It seems that the House of Representatives has been left alone in supporting the removal of the immunity clause from the constitution, which prevents the President, Vice-President, state governors and their deputies from being prosecuted while in office, as the Presidency, state governors and senators are said to be against it.
The recommendation for removal of immunity was one of the highlights of the House of Representatives’ Ad hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution report, which was presented to the House by its chairman and deputy speaker, Mr. Emeka Ihedioha, on Thursday.
The immunity clause, as currently enshrined in the nation’s constitution, allows the president and the governors, as well as their deputies, protection from prosecution while in office.
The report was based on the demands of Nigerians during the November 10, 2012 People’s Public Sessions on the constitution.
The Presidency, however, said the proposal would not sail through.
Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters, Dr. Ahmed Gulak, said in an interview on Friday that the retention of the immunity clause in the constitution was the best thing that could happen to the country.
He warned that unscrupulous persons, who were bent on getting at public officials out of sheer envy, would capitalise on the removal of the clause to cause distraction in the system.
Gulak said, “The planned removal of the immunity clause will count, the recommendation will not sail through.
“The President, vice-president, governors and their deputies really need immunity. Immunity is the best thing that has happened to this country today.
“These public office holders should not be distracted. The removal of immunity will expose them to frivolous litigation by unscrupulous elements that want to get at them out of sheer envy and not based on constructive criticism.
“Removal of immunity will not be good for this country. The recommendation will fail.”
Aligning himself with the Presidency’s position, the Ondo State Governor, Olusegun Mimiko, cautioned against actions that could distract the attention of those saddled with the responsibility of leading the people.
Mimiko, who spoke through the state’s Commissioner for Information, Mr. Kayode Akinmade, said removing the clause would hinder governance in the country.
He said, “Immunity clause is not peculiar to Nigeria. It will mess up governance if it is removed. Those who put the clause in our constitution are not daft. They know governance is a serious business, which should be devoid of distractions.
“We should not take any action simply because some people don’t like the face of a president or governor. We should remember posterity in whatever we do.”
Another governor from the South-West said 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.
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.
However, the move by the lower house has gained the support of several bodies and organization, such as the opposition Congress for Progressive Change also said it had always called for removal of the clause, as it attributed the spate of impunity in the country to the immunity clause, which excluded the President, vice-president, governors and their deputies from criminal prosecution while in office.
The National Publicity Secretary, CPC, Rotimi Fashakin, told one of our correspondents that the removal became necessary because in a clime where democratic values had not been embraced and entrenched in the national psyche, it would be “very preposterous” to continue to allow immunity clause.
“I’m not surprised that the Presidency rejected it. When you have something that has made you more Nigerian than other Nigerians, you will not support the removal of such. But since it is something that the majority of Nigerians want, then it should go. It doesn’t really matter if the Presidency wants it; it is about the people. This is what is happening in Egypt; it is what the people want that will eventually happen,” Fashakin stated.
Also, 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.
Leave a Reply