Curtain call
Last week, we started this intriguing issue as to whether the Senate can legally summon the IGP to appear before it. Today, we shall continue same, and look into the Prince Harry/Meghan Markle 21st Century wonder.
Can anyone seriously argue that the Senate should turn a blind eye and refuse to use its oversight functions to invite and interrogate the IGP on the daily horrific and blood-chilling butchery of innocent men, women, children, vulnerable youth and helpless pregnant women across Benue, Plateau, Taraba, Adamawa, Kaduna, Nassarawa, Bornu, Kogi, Edo, Delta, Kwara, Ondo and Kebbi states? Can the IGP not be questioned as to why Dino, or any citizen at all, should be so brazenly maltreated and chained down to a hospital bed like an animal or a deranged psycho or a common criminal? Can the Senate not also ask the IGP about his glaring “inefficiency” in failing to halt the dastardly bloodletting by herdsmen and other militias across Nigeria? (Section 88[2]). Can the Senate not ask him about the billions of naira so far spent on police equipment with nothing to show for it in terms of security? Will these not enable the Senate to “expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste in the execution or administration of laws within its (NASS’s) legislative competence (Police Act) and the disbursement or administration of funds” “appropriated or to be appropriated by the NASS”? (Sections 88[1])and 88(2) of the Constitution. Surely, can anyone seriously argue that Senate should close its eyes against the bestial, inhuman and degrading treatment meted out to one of its members, or any Nigerian for that matter, by the Police, in the purported exercise of their powers under the Police Act (“any matter with respect to which it has powers to make laws”?) Section 88(I). Does the IGP not, therefore, fall within the category of “any person, authority, ministry or government department charged with the duty and responsibility of executing or administering laws enacted by the NASS”? Section 88(1). Does his abusive treatment of Melaye and his failure to halt the grisly killings across Nigeria not amount to the “conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry or government department charged with the duty and responsibility of executing or administering laws enacted by the NASS”? Section 88(1). Does the IGP not engage in “disbursing or administering monies appropriated or to be appropriated by the NASS”? Section 88(1). Will such interrogation of the IGP not ultimately lead to “correct any defects in existing laws” [Section 88 (2) (a)] or make fresh laws “with respect to any matter within its legislative competence”? [Section 88 (2) (a)]. Will these wanton killings not amount to “inefficiency or waste” that must be exposed? [Section 88(2)]. Does the fact that the huge budgets spent on police equipment are not reflected in any active engagement of Nigerians’ travails, and that the killings appear sponsored, premeditated and officially condoned, if not encouraged, not amount to “corruption” and “waste”, which must be exposed? Section 88(2). I have always maintained that corruption does not begin and end with recovering looted funds, or our stolen common patrimony. This is called financial or economic corruption. Political and government corruption, such as nepotism, cronyism, tribalism, sectionalism, discrimination, favouritism and clannishness in appointments and execution of laws made by the NASS, and covering up corruption within government circles, are more odious and more cancerous forms of corruption than economic and financial corruption. They strike at the very foundation of ethos, morals, governance and integrity. Consequently, the Senate can invoke its powers under Section 89(1) to “summon any person” (the IGP inclusive), to appear to “give evidence at any place or produce any document or other thing in his possession or under his control and to examine him as witness” and to issue a warrant of arrest to compel the attendance of any such person. Section 89 (1) (2). The danger in public officers’ refusal to subject themselves to democratic norms by obeying constituted authority, such as in this particular case, is that it chips away incrementally and instalmentally constitutionalism, democratic ethos, values and conventions and ultimately kills democracy.
Legislative houses (power and privileges) act
Aside from sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution, there exists Section 4 of the LEGISLATIVE HOUSES (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ACT, LFN, 2004, which, unlike sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution, does not even impose any qualifications or limitations howsoever on the powers of the Senate, House of Representatives of the NASS, or any of their committees, to, by resolution, order the attendance of “ANY PERSON” and for such a person “to produce any papers, records or other documents in his possession”. Such an invitation shall be endorsed by the clerk of the particular House, Senate or House of Representatives. It shall specify the date, time and place for the invitee’s attendance, or for the production of documents. It shall be served on the invitee personally by a police officer or an officer of the particular legislative House. It could also be sent by registered post to the invitee’s last known address Where he wilfully refuses to attend, as the IGP has done, the Senate or House of Representatives can issue a warrant of arrest directing a police officer to apprehend the culprit and bring him to a place and at a time to be specified on the warrant. The Senate President or Speaker of the House may later change his mind and direct the release of the invitee upon entering into a recognizance before a magistrate to ensure his appearance before the particular House. (To be continued).
