Headlines
Bill Seeking Immunity for Lawmakers Passes Second Reading in House of Reps
- /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Speaker.jpg&description=Bill Seeking Immunity for Lawmakers Passes Second Reading in House of Reps', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
- Share
- Tweet /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 69
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Speaker.jpg&description=Bill Seeking Immunity for Lawmakers Passes Second Reading in House of Reps', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
A bill that would grant immunity to the presiding officers of the National and State Assemblies narrowly scaled second reading in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
The bill seeks to amend Section 308 of the 1999 constitution.
Section 308 of the Constitution shields the quartet of the president, the vice president, state governors and their deputies, for their period in office, from all forms of civil and criminal prosecution.
The sponsor of the bill, Odebunmi Olusegun of Ogo-Oluwa/Surulere federal constituency (APC, Oyo), wants the presiding officers of the federal and state houses to enjoy similar privilege for them to shrug off “frivolous suits while in office.”
Mr Olusegun argued that the bill is targeted at avoiding distraction for the leadership of the legislative arm. He said it is his aim to “protect, stabilize the house” and ensure “our democracy continues to flourish at national and state levels.”
Proponents
Toby Okechukwu (PDP, Enugu) pitched his tent with the bill’s sponsor. He said, if passed, the bill would shield presiding officers from the prying eyes of witch hunters.
He argued that once the leadership of the legislature is protected from possible blackmail while in office, then they can do their job without fear. He urged his colleagues to give their nod to the bill and allow Nigerians to decide during its public hearing.
Nkem-Abonta Uzoma (PDP, Abia) took off from where Mr Okechukwu stopped. He argued that the bill is not about the sitting speaker but the office itself. He said any criminal blemish ascribed to the office of the Speaker would cast the entire House in a bad light.
If the president, his deputy, state governors and their deputies can enjoy immunity, why can’t the leadership of the National Assembly, he asked.
“Let us protect the (legislative) institution from institutional embarrassment with suits, arraignment from the EFCC, CCB, ICPC,” he said after which the Speaker, Femi Gbajabiamila, cut in.
The Speaker buttressed this by saying potential lawsuits against a presiding officer can come not only from agencies of the executive but also from individuals.
Opponents
Minority Leader Ndudi Elumelu (PDP, Delta) begged to differ. He said the bill should not be allowed as it is coming at the wrong time because “people should be held accountable for their actions.”
He called for the bill to be jettisoned and that attention should be redirected to tackle insecurity ravaging the country.
Also, Sergius Ogun (PDP, Edo) frowned at the bill. He said if he had his way, he would “remove the immunity the president and the governors enjoy.”
“As parliamentarians, I do not believe this is what we need today. We should lift the immunity that presidents and the governors enjoy. There is no reason why a sitting president or governor should not go to jail,” Mr Ogun noted.
As Mr Ogun rounded off, House Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila asked: “Is the head of the executive covered by immunity? And directly or indirectly, is the head of the judiciary covered by immunity?”
To that, he got a response in the affirmative. He then said he asked to weigh the various angles to the debate at hand. He called for equity in terms of privileges enjoyed by the each arms of government.
While the debate lasted, Mr Gbajabiamila said he was against the bill and was not willing to benefit from the privileges the bill might bring. He, therefore, suggested that the bill, should it be passed and assented to, would not take effect while the current leadership is in office.
In 2016, the same bill was read on the floor of the lower house. It came in the wake of the charges filed against former Senate President Bukola Saraki by the Code of Conduct Bureau during the eighth assembly. It was, however, thrown out, having divided the House over whether or not it should be passed.
Mr Gbajabiamila, then Majority Leader, was one of the fierce opponents of the bill.
The bill, however, still has a long way to go to become law. It will still pass through a public hearing and is expected to be included among the issues to be debated by a National Assembly committee to review the Constitution. The Senate is also yet to debate the bill.
Group Condemns Bill
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has condemned Tuesday’s passing of the bill.
Responding to the development, SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare said: “Providing immunity for presiding officers against crimes of corruption is tantamount to ripping up the constitution. It’s a blatant assault on the rule of law and breach of public trust.”
SERAP said: “The leadership of the House of Representatives must immediately withdraw this obnoxious bill. We will vigorously challenge this impunity.”
The statement read in part: “It’s a huge setback for the rule of law that the same privileged and powerful leaders of parliament that regularly make laws that consign ordinary, powerless Nigerians to prison for even trivial offences yet again want to establish elite immunity to protect themselves from any consequences for serious crimes of corruption and money laundering.”
“Whereas countries like Guatemala has voted unanimously to strip their president of immunity from prosecution for corruption our own lawmakers are moving in the opposite direction.”
“The message seems to be that in Nigeria, powerful and influential actors must not be and are not subject to the rule of law. It’s simply not proper for lawmakers to be the chief advocates of immunity for corruption.”
“It’s a form of political corruption for the parliamentarians to abuse their legislative powers, intended for use in the public interest but instead for personal advantage. This is an unacceptable proposition as it gives the impression that both the principal officers of the National Assembly are above the law.”
“If the House of Representatives should have their way, this will rob Nigerians of their rights to accountable government.”
“Public officials who are genuinely committed to the well-being of the state and its people, and to the establishment of an effective and functioning system of administration of justice, should have absolutely nothing to fear.”
Premium Times
A United States-based policy advisory and lobbying firm, Von Batten-Montague-York, has alleged that Nigeria’s President, Bola Tinubu, spent millions of dollars to prevent the release of records of his alleged drug trafficking case.
Von Batten-Montague-York made this allegation in a post on its verified X handle late Tuesday.
