case is now between him and the court of Justice Nwite.

On his part, Momodu has lashed out at the EFCC for selective prosecution, wondering if Olukoyede has any personal stake in the matter, adding that generally the EFCC misfired in the Bello saga.

He said in part, during his Instagram live show:

“I don’t work for EFCC but from all the things that I have read, a lot of them, they misfired. That is the honest truth. They misfired. They didn’t do their due diligence. When you said a man took out money and paid for his children’s school fees, just as he was about to leave power, and you go and check the documents and you see that these things started happening from 2021, 2022 (laughs); I am not an illiterate.

“How do you expect me to believe everything they said when they were too much in a hurry to prosecute him that they did not take their time to check the file. Once you allow a lacuna in law, everything will fall flat.

“That is it. I am not one of those people who will say because I don’t like APC and because I supported Dino Melaye in the last election in Kogi State. Dino is my guy. But, I will not because of that be blinded by hatred for Yahaya Bello and say yes, he should go and surrender himself to EFCC when there is an existing injunction.

“And he is not the only governor who went to court and if the court has granted him that, so be it. We all know that our judiciary is not so perfect but you know, even at that, law is law, it must be obeyed. If we disobey the rule of law, then, we will have to obey the rule of the jungle. So, I never said that they are lying, it is their own statement that shows that they didn’t do their due diligence.”

TheCable, in its report, recalled that “a Kogi State high court presided over by Isa Jamil Abdullahi, had ordered Olukoyede to appear before it on May 13 to show why he should not be committed to prison for allegedly disobeying its order restraining the EFCC from arresting or taking any action against Bello.

“However, the EFCC chairman filed an appeal against the court summon.

“Olukoyede filed two motions, one seeking a stay of execution of the summon, and another one asking to serve processes on Bello via substituted means by pasting the process at his Abuja residence on No 9 Bengazi Steet Wuse Zone 4.

“In its ruling, a three-member panel of justices led by Joseph Oyewole granted the two motions.

“The appellate court fixed May 20 for the hearing of the substantive appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/413/2024.

“Bello had on February 8, 2024, instituted a fundamental rights enforcement suit, asking the court to declare that “the incessant harassment, threats of arrest and detention, negative press releases, malicious prosecution” by the EFCC, “without any formal invitation, is politically motivated and interference with his right to liberty, freedom of movement, and fair hearing”.

“The former governor also sought an order “restraining the respondent by themselves, their agents, servants or privies from continuing to harass, threaten to arrest or detain him”.

“On February 9, the Kogi high court granted an interim injunction restraining the EFCC from “continuing to harass, threaten to arrest, detain, prosecute Bello, his former appointees, and his staff or family members, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive originating motion for the enforcement of his fundamental rights”.

On March 12, the EFCC filed an appeal against the interim injunction because the court could not stop the commission from carrying out its statutory responsibility.

The Kogi high court delivered judgment on the substantive motion on notice on April 17 wherein the presiding judge granted an order restraining the EFCC “from continuing to harass, threaten to arrest or detain Bello”.

However, the judge directed the commission to file a charge against Bello before an appropriate court if it had reasons to do so.

The judgment coincided with the recent “siege” laid on the Abuja residence of Bello by EFCC operatives seeking to arrest him.

The commission had also obtained a warrant of arrest against the former governor from the federal high court in Abuja.

The EFCC is seeking to arraign Bello on 19 counts bordering on alleged money laundering, breach of trust and misappropriation of funds to the tune of N80.2 billion.

At the scheduled arraignment on April 18, Bello was absent.

At the court session, Abdulwahab Mohammed, counsel to Bello, told Emeka Nwite, the presiding judge, that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the warrant of arrest in the first instance.

He referenced the February 9 interim injunction issued by the Kogi high court, adding that the appeal filed by the EFCC was still pending.

However, the EFCC has filed a notice to withdraw the appeal.

In the notice filed on April 22, the anti-graft agency said the withdrawal was predicated on the fact that events have overtaken the appeal.

The commission also admitted that the appeal was filed out of the time allowed by law.

With the present status, legal minds are of the opinion that matters have returned to status quo, and Justice Emeka Nwite, reserved the right to order Bello’s appearance in court, and await his appearance before any other injunction can be made.

“For now, it is not about who won or who did not. The matters of the case rest with the invitation of Bello by Justice Nwite. Bello was absent during his first summon, and the case was adjourned. So, everyone has to keep the calm and wait for the next hearing and see if he appears or not as directly by his lordship,” Ozekhome noted.

As it is therefore, May 20 will be a deciding factor for both Bello and EFCC as the tussle for who laughs last continues.

Headline

A’IBOM GOVT PARTNERS FHA ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Published

3 days ago

May 4, 2024

Admin

.. donates 50 hectares of land for project take-off

Akwa Ibom State Government and the Federal Housing Authority ( FHA) have sealed a new partnership on the Diaspora Home Project, an affordable housing scheme of the President Tinubu Renewed Hope Agenda, with flexible payment programme, for public servants resident in the State.

The partnership was reached as the State Governor, Pastor Umo Eno, announced a fifty hectares of land donation and any other required state government support, as counterpart facilitation for the federal government housing project during a courtesy visit by a delegation from FHA led by its MD/CEO, Hon. Oyetunde Ojo, at Government House, Uyo.

In his words, “I want to assure you sir that we will work together. We have already allocated a piece of land and the Commissioner for Lands will make it available to you.

“Talking about the economic benefits such as creating employment, and all the other areas that you have talked about, we will give you all the necessary support for the benefit of our people,” he said.

Commending the all-inclusive leadership style of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Governor Eno lauded the FHA helmsman for taking steps to collaborate and ensure synergy between the federal agency and governments of the respective states proposed for the project.

This, he said, was similar to the Akwa Ibom approach, where the government does not embark on any project without engaging the stakeholders to know the actual community needs per time, expressing hope that other federal agencies, like the NDDC, would take a cue from the disposition of the FHA.

He reiterated his commitment to supporting and collaboratively working with the President Tinubu-led federal government for the general good of the people, irrespective of their different political affiliations.

“We want to make our people happy and I think that is why God sent us here. We can show to our people that our brother is up there and is helping to bring things back home and I thank Mr. President for being a father to all.

“For us in Akwa Ibom, we will work with him because he is doing his very best. I don’t have to be in APC to support him. So I make it very clear, I am a member of the PDP, but I will support Mr. President always,” Governor Eno affirmed.

In his earlier presentation, Hon. Oyetunde Ojo, said housing was a critical component of the Renewed Hope Agenda of the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu-led government and thanked the Akwa Ibom State Governor for readily supporting FHA’s Diaspora City project with land donation which, he stressed, was a priority requirement for the project.

According to him, besides coming to solicit for land, the FHA under his watch will be willing to collaborate with the state government in the areas of design, the actual building and ensuring off-takers for houses, while assuring of optimal and judicious utilisation of the allocated land.