Short takes
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle: When God is at work
Introduction
God is simply awesome. He is not partial. He takes no bribe like us, mortals. His awesomeness is eternal and scriptural: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe” (Deut 10:17). Because God changeth not and remains Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, He does incredible things that surprise us mortals. We easily forget that “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change His mind. Has He said, and He will not do it? Or has he spoken, and will He not fulfill it?” (Num.23:19) We always forget, ever so easily, God’s admonition that “my thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not my ways” (Isaiah 55:8).
This is the unusual story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the fairy tale of how God conquered hatred, broke down walls and barriers of racial bigotry and defied all accepted conventions of British monarchy. He proved once more the scriptures, “who is he, that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord has not commandeth it?” (Lam.3:37).
Let us see some of these incongruous wonders. Meghan Markle had black blood in her veins, the second ever in history. Prince Harry is pure royal blood. Really? The couple married on May 19, 2018, the very birthday of the first ever black Queen of England, Princes Sophie Charlotte, born of Prince of Mirrow of Germany, Charles Louis Frederick and his wife, Elisabeth Albertina of Saxe – Hildburghausen. Sophie Charlotte descended directly from an African branch of the Portuguese Royal House, Margarita de Castroy Sousa. She married King George III of England on September 8, 1761, at Chapel Royal in St. James Palace, London. She was only 17 when she became Queen of England and Ireland. Queen Charlotte was the great, great, great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II, the present Queen of England, who lives in Buckingham Palace.
The decision of Harry and Markle to wed on a Saturday went against all traditions, as royal weddings usually take place on a weekday. The Queen wedded on a Thursday, whilst the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (Prince William and Pippa), wedded on a Friday. Meghan is 36, older than Prince Harry, 33. She is even a year older than Prince William, Harry’s elder brother, whose wife, Pippa Middleton, is 34. Longevity is in the family, as Queen Elizabeth II is now 92, while Harry’s father, Prince Charles of Wales is 70.
The new Duke of Sussex and Duchess of Sussex are from two different continents (one from North America and the other from Europe).
The couple’s marriage took place in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, at 12pm. They became the 16th Royal Couple to celebrate their marriage at Windsor Castle since 1863.
Meghan Markle is an American actress best known as Kuran for her role in the Canadian-American legal drama television series, “Suits”, who met Prince Harry only in June 2016, less than two years ago. The relationship was officially acknowledged on November 8, 2016. And, guess what? She is a divorcee! Prince Harry, who has never married, is a Captain in the British Army. If it were in an African setting, people would say it is unheard of for a divorcee to be married by a younger single man who has never been married before.
In her vows, Ms Markle did not promise to “obey” her husband (contrary to Ephesians 5: 22 – 24). She broke with Royal tradition by choosing to wear a wedding ring. Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, was the only member of Markle family that attended the wedding.
She again broke with tradition for royal brides by making a speech. Good God! Politicians, including PM May, were not invited, since it was not a state event, unlike when William (the heir), wedded.
The wedding cake was not a big traditional heavy fruit cake covered with bullet proof icing. A Gospel choir performed at the service; 1,200 members of the public were invited to enjoy the occasion on the grounds of Windsor Castle.
Most Rev. Bishop Michael Curry, the 27th presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church, Chicago, USA, gave an address, while Rt. Rev. David Conner, Dean of Windsor, conducted the service. Black faces swarmed the venue.
Unlike other newlyweds, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex did not jet out immediately on a honeymoon. Rather, they were expected to be back on royal duty, carrying out their first official engagements as husband and wife, attending his father’s 70th birthday celebrations by May 22. The new Duchess was officially given the blessing to “fight for feminism.”
The fairy tale wedding attracted famous celebrities and stars, like US chat show queen, Oprah Winfrey, tennis champion, Serena Williams, actor George Clooney and wife, Sir Elton John, David Beckham and wife, etc.
The wedding day was not officially declared a “bank holiday” by the British government, even as it fell on the FA Cup finals.
The royal family paid for the wedding, estimated at over £32 million (N17.6 billion). Incredible!
The Lord is good. All the time.
Thought for the week
“Leadership is not about a title or a designation. It’s about impact, influence and inspiration. Impact involves getting results, influence is about spreading the passion you have for your work, and you have to inspire team-mates and customers.” (Robin S. Sharma).