There was evidence last week that many members of the 8th Senate acted in a way to suggest that they need to be reminded about the need for lawmakers in particular to adhere religiously to the rule of law at all times, if, ironically, they are not to contribute to the collapse of democracy in the country.
A principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency. –UN Secretary-General on the Rule of Law
Nigeria’s democracy may amount to nothing if the principle of rule of law is endangered in any form. It will not matter if threat to the rule of law emanates from any arm of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. More important, commitment to the rule of law cannot afford to be just rhetorical; it has to be religious. There was evidence last week that many members of the 8th Senate acted in a way to suggest that they need to be reminded about the need for lawmakers in particular to adhere religiously to the rule of law at all times, if, ironically, they are not to contribute to the collapse of democracy in the country.
Shortly after the appearance of Mr. Bukola Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, 83 senators were reported to have expressed on the floor of Senate a vote of confidence in Saraki’s presidency of the upper house. This announcement was sequel to a report that about 50 senators accompanied Mr. Saraki to the Tribunal when he made his first appearance there. During the debate preceding the expression of vote of confidence in Saraki by 83 of his colleagues, individual senators were reported to have stated that the principle of separation of powers had been endangered by the invitation of Saraki to appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal to defend himself over allegation of misconduct. Senators’ conflation of two distinct issues: Saraki’s presidency of the senate and Saraki’s need to respond to charges of false declaration of his assets confuses issues and misses the point.
Saraki is being charged for alleged misconduct committed long before he became senate president. Whatever anyone thinks about the politics of the charges, Saraki is being tried in an open court and therefore has a transparent platform to defend himself according to the law. A superior position that should have been taken by Saraki’s admirers is to give him more free time to defend himself at the Tribunal without having to worry about day-to-day management of the senate. Taking such decision does not derogate from Saraki’s innocence. If anything, it is capable of enriching the principle of rule of law. Mr. Saraki should have been viewed by those who rushed a vote of confidence in him as innocent until he is proven guilty by his accusers. With that mindset, it should have been clear to Saraki’s colleagues that he does not need any special show of solidarity by his fellow senators to boost his confidence. Having pleaded not guilty to all the charges, Saraki should not need any pampering by his colleagues. All he needs are good lawyers and honest support of all categories of citizens who believe in Saraki’s innocence.
Without doubt, the Senate President’s confidence-boosting comrades acted with very little consideration for ethical standards expected of lawmakers and other citizens in public life. Knowingly or otherwise, Saraki’s 83 senators acted as if they had no faith in the rule of law and independence of the judiciary. As the nation’s lawmakers, they ought to act more ethically by allowing the different branches of government of which they are a part to do their job without any harassment or intimidation. It is, therefore, not surprising that citizens have called the vote of confidence in Saraki an attempt to intimidate the judicial system of the country. It should have occurred to the 83 senators that their rush of vote of confidence in Saraki, while he is facing charges of misconduct for actions taken long before he became senate president, is also liable to be viewed as an attempt to rig the judicial process, thus smashing the principle of separation of powers that the senators believed they could strengthen with expression of vote of confidence.
On his own part, Senator Saraki should not have had any difficulty in showing superior moral leadership to his colleagues’ by withdrawing himself from the position of senate president while facing trial. Contrary to common belief, doing so would not have shown any weakness on his part or of fear of losing his senate presidency. If anything, it would have raised his moral stature among lawmakers and citizens who subscribe to high ethical standards in public life. It is true that the constitution does not call for temporary withdrawal from senate on his part, but he could have benefited tremendously from applying the wisdom; “discretion is the better part of valour” to the situation of divided attention caused by having to go to court on charges of misconduct while functioning as senate president. This is what most of his counterparts in other democratic countries would have done.
The rush of vote of confidence by 83 senators from the ruling and the opposition parties has more implications than may appear to the average observer of public affairs. Some social media pundits are already saying that the vote of confidence denotes fear about the impact of the case on Saraki’s current political power and influence. There is also the possibility that such fear may not only be about Saraki. It is likely that the 83 senators may also be afraid of what can happen to them, should the executive branch, preoccupied as it is with a manifesto to fight corruption more aggressively than before, choose to open many more files of lawmakers, ministers, and civil servants.
Furthermore, the pressure from the NASS in the last three weeks on the executive to release 64 billion naira constituency allowance to lawmakers and the legislators’ resistance of citizens’ strident calls for review of salaries and allowances of lawmakers suggest readiness on the part of the legislative branch to deploy its political arsenal to neutralise the call for higher ethical standards in government. While citizens are worrying about the sense in providing constituency allowance for lawmakers, senators are giving the executive an oppressive deadline to pay lawmakers’ constituency allowances that could not be paid last year by the Jonathan presidency on account of dwindling revenue. The pressure for payment of 2014 constituency allowances for new and returning lawmakers smacks of efforts to divert the attention of the executive from focusing on realignment of the country’s finances in view of continuous fall in national revenue.
If citizens want change, they have to pay close attention to direct and indirect attempts by the senate to politicise what is essentially a moral issue. Rushing a vote of confidence to divert citizens’ attention from what is a moral or ethical case is absurd and diversionary. Similarly, putting pressure on the executive to pay constituency allowance to the National Assembly at a time that calls for wholesale rationalisation should be high on the priority list of the country is capable of creating avoidable crisis between the executive and the legislature. From the consistency in his public declarations – national and international- there is no doubt that President Buhari is serious about his resolve to reduce corruption, mismanagement, and waste. Nevertheless, citizens have to show unmistakable interest in sustaining the ethic of change, in view of growing enthusiasm of some lawmakers to return to the business-as-usual model of governance.
NATION
END
Be the first to comment