Connect with us

Headlines

Obaseki vs Senate: The Crisis Gets Messier

Published

on

By Eric Elezuo

By all means, the last has not been heard of the imbroglio between the Governor Godwin Obaseki-led Edo State government and the Nigeria Senate over who has absolute right or rather who is right or wrong in the crisis bedevilling the state House of Assembly.

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, during plenary, the Senate, against all odds, ruled that the Edo State government, through Governor Godwin Obaseki, must issue a fresh proclamation with all the 24 members of the state House of Assembly present. The order set the stage for a fresh crisis – this time, a crisis of power tussle.

It was initially believed that the crisis which engulfed the House of Assembly in the past few weeks was pitched between the state governor, Mr. Godwin Obaseki and his hitherto godfather and the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Chairman, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole. However, events have taken a dramatic turn ever since the National Assembly took over and investigated the matter that prompted the proclamation of the Edo House of Assembly with only nine members, purportedly loyal to the governor, in attendance.

Contrary to expectation, the Senate took sides with the group alleged to be sponsored by Comrade Oshiomhole, and issued a one week ultimatum, asking Governor Obaseki to issue a fresh ultimatum or risk take over of the business of the Assembly by the Senate. That order did not go down well with the Edo State government, and they have vowed never to play along thereby creating a new rift between the national lawmaking body and the government in Edo State.

It was the former Imo State Governor, Rochas Okorocha, who stood against the senate’s recommendation, describing it as “an insult” on the state governor, adding that the crisis is a family matter as it involves members of the All Progressives Congress. But his contribution was not necessary as the Senate President, Ahmed Lawan, already insisted on the ultimatum.

Notable personalities such the Niger Delta leader, Chief Edwin Clark and other human rights groups also condemned the Senate’s decision, describing it as illegal.

A statement by Secretary to the State Government, Osarodion Ogie, noted that the move by the Senate to take over the house was premeditated, blaming high profile political pressure on the Senate to the disadvantage of Edo people.

“This is borne out by the recorded statements made by one Seid Oshiomhole (a Member-elect and younger brother of the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress Comrade Adams Oshiomhole) wherein he boasted that both the Senate President Senator Ahmed Lawan and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Rt. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila have been instructed on what to do in this matter,” he said in the statement.
The SSG alleged that the Ad-Hoc committee sent to monitor events in the state only played to the gallery, and “failed to inform the senate of the existence of a valid injunction in Suit NO FHC/B/OS/70/2019 wherein the Federal High Court restrained various parties from interfering in any manner with the activities of the Edo State House of Assembly which said order had been brought to their attention in the course of their visit to Edo State.”
The government is holding on to the fact that a High Court judgement has ruled maintenance of status quo as at July 25, 2019, and as result, the National Assembly has no mandate whatsoever to take over the business of the Edo House. Any action therefore, taken by NASS will be regarded as subjudice since the matter is already a subject of litigation.
“It is unfortunate that the Distinguished Senate would act in flagrant breach of these various court orders and purport to come to factual and legal conclusions concerning a matter in which the parties are already before the courts and therefore subjudice,” the statement noted.
The Edo State government further observed that members of the Senate are busy acting out a script as they have displayed little or no regard for the principles of separation of power.

“We are also concerned that the Members of the Distinguished Senate appear to have very scant regards for the principle of separation of powers as enshrined in our constitution which is manifested by their taking over the functions of the judiciary in dispute resolution and giving directives to a Government of a state who is certainly not subject to the supervision of the National Assembly,” the government stressed.

The Senate, on its part, has insisted on the one week ultimatum, hanging on the constitutional provision embedded in Section 11(4) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which allows it take over the functions of the state assembly.

It asked the governor to as a matter of urgency, formally  inform all the 24 members-elect of the new proclamation via print and electronic media platforms.

The amended section of the constitution provides that “at any time when any House of Assembly of a State is unable to perform its functions by reason of the situation prevailing in that State, the National Assembly may make such laws for the peace, order and good government of that State with respect to matters on which a House of Assembly may make laws as may appear to the National Assembly to be necessary or expedient until such time as the House of Assembly is able to resume its functions;

“And any such laws enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to this section shall have effect as if they were laws enacted by the House of Assembly of the State: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring on the National Assembly power to remove the Governor or the Deputy Governor of the State from office.”

