A few hours after the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee on Constitution Review proposed the removal of immunity clause from the 1999 Constitution (as amended), state governors and senators have declared their readiness to shoot down the move.
On Thursday, the deputy speaker of the House, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha, who presented the committee’s report at plenary had said: “In line with the results from the people’s public sessions, the committee also removed the immunity from prosecution from criminal offences for persons occupying the position of president, vice president, governor and deputy governor, and to stem impunity levels.”
The report is a clear departure from what the Senate did on the same subject as the upper chamber’s committee led by the deputy Senate president, Ike Ekweremadu, retained the immunity clause on the ground that it was “an anarchy-breeding push to tamper with it”.
In separate interactions with LEADERSHIP Sunday on the recommendations of the committee, some governors and senators vowed to resist the move.
To sail through, the recommendation requires the endorsement of two-thirds of the 36 state assemblies of the federation. The concurrence of the Senate is also required for the bill to become law even if passed by the lower house?
One of the governors from a south-west state told LEADERSHIP Sunday that no governor would support it.
“The very essence of governance, the way they want to go about it, would be defeated because I can bet you that no governor would have the time to do anything other than court cases around the country; as such none of us would support it, let alone our state assemblies.
“It will not work because no Nigerian who loves this country would want such clause to be removed; I am not saying this because I want to be protected as a sitting governor.
“I am on my final term, so there is no argument of any pecuniary motive on my part but what is most important is for us to be courageous enough to protect our democracy and that is why if, as governors, we fail to do something about this, we would have bequeathed a bad legacy to our successors.
“We are not bothered about that because, at the appropriate time, the recommendation will give way for sound reasoning; we are waiting for them at the level of the states to see if their recommendations will carry the day or not,” the governor said.
Also, a principal officer of the Senate who preferred anonymity on the matter because the report of both chambers is yet to be submitted for debate said the recommendation by the House Committee did not consider the “very nature of our country and the citizens”.
“I don’t think they really took into account the very nature of our country and the citizens; would they be able to contain the crisis such a law would breed? They are playing with anarchy, but I think common sense would prevail,” he enthused.
Renowned constitutional lawyer Professor Itsey Sagay also pummelled the Reps’ recommendations, describing some of them as “needlessly rascally in a democracy”.
“The Reps are doing the very opposite of what they are expected to do in the first place; they are going the opposite direction of conscience. What the Reps are doing is like putting fuel on a burning house; by this act, they are laying the foundation to destroy democracy and set the nation on fire.
“In the first place, it was wrong for them to recommend that the local governments should be removed from the states; are they working for federalism or destroying federalism?
“The recommendation removing immunity clause shows the mentality of the people; have they forgotten that even after the tenure of governors, there is room for prosecution?
“Perhaps, they need to be told, if they don’t know, that the president and governors are symbols of our sovereignty and authority; anything that presupposes to rubbish them is rubbishing our image and sovereignty.
Another lawyer, Dr Benson Enikuomehin, said the distraction that will follow the removal of immunity clause will be unbearable for the country to cope with.
The essence of the immunity clause is to check needless distractions that will come in form of litigation from many quarters; so its removal should not be contemplated at all.
“The constitution has provided for avenues through which the governors or president could be checked where and when the need arises, but the immunity is to protect the institution and not the occupier of the office,” he said.
The Delta State attorney-general and commissioner for justice, Mr Charles Ajunya (SAN), listed the essentials of immunity clause and chided those calling for its removal for attempting to “rubbish” the effectiveness of law.
“Those calling for the removal of immunity clauses don’t mean well for this country; it is impossible to help good governance and most governors will not be able to govern well because public officeholders will be accountable to the people even when they are out of office.
“If we allow immunity clauses to be removed, the country will be lawless with high rate of crimes and other related acts and no governor will be able to carry out his functions effectively,” he said.
But some state lawmakers have disagreed, as they aligned with the recommendation of the Ihedioha committee.
The majority leader of the Katsina State House of Assembly, Dr Lawal Aliyu Musawa, described the recommendation as a welcome development, noting that the measure would help ensure the emergence of serious leaders.
“I support the removal of immunity clause because it will help in ensuring quality leadership. Why should somebody be covered if he commits a crime? The leaders will do better without the clause. What is the essence of the immunity clause? It is a privilege provided for leaders to make mischief. It should be removed immediately,” he said.
A member representing Daura constituency in the Katsina State legislature under the platform of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), Yusuf Shehu, also supported the Reps’ move, asserting that it would ensure transparency in the executive arm of government.
Source: Leadership
