Headlines
Bill Seeking Immunity for Lawmakers Passes Second Reading in House of Reps
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
Headlines
ADC Presidential Primary: Hayatu-Deen Alleges Rigging, Withdraws from Results Announcement
One of the presidential aspirants of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Mohammed Hayatu-Deen, says he will not attend the announcement of the party’s presidential primary election results, citing allegations of widespread vote rigging.
In a statement on his X handle on Tuesday, Hayatu-Deen expressed concern over reports of electoral irregularities from across the country.
The ADC aspirant noted that he witnessed some of the incidents.
“I will not be attending the announcement of the ADC Presidential Election Results today. I am concerned by reports from across the country of widespread vote rigging, some of which I myself observed, and will therefore be taking advice on my next steps,” the statement read.
The development comes amid keen competition for the ADC presidential ticket involving former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Minister of Transportation and former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, and Hayatu-Deen.
The ADC presidential primary election collation exercise will take place in Abuja. Results are expected from across the nation.
Ahead of the nationwide presidential primary held on Monday, the ADC had urged aspirants, party leaders, delegates, and members to conduct themselves peacefully and uphold party unity.
In a statement issued in Abuja on Sunday, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, described the exercise as a defining moment for both the ADC and Nigerians seeking a credible political alternative.
According to him, the party remained committed to internal democracy and a transparent leadership selection process.
“The ADC remains proud to stand today as the only truly democratic party in Nigeria because it is the only political party whose choice of presidential candidate is determined through open primaries,” Abdullahi stated.
The party also stressed that the conduct of aspirants and party members during the exercise would reflect the leadership culture the ADC seeks to promote.
Headlines
You’re Not Different from APC, INEC, Amaechi Slams ADC, Rejects Presidential Primary Results
A former Minister of Transportation, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, has rejected the results of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential primaries, alleging widespread voter disenfranchisement and electoral malpractice.
Amaechi, in a statement posted on his X handle on Tuesday, described the outcome of the exercise as “concocted results.”
He said he had earlier made it clear that he would only accept the outcome of the primaries if the process was free, fair and transparent.
“I will not accept results from a process that does not reflect the values that the ADC had pledged to uphold,” he said.
Amaechi alleged that about 80 percent of party members across the country were prevented from voting during the exercise.
“There’s no way that about eighty percent of members of the party were not allowed to vote, and you expect me to accept such results,” he stated.
The former Governor of Rivers State accused the party of engaging in practices it had previously condemned in the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
According to him, the ADC cannot criticize vote buying, rigging and manipulation of election results by others while allegedly engaging in similar acts during its own primary.
Amaechi added that the development was unacceptable and contrary to the ideals upon which the party was founded.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit seeking to bar former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election, effectively clearing the way for him to participate in the polls if he chooses to run.
Justice Peter Lifu, who delivered judgment in the matter, held that the suit instituted by Johnmary Jideobi lacked merit and amounted to an abuse of court process.
The court further ruled that the plaintiff lacked the legal standing to institute the suit, noting that he failed to show how Jonathan’s possible participation in the election directly affected his interest.
Justice Lifu consequently awarded a total cost of N21 million against the plaintiff — N20 million in favour of Jonathan and N1 million in favour of the Attorney General of the Federation.
The judge described the suit as frivolous and a waste of judicial time, particularly after previous courts had already dismissed similar cases on the same subject.
He cited earlier judgments in Andy Solomon v. Jonathan at the Federal High Court and Cyracus Njoku v. Jonathan at the Court of Appeal, aligning with the decisions and stating that he had “nothing else to add.”
Justice Lifu also expressed dismay that the plaintiff and his counsel continued with the suit despite being aware of the earlier judgments.
The suit, filed in October 2025, sought a determination on whether Jonathan remained constitutionally eligible to contest the presidency in 2027.
The plaintiff argued that Jonathan had exhausted the constitutional two-term limit under Sections 1(1), (2), (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, having completed the unexpired tenure of late President Umaru Yar’Adua between 2010 and 2011 before serving a full four-year term after winning the 2011 presidential election.
Jideobi had asked the court to restrain Jonathan from presenting himself as a presidential candidate and to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting or publishing his name as a candidate in the 2027 election or any future presidential contest.
The plaintiff also sought an order directing the Attorney General of the Federation to enforce the requested injunctions if granted.
During proceedings, counsel to the plaintiff maintained that Jonathan had served more than twice in office and was therefore constitutionally barred from seeking another term as president.
Jonathan, INEC and the Attorney General of the Federation were listed as defendants in the suit.
1 Comment