Re: Tough new House rules

It is with heavy heart that I write this rejoinder to the Daily Trust Editorial of October 26th 2015 with the above captioned subject. Permit me dear reader to state that I am a stakeholder in what happened at the House Chamber on the 8th October, qualifies me to participate in and contribute to debate […]

It is with heavy heart that I write this rejoinder to the Daily Trust Editorial of October 26th 2015 with the above captioned subject. Permit me dear reader to state that I am a stakeholder in what happened at the House Chamber on the 8th October, qualifies me to participate in and contribute to debate in the House, more so when the debate touch directly on our fledging democratic norms and precepts. If I may reflect back a bit, the present leadership at the House of Representatives set up a Committee to review the standing orders of the House.
The Committee submitted its reports. Amongst the recommendations of the Committee is that any member of the House that “approaches the mace with whatever intent including to remove or who removes the mace shall be liable to suspension from the service of the House for a period not less than six (6) months or such longer period as the Speaker or Chairman may consider expedient having regards to the circumstances. Order 71 (13), which provides for this power, was introduced in to the amended standing orders. In order words, this is a new power granted the Speaker following the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee.
In opposing this new amendment, at the time the report was being submitted to the House, I had made several observations. One of these observations is that it is absurd to give the Speaker the power to suspend me for a period of 6 months or more simply because I approach a mace. I may plead that I approach the mace to shield it from an angry member who is bent on smashing it.  This may well be the case. All the same because the Rule says if I approach the mace with whatever intent, the Speaker may proceed to suspend me, the Speaker may suspend me for a period of 3 years or even for the reminder of the period of my membership of the House! Oh yes. Note please that the 6 months is the minimum period of suspension granted to the Speaker. The maximum period of suspension is “such longer period as the Speaker may consider expedient”.
On all the 8 occasions I rose in opposition to this amendment, the Speaker had overruled me. The Daily Trust of that day carried a front page story titled “The Speaker had been given sweeping powers” The story is well balanced the correspondent having heard from both sides of the debate. However, the same Daily Trust Newspaper in its Editorial of Monday 26th of October 2015, the Editorial came out in support of these sweeping powers given to the Speaker. I find the reasons adduced by the Editorial very weak and myopic. Firstly, the Editorial argued that factions of the APC battled for supremacy over the choice of House leaders. Dogara insisted on awarding the “the key positions leadership posts to his own factions.
This then led to fracas on the House floor which led to some members snatching the mace. Does this single episode justifying given the Speaker such sweeping powers to suspend me for 3 or 4 years? If the Speaker decides that I approach the mace, he may just do that. Kindly note that ours is a representative government.
My constituents participate in governance through the authority they vest in me to represent them. Their right to participate in governance through this method is constitutionally guaranteed and that is why ours is called democracy. Why should my constituents’ fundamental right to participate in governance be fritted away through the whims and caprices of an individual? Ours is a system built on precarious and shaky political arrangement largely based on personal, self centered interest. Any Speaker may fall back on these tough rules to muscle members he perceives to be his detractors.
Surely no member would like his membership of the House suspended for 3 or 4 years. What if the Speaker decides to rule that a member did approach the mace when he did not? This wide power granted to the Speaker is dangerous to our democratic norm which is rooted in principles of fair hearing. It is against this principle of fair hearing for the Speaker to raise complaint of approaching the mace against a member thereby becoming the accuser. The Speaker then decides that the Member is culpable of approaching the mace; he then becomes the judge.
The Speaker thereby becomes a judge in his own cause. This possible scenario is not tolerated by principle of fairness.
I note that the Daily Trust Editorial conceded that the new tough rules could be improperly used by an unscrupulous Speaker to silence political opponents or members of opposition parties. The Editorial agrees that were this to happen, it will defeat the spirit of the rules and add dangerous dimension to legislative culture in Nigeria. However, curiously the Editorial added that they are confident the Speaker is a Gentleman and will do nothing of the sort. What about if the Speaker decides to use the tough rules to muscle political opponents? The assurance given by the Editorial that he would not is not shared by all. Besides it is a fallacy that Rules of the House are predicated on the assumption of the Editorial that the Speaker is a gentleman and he will not abuse the new House rules.
It is sad that the Speaker who has absolute powers to determine whether or not the conduct of a member is grossly disorderly, has also the exclusive powers to suspend a member to a period up to 30 plenary days. Each week has 3 plenary days, therefore 30 Plenary days will amount to more than a session.
Again the Speaker may base on his whims and caprices determine that a members conduct is grossly disorderly. The conduct of the member in question may very well turn out to be proper. Probably the member merely disagreed with the position of the Speaker and the member happens to be passionate about his position. But since the Speaker has the obsolete power, he may to determine that the conduct is grossly disorderly. I will invite the reader to note that the word “grossly disorderly” is not defined in the Rules.
Therefore whatever the Speaker determines to be grossly disorderly is what it is.
In this circumstance will men of conscience sanction the action of the Speaker to suspend a member for more than 3 months simply for disagreeing with the position of the Speaker? Will this not amount to silencing the opposition? Will this not inhibit democratic growth which thrives in an environment of free speech and exchange of ideas? Can I properly represent the mandate of my constituents who expect me to stand up and defend their interest to the best of my abilities?
One would have thought that common sense would require that the Speaker shall refer the finding on whether or not a member’s conduct is grossly disorderly to a vote of the House. The issue at stake must always remain that we must collectively remain vigilant, that our common purpose and destiny as a people is not jeopardized by subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of minority.
The Rules are supposed to guide the business of the house. They are supposed to build on strong democratic precepts. Certainly these Rules will not be based on the disposition of an individual which is liable to change at any time. The Editorial further posited that in the past, members had exchanged blows and it is good to have the new tough rules to avoid this. This is ridiculous. If members engage in exchange of blows, that will amount to grave disorder under Order 71 (10). Under such circumstances, the Speaker is to suspend the sitting for a time to be named by him.
The Speaker may also direct the Sergeant at Arms to forcefully remove the member from the Chambers. One can scarcely see any nexus between the powers given to the Speaker to suspend a member for up to 3 or 4 years and the members exchanging blows. This argument by the Editorial is therefore misplaced. I find no reason to agree with the reasoning behind the Editorial. I do understand however, that Editorials portray the policy decisions of the owners of Newspapers. Editorial is shaped by various factors and interests.
A Newspaper owner is entitled to determine the content of Editorials-clearly. I cannot interfere with the right of the owners of Daily Trust in their discretion of what appears in their Editorials – certainly. The Editorial may not always reflect the true positions of things – of course. The Newspaper has the moral duty to protect, preserve and promote our fledgy democratic precepts- absolutely.I wish to remind the “Editorial Board of daily Trust Newspapers that evil triumph when men of conscience remain silent in the face of tyranny.
Accordingly, I expect that Daily Trust Newspaper would revisit the Editorial in question with a view to balancing its opinion on the various issues raised in my rejoinder. 
Rep Aliyu Sani Madaki is the member representing Dala Federal Constituency in the Federal House of Representatives