However, in a twist of fate, a Port Harcourt High Friday ruled that the National Assembly, the Police or the Department of State Service (DSS) has no right to take over or interfere with the activities of the Edo State House of Assembly. This brings to a partial end of the brouhaha, but at the same time raises standards for counter attack from the Senate.

The High Court, which also restrained Governor Obaseki from issuing another proclamation letter, ruled that all orders are permanent until the determination of the case. A typical case of stalemate, at least for the Senate.

The crisis in the Edo State House of Assembly is centred on its inauguration and the election of a new speaker in the person of Mr. Francis Okiye.

Although all the 24 members of the state assembly belong to the APC, they are however, divided in loyalty.
The Edo Assembly crisis became pronounced when nine members out of the 24-member legislature,, allegedly prompted by the state governor, hurriedly met at night to inaugurate the House and also elect a speaker.

The other lawmakers-elect were supposedly excluded in order to prevent Oshiomhole’s loyalists from taking control of the legislature.

Stakeholders have blamed the crisis on the issue of succession. A former Chairman of the APC, Chief Odigie-Oyegun, who spoke through his Special Assistant on Political Affairs, Chief Ray Murphy, noted that Oshiomhole is after Obaseki because he does not want him in office by 2020.

“Today, there are all kinds of rancour coming from Edo State. They all boil down to attempt by godfather and godfatherism heating up the polity in the state.

“To what purpose is this idea of the APC chairman putting the state under tension? Ask anybody from Edo state: what is Obaseki’s biggest distraction and they will tell you that his distraction is not whether he has governed well or not, but from his immediate predecessor, Adams Oshiomhole.

“What has been trending is how his predecessor who happens to be the party chairman doesn’t want him back in the office,” Odigie said.

In his response, Oshiomhole denied having personal issues with Obaseki. He said that as a ‘democrat’, he is more concerned with good governance.

“For me, it’s very embarrassing if any state governor, particularly of APC extraction, will do anything that is less than what the constitution says and the example that our president has set,” Oshiomhole stressed.

As the senate’s ultimatum expires on Tuesday, August 6, 2019, and with a court injunction restraining any form of takeover, it would be recalled that the Members of the House of Representatives had on July 17, given a one-week ultimatum to  the Edo State Governor to issue a fresh proclamation for the Edo State House of Assembly, a development that is yet to yield fruit as the ultimatum has since expired. It is not even known how the Senate intends to run the Edo as it has embarked on a two months recess.

While both the Senate and the Edo State government (Obaseki) have legitimate grounds to make their cases, time will tell whose muscle will be strong enough to intimidate the other.

 

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headlines

Tinubu Orders Arrest, Suspension of Three Perm Secs As ICPC Uncovers Another Fake Govt Agency

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Headlines

2027: Atiku Promises to Restore Fuel Subsidy If Elected President

Published

on

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has promised to restore the petrol subsidy if he wins the 2027 presidential election.

Atiku made the pledge during an interview on Wednesday while questioning the use of funds he said were saved following the removal of the subsidy.

He said the policy could have been beneficial to Nigerians if the savings had been properly accounted for and invested in areas such as poverty reduction and education.

“I did not oppose the removal of the oil subsidy, but where is the money? Where did it go? It was intended to reduce poverty and help children attend school. Where is the money now? It seems they are just stealing it,” Atiku said in Hausa.

“If elected, I will bring back the oil subsidy, and whoever stole the money must refund it.”

The former vice president said he would also consider the removal of the subsidy if the funds generated from the policy were transparently used to address the country’s development challenges.

“The government successfully removed the subsidy, but we do not know where the money went. If they had used the money for development, to solve security problems, for education, and to create opportunities for the youth, it would be different. If elected, I can remove the subsidy and use the money to do all these properly.”

President Bola Tinubu announced the removal of the petrol subsidy during his inaugural address on May 29, 2023, before assuming office.

Continue Reading

Headlines

I’m Not Afraid of Anybody, Cardinal Onaiyekan Replies Presidency

Published

on

The Catholic Archbishop Emeritus of Abuja, Cardinal John Onaiyekan, has fired back at the Presidency over its criticism of his public account of a meeting between Catholic bishops and President Bola Tinubu, declaring that he did not appear on national television to please the government and was not afraid of anyone.

The 82-year-old cleric said he appeared on Arise News to tell Nigerians what he believed was the truth about the issues discussed during the bishops’ engagement with the President, insisting that neither his age nor criticism from government officials would silence him.

