By NWOBODO CHIDIEBERE
THE commencement of constitutional amendment by the National Assembly has thrown up a lot of issues of national importance to the court of public opinion. The proposal to give presiding officers of National and State Assemblies immunity and life pension is generating ripples in the polity. Both the proponents and opponents of immunity and life pension for National and State Assemblies leadership have laid out the pros and cons of their arguments. Of utmost importance and worthy of discussion to this writer, is the proposal for immunity for presiding officers of the Assemblies.
Under constitutional democracy, we have three arms of government—Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Executive arm is made of president, vice president, governors and deputy governors. Legislative arm is comprised of National Assembly and State Assemblies, while Judiciary is composed of the bench and bar. Out of these three arms of government, only the leadership of legislature as presently constituted does not have immunity protection from the constitution. Ironically, the legislature, whose primary duty is to amend the constitution periodically, has been made vulnerable by the same constitution like the proverbial potter becoming a victim of his clay.
I have listened to both sides of this argument with keen interest and rapt attention. Those against the proposal said that it would create impunity, promote corruption and engender accountability in government. The National Assembly has become an object of ridicule in the eyes of civil society organizations, human rights activists and analysts who questioned the motive of this survivalist move to protect the sacred institution of democracy from the rampaging forces of dictatorship being propelled by the executive arm of government.
For the purpose of clarity and objectiveness, the proposed immunity for presiding officers of the legislature will not promote impunity as ignorantly being speculated by sympathisers of the executive arm of government, rather it will entrench the principle of separation of powers, checks and balances in the polity. The Legislature will live up to its constitutional role as watchdog to the executive. The current trend in which the legislative arm is being treated as an extension of the executive arm of government is not good for the growth of our nascent democracy.
It is almost impossible to juxtapose the fact that the Senate President and Speaker of House of Reps, who are the third and fourth citizens of Nigeria, respectively, in the hierarchy of political power, have no immunity while governors, who are on lower ranking, enjoy same, simply because they are part of the executive arm of government. Opponents of this proposal should also remember that the 1999 Constitution was a creation of the military. Nigerians were not given the privilege to formulate a people-oriented constitution. Rather, the 1999 Constitution was handed down to us just to further entrench the interests of the military in a supposed democratic dispensation.
The military purposely weakened the legislature by denying it its fair share of constitutional protection just to sustain the pre-1999 military structure in the political system—in which the president and governors lorded it over the other arms of government. This is one of the manifestations of hatred of the military for the legislative arm of government. This is also the major reason the legislature becomes the first victim in a military coup. Apart from the fact that the military cabal which scripted the 1999 Constitution ensured that one of its own became the substantive civilian president, it ensured that the overbearing powers of a military dictator were arrogated to the office, just to maintain a military stronghold on the system, which makes Nigeria’s President the most powerful in the world.
I will like to pose some thought-provoking and mind-renewing questions to ardent critics of this proposed immunity for presiding officers of National and State Assemblies. Is it a coincident that there is always instability in National Assembly any time Nigeria has a former military Head of State as civilian president? Is it not wrong to believe and insinuate that the proposed immunity will create impunity in the system, when the absence of it has done this already? How will a weak leadership of the legislature checkmate the all-too-powerful executive arm of government with all the state apparatus at its beck and call?
Will there be true separation of powers without balance of political powers? Can a sitting president in Abuja threaten a Speaker of a State Assembly into instituting impeachment proceedings against a supposedly disliked governor, if the Speaker has immunity against arrest and persecution? Answers to the above questions will elucidate the nitty-gritty cum merits of the proposed immunity which critics of this novel democratic proposal fail to understand.
As a result of the insufferable hypocrisy of those terming this legislative masterstroke anti-people and pro-corruption, so many Nigerians have unconsciously joined the bandwagon of those criticising this unparalleled proposal even without weighing its merits vis-à-vis demerits. This proposed immunity for presiding officers of National and State Assemblies is not for Senate President Saraki, DSP Ekweremadu or House Speaker Dogara, but for survival and sustainability of our young democracy.
nChidiebere writes from Abuja.