According to the firm, Tinubu’s claim that he was not attempting to block the release of the records is contradictory to the action of his own legal team in the ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case.
It accused Tinubu of having petitioned the court and consulted with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, as part of efforts to prevent the records from being released.
“Despite claiming innocence, Tinubu has spent millions of dollars to ensure that his drug trafficking records are never released.
“The description of the underlying matter is merely a civil case. The involvement of US law-enforcement agencies in the records dispute demonstrated that the matter involved sensitive investigative material,” the firm said.
The latest allegation from the firm came against the backdrop of the ongoing legal battle over the release of records held by the US Department of Justice, DOJ, FBI and DEA, concerning historical investigations involving Tinubu.
United States District judge, Beryl Howell, had granted Donald Trump-appointed attorney, Jeanine Pirro, additional days to release the alleged drug-trafficking records.
Tinubu had joined the request of the US Department of Justice for a 10-day extension to respond to a motion seeking the release of records relating to allegations of drug trafficking.
Born on December 24, 1971, in the Mbeya Region, Dr Emmanuel John Nchimbi grew up in a family rooted in public service. His father, Mzee John Nchimbi, hailing from Songea District, served as an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) and Regional Police Commander for Mtwara.
Beyond his law enforcement career, the elder Nchimbi was actively involved in politics, serving two terms as a National Executive Committee (NEC) member for Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) through the armed forces wing and later as a CCM regional secretary.
Dr Nchimbi began his primary education at Oysterbay Primary School in Dar es Salaam from 1980 to 1986. He pursued his O-Level studies at Uru Secondary School (Form I to III) from 1987 to 1989 before transferring to Sangu Secondary School, where he completed Form IV in 1990.
He then moved to Forest Hill Secondary School in Mbeya for his A-Level education between 1991 and 1993.
Advancing to higher education, Dr Nchimbi earned an Advanced Diploma in Administration from the Institute of Development Management (IDM) Mzumbe in Morogoro between 1994 and 1997.
Upon graduating, his political trajectory accelerated rapidly: he was elected as a member of CCM’s National Executive Committee (NEC), and by 1998, he was elected Chairman of the CCM Youth Wing (Umoja wa Vijana wa Chama cha Mapinduzi – UVCCM).
Alongside his rising political responsibilities, Dr Nchimbi built a professional background in public service and academia. He worked at the National Environment Management Council (NEMC) from 1998 to 2003.
During this period, he pursued further studies, obtaining a Master of Business Administration (MBA) specialising in Banking and Finance from Mzumbe University between 2001 and 2003. He was later appointed District Commissioner for Bunda (2003–2005) and went on to complete a Doctorate (PhD) at Mzumbe University between 2008 and 2011.
He served in that capacity until October 2006, when he was reshuffled to serve as Deputy Minister for Labour, Employment, and Youth Development until February 2008. He subsequently served as Deputy Minister for Defence and National Service until November 2010.
Source: The Star
Headlines
Tinubu Orders Arrest, Suspension of Three Perm Secs As ICPC Uncovers Another Fake Govt Agency
President Bola Tinubu on Friday ordered the immediate arrest and suspension of three federal Permanent Secretaries over their alleged involvement in the operation of another fake agency uncovered by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
ICPC Chairman, Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, who disclosed this to newsmen after briefing President Tinubu on the latest findings from the commission’s ongoing investigation into fictitious agencies and weaknesses in public sector processes named the affected Permanent Secretaries to include M S Danjuma, Engr Nadungu Gagare, and Richard Pheelangwah.
The Commision’s latest discovery is coming barely few weeks after exposing the fictitious Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).
According to Aliyu, the newly uncovered entity, operating as National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office, had allegedly secured office accommodation within the premises of the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) without authorisation from the President.
The discovery, he said, was made during the broader investigation into the PFIPC, which President Tinubu had directed the ICPC to undertake.
The fake agency, according to ICPC boss, was promoted by Prince George Buchi Nwabueze, who allegedly operated under several variations of his name, including George Nathan Nwabueze, Honourable George Buchi Nwabueze, Prince George Buchi Nwabueze and George Buchi Nwabueze.
Aliyu disclosed that the commission was engaging relevant officials in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation to establish how the purported agency came to operate from government premises and to obtain other vital information required for the investigation.
“I have briefed Mr President comprehensively on these new developments. ICPC will continue with its investigation,” he said.
Following the fresh findings, Aliyu said President Tinubu had directed the immediate arrest of Prince George Buchi Nwabueze, as well as the immediate suspension of the three named permanent secretaries.
The commission is expected to establish the roles played by the suspended officials and other individuals in the emergence and operation of the purported agency.
Aliyu said the latest discovery underscored the need for tighter controls and greater scrutiny of government institutions and internal administrative processes.
He commended President Tinubu for ordering a wider policy audit of federal agencies and government processes, describing the initiative as a proactive measure to strengthen the governance system.
His said: “President Bola Tinubu must be commended for the proactive step of directing the policy audit of MDAs and internal government processes towards strengthening government governance system.”
The latest development has widened the scope of the ICPC’s investigation into the proliferation of fictitious government entities and alleged exploitation of official structures by individuals seeking to create the impression of government authority.
The commission’s investigation into the PFIPC was initiated after the purported agency came under scrutiny, with the President subsequently directing the ICPC to unravel those behind its operations and determine whether public officials facilitated its activities.
With the discovery of another purported agency operating from government premises, the ICPC probe is now expected to examine broader institutional weaknesses that may have enabled unauthorised entities to gain access to federal government facilities and present themselves as legitimate government bodies.
1 Comment