Remove ego from legislation

In the process, some officials have been berated for their inability to honour the invitation to throw light on issues under their care. We cannot legally fault either the invitations or the scolding because our constitution backs the actions of the legislators. Indeed sections 88 and 89 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of […]

In the process, some officials have been berated for their inability to honour the invitation to throw light on issues under their care. We cannot legally fault either the invitations or the scolding because our constitution backs the actions of the legislators. Indeed sections 88 and 89 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) empower them to among other things investigate any matter with respect to which they have power to make law. They can also investigate the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, Ministry or Government Department. The Sections also empower them to summon anyone to give evidence on any matter before them. One clear implication of the powers is that anyone invited to appear before the legislature has an obligation to obey. Whereas the powers appear awesome, they are good for democracy. To start with, investigations into government transactions are meant to aid transparency and accountability in public affairs. In earnest, several recent revelations occasioned by such investigations are no doubt quite capable of transforming service delivery in the nation. We therefore urge the legislature not to relent and at the same time admonish government officials to positively embrace the assignment for the public good.

However, there are a few issues which if not checked may derogate from the goals of open and accountable democracy for which the powers were granted. First, there is the urgent need for our legislators to overcome the rather obvious aura of egoism which their disposition tends to convey. The proceedings of their public hearings which we watch on television particularly the diction of their pronouncements give a picture of some all-powerful military commanders dishing out to their men some immutable instructions. That is not the culture of dialogue and consensus building upon which democracy is premised. As renowned Professor Adebayo Adedeji warned in 2003, we must not allow “Debate, Discussion and Dialogue to be replaced by Order, Decree and Command”.  Oversight functions, public hearing, investigations etc which legislators employ in the course of their duties must be purposeful. They are neither to be used to establish the supremacy of the legislature over other arms of government not to make personal gains. To this extent therefore, while encouraging our legislators to continue to use their constitutional powers to help the nation’s democracy to grow, we are unable to applaud their tendency to use their privileged position to intimidate other persons.

A painful aspect of this dimension is that it ends up pursuing shadows instead of substance. Take the avoidable feud which the legislature has had with the Finance Minister, Dr Okonjo Iweala for instance. We accept that she has a duty to honour the invitations of the legislature. But we also believe that all the facts concerning her failure to do so must be duly considered before berating her on national television and threatening to invoke their powers against her. As a Minister, Iweala must have her own plans for implementing her projects. Some of the plans may involve certain appointments and commitments from which she cannot disengage with ease. It is rather mechanical for legislators to expect every ministerial assignment to give way as soon as it pleases them to invite a minister. There is doubt if Nigerians would buy such ‘automatic alacrity’ design even under Abacha. In addition, what was the purpose of inviting Dr Iweala- was it to obtain certain information about her ministry or to prove that no minister was too big to be summoned? The refusal of the legislature to allow anyone else to provide the required information seems to suggest that ego was involved in the subject. The leadership of the National Assembly being human cannot attend every function involving their offices hence they are often represented by other officials. It removes nothing from the legitimacy of the transactions. Why then can our legislators not see Dr. Yerima Lawal Ngama, Minister of State (Finance) as capable of presenting information needed to deal with a finance matter or could it be that they suspect that the relevant documents are folded in Iweala’s special head gear ?  The legislature has to; in this case, carefully differentiate the means from the goal. Otherwise it may inadvertently create an impression of an overbearing institution.

The worrisome aspect of a domineering temperament on the subject is that many officials who are summoned may not have the courage to provide the relevant factual information. Yes, it is not everyone who has the guts of our Central Bank Governor, Sanusi Lamido to repeat before legislators, his indictment of the National Assembly at a public lecture.  Our immediate past finance minister, Olusegun Aganga did not adopt that option. Although he had told the media that his ministry was set to cut the expenditure of the National Assembly, he denounced the entire idea when he was summoned. But everyone including the legislators knew that the minister merely told them what they wanted to hear hence no one was incensed one year later, when Mr Richard Dowden – an expert on African development issues and Executive Director of the Royal African Society in London told us the truth at this year’s independence anniversary lecture that our leaders have remained the highest paid salary earners in the world.  People who are summoned and bullied are not likely to state facts so explicitly. It can thus be argued that whereas a combative posture may intimidate persons who are summoned to appear on a matter before the legislature to reel out stories, the style may not bring forth a qualitative testimony. In other words, if the purpose of an investigation is to get to the root of a matter, we recommend a zero militarized posture for our legislators. It is a better way to relate and to get results.

In any case, the ultimate beneficiary of the summoning of a government official to account for his stewardship is neither the official nor the legislator but the common man. It therefore stands to reason that the power to summon has to be used not only for the public good but also with caution so as not to erode its value. While reiterating our premise that, the spate of investigations into government business by the National Assembly is beneficial to all, we hope the Houses of Assembly in the States which for some reward often rubber stamps every executive action will follow the federal example. All legislators must from now have in their sub consciousness the need to be above board like Caesar’s wife. It would be a tragedy for any recurrence of the ugly past where legislators investigating a subject got indicted in the process. Finally we need to remind anyone who has any type of power of the adage of our people that a powerful man is he who has strength but hardly fights.