Understanding the proposed immunity clause for lawmakers

By Ehisuan Odis

Last Wednesday, the Senate passed an amendment bill tagged, ‘The Legislature’. It altered sections 4, 51, 67, 68, 93 and 109 of the 1999 Constitution to provide immunity for members of the legislature in respect to words spoken or written at plenary sessions or at committee proceedings.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives followed suit and gave a nod to the amendment. It has now been forwarded to the 36 State Houses of Assembly for concurrence.

If 24 Houses assent to the amendment bill, which forms two-third majority required by the constitution, the immunity for lawmakers will become law if the president eventually gives his assent.

Read also: The Tweeting President!

It will likely happen since the Houses of Assembly will largely benefit from it. This is coming, despite the fact that lawmakers across the various State Houses of Assembly already enjoy legislative immunity. It means whatever they say during plenary cannot be used against them in a court of law.

Now, here are the implications of the proposed law.

Recall what happened last year, when the Federal Government, through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, accused the Senate President, Bukola Saraki and his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, of complicity in the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Orders, 2015.

They were charged alongside the former Clerk of the National Assembly, Alhaji Salisu Abubakar Maikasuwa and his deputy, Mr. Benedict Efeturi. The alleged bogus Standing Order was used to conduct the July 9, 2015, election through which both Saraki and Ekweremadu emerged.

Specifically, the charge against the defendants, with suit No. CR/219/16, read: “That you, Salisu Abubakar Maikasuwa, Benedict Efeturi, Dr. Olubukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu, on or about, the 9th of June, 2015, at the National Assembly complex, Three Arms Zone, Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, conspired amongst yourselves to forge the Senate Standing Order, 2011 (as amended) and you thereby committed the offence of conspiracy, punishable under Section 97 (1) of the Penal Code Law.

“That you, Salisu Abubakar Maikasuwa, Benedict Efeturi, Dr. Olubukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu, on or about the 9th of June, 2015, at the National Assembly complex, Three Arms Zone, Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, with fraudulent intent, forged the Senate Standing Order 2011 (as amended), causing it to be believed as the genuine Standing Order, 2015 and circulated same for use during the inauguration of the 8th Senate of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria when you knew that the said Order was not made in compliance with the procedure for amendment of the Senate Order. You thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code Law.”

The charge was a fallout of investigations police conducted into a petition by a group of lawmakers under the aegis of the Senate Unity Forum, SUF, who alleged that the Standing Order used for the July 9, 2015, election of principal officers for the 8th Senate, was doctored. Earlier, five members of the All Progressives Congress, APC, in the Senate, Abu Ibrahim, Kabir Marafa, Ajayi Boroffice, Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuyi, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/651/2015, sought the removal of Saraki and Ekweremadu.

‎The plaintiffs prayed the court to sack the duo on the premise that the version of the Senate Standing Orders that was used for their election was forged. In their suit dated July 27, 2015, the plaintiffs, contended that ‎allowing Saraki and Ekweremadu to continue to pilot the affairs of the Senate regardless of the fact that they emerged through an act of illegality, would on itself amount to corruption. ‎Cited as defendants in the suit were Saraki, Ekweremadu, the National Assembly and Clerks of the National Assembly.

Though the court had concluded hearing on the matter, however, Ekweremadu, filed a petition before the Chief Judge of the high court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, alleging bias against the judge that handled the case, Justice Ademola Adeniyi. In his petition dated December 18, 2015, Ekweremadu, insisted that Justice Adeniyi was closely related to some chieftain‎s of the APC.

He specifically identified the national leader ‎of the party and former governor of Lagos State, Ahmed Bola Tinubu as one of the people he said has personal relationship with the Judge. Ekweremadu queried the ability of Justice Adeniyi ‎to deliver an objective verdict on the matter in view of his alleged closeness with the APC- the party the plaintiffs belong to.

Now, the implications of the proposed immunity for lawmakers, mean that, whatever they write, do or say under the guise of carrying out their legislative functions, will not be used against them. This includes forgery of documents to be used in swearing-in lawmakers or presiding officers.

It also means that no court action can be brought against them as long as they can prove that the action was taken in the line of duty. In summary, it means our lawmakers, their president and his deputy, and governors and their deputies, will enjoy immunity.

The passage of the amendment bill by both chambers of the National Assembly, did not get much backlash, since Nigerians were not aware of the grave implications of the principles and letters of the proposed amendment.

 

RipplesNigeria ….without borders, without fears

Join the conversation

Opinions

Support Ripples Nigeria, hold up solutions journalism

Balanced, fearless journalism driven by data comes at huge financial costs.

As a media platform, we hold leadership accountable and will not trade the right to press freedom and free speech for a piece of cake.

If you like what we do, and are ready to uphold solutions journalism, kindly donate to the Ripples Nigeria cause.

Your support would help to ensure that citizens and institutions continue to have free access to credible and reliable information for societal development.

Donate Now