Onaiyekan spoke in a video shared by Symfoni TV on Wednesday, weeks after the Presidency criticised his decision to publicly disclose aspects of the meeting between the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) and Tinubu.

“I didn’t go to Arise to please the government, or to just please people, but to tell the truth. That’s all I stand for,” Onaiyekan said.

He also dismissed attacks against him on social media, saying he had no reason to engage those criticising him because other Nigerians had already responded on his behalf.

“I don’t have to respond to those attacking me on social media because other Nigerians have spoken on my behalf,” he said.

The cleric went further, declaring that he was not concerned about the possibility of being embarrassed or intimidated because of his advanced age.

“I cannot be embarrassed. I’m 82 years old; nobody can embarrass me. And I’m not afraid of anybody. Nobody, at this stage now, are they going to arrest me, carry me to where?” he declared.

Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, who said his criticism of Cardinal John Onaiyekan was not intended to disrespect the cleric.

The controversy that followed a July 28 meeting between Tinubu and a delegation of the CBCN at the State House, Abuja.

The delegation was led by the CBCN President, Archbishop Matthew Man-Oso Ndagoso of Kaduna, and included Onaiyekan, Cardinal Peter Okpaleke, Bishop Matthew Kukah of Sokoto and other senior Catholic clerics.

During the meeting, the bishops raised a number of issues concerning the state of the nation, including economic hardship, insecurity, democracy, preparations for the 2027 elections, religious freedom and the return of mission schools.

Three days later, Onaiyekan appeared on Arise News and publicly recounted aspects of the engagement while speaking about the concerns expressed by the Catholic leadership over the condition of the country.

His comments subsequently attracted criticism from the Presidency. The President’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, criticised the disclosure of details from the meeting, describing the engagement as a private interaction.

The Presidency’s reaction sparked a debate over the extent to which details of engagements between government and religious leaders should remain confidential, particularly when the discussions concern matters of public interest.

Onaiyekan, however, has maintained that his intervention was neither personal nor intended to embarrass the government. The cleric rejected any suggestion that he had presented a personal opinion during his television appearance.

According to him, the issues he discussed reflected the collective position of the Catholic bishops who participated in the engagement with the President.

“No, mind you, I didn’t talk on my own now. I spoke on behalf of my fellow bishops,” he said.

Onaiyekan disclosed that the bishops had prepared a joint statement containing the issues he subsequently discussed during the television interview.

“We drafted a statement which contained all that I said in the interview. So, all the bishops of Nigeria spoke that way. It was their voice I was echoing,” he stated.

Onaiyekan also emphasised that Catholic bishops remained entitled to speak within their respective dioceses about issues affecting Nigerians.

“I cannot speak on behalf of other religious leaders. Everybody has their own job to do, but many of the other religious leaders have supported us,” Onaiyekan said.

Onaiyekan also broadened his comments beyond the dispute with the Presidency, stressing that the economic difficulties confronting Nigerians could not be dismissed as a disagreement between the government and religious leaders.

He said the widespread poverty and suffering in the country affected everyone.

“When it comes to what is happening to Nigeria, the poverty, the suffering, we are all in the same boat now, abi?” he asked.

The cleric urged Nigerians not to take the country’s remaining space for public criticism and expression for granted.

“And we are still lucky in this Nigeria that we can still talk. We shouldn’t take that for granted. There are many countries in Africa where no bishop dares to talk like we do here,” he said

Meanwhile, Ajayi has sought to draw a line under the controversy, saying his earlier response to Onaiyekan was not intended to disrespect the Catholic cleric or the church.

Ajayi made the clarification during an interview on Arise TV on Thursday, days after criticising Onaiyekan for publicly discussing the details of the closed-door meeting between Tinubu and the CBCN.

The presidential aide said the matter had been resolved and insisted that there was no intention to disparage the respected cleric.

“Well, I think that episode has been closed. Cardinal Onaiyekan is a respected clergy and a statement in his own right,” Ajayi said.

He explained that his intervention was aimed at providing a different interpretation of the account given by the cardinal, rather than questioning his standing in the church or wider society.

“My response to him did not in any way disrespect him or disrespect his standing in the society and the church. He’s one of the leaders of the faith,” Ajayi said, adding that he only sought to offer another perspective on the account of the meeting between the bishops and the President.

“I only tried to provide a different perspective from his own account of the bishop’s encounter with the president, and I think that point has been made. And I think it’s not something we really want to dwell further on,” he said.

Continue Reading