The Chairman, Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Sabi Abdullahi, a member of the All Progressives Congress representing Niger-North Senatorial District, in this interview with LEKE BAIYEWU, defends the amendment of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act by the National Assembly
What is the rationale behind the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act amendment at this time?
Let me say that we need to contextualise this discussion first. When I say contextualise, we need to ask ourselves what exactly is the main purpose of our being in the National Assembly. I understand rightly so that as a senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, I am in the National Assembly for three purposes in accordance with the provisions of the constitution: lawmaking, representation and oversight on the executive. When you break these down, it will tell you exactly how we are to do it. And in answering how we are to do it, I have no reference point other than the Nigerian Constitution. At any time there is a law that we have to amend, it must be on the basis of the same fundamental principles. In this particular case of the CCB and CCT, yes, Nigerians are looking at it from the perspective that because the Senate President (Bukola Saraki) is on trial, but what is it about the Senate President being on trial?
Don’t you think the timing of the amendment makes the exercise look suspicious to members of the public?
That is the point I am making. What is it about the timing? If people are questioning the timing of our action, why are our people not questioning the timing of taking the Senate President to the CCT? The Senate President served as governor (of Kwara State for two terms of eight years) and left in 2011; he was in the Senate for four years; he was courageous enough to declare on the floor of the Senate that he was moving to the APC along with other senators in the New PDP; and they moved into the APC before the 2015 elections, swelling the number of legislators on the opposition side in the National Assembly – the 7th Assembly. Throughout those periods he served, how come he was not taken to the CCT? The executive was sworn in on May 29 (2015) and we thereafter were sworn in June. Immediately after his emergence as Senate President, all hell was let loose. Why are we not questioning the timing?
So, is the amendment a way of getting back at the executive and the ruling party?
There is nothing like that.
But the amendment includes taking away some powers from the president over the CCB/CCT.
Let me tell you, that is why I said we should contextualise it. You first raised the issue of timing and I have brought you my own analogy. Let us be rational. I am asking how come we are not questioning the timing of his (Saraki’s) arraignment before the CCT. That is the question. Perhaps, it is immaterial. In my understanding of lawmaking, it is not a static process; it is a dynamic process; a flexible process that goes back and forth as we human beings engage and disengage, interact and disconnect because unless a law is tested, you will never understand the veracity of its effectiveness. Until now, I want to submit that the CCT had not been so tested. The first time it was tested was when Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu was arraigned on politically motivated trumped-up charges before that same body (tribunal) – we are living witnesses to it – because he was in the opposition. At the end of the day, he was acquitted on a very sound ground that the justice pronounced. For me, the question of timing is just a way by which people are, perhaps trying to get back at us (lawmakers).
In what way?
That is what you should also answer because you asked if it was a way of getting back at the executive. Do you now see where it is? That is why that thought process is not rational. The point I am trying to make here is that having contextualised these issues, let me submit that the process of lawmaking is dynamic. Until a law is tested, you will never know how effective and efficient it is going to be. And what we are saying as far as the National Assembly is concerned is that we have seen the abuse of the various provisions of that law by certain executive individuals. By implication, if the Secretary to the Government of the Federation is the one controlling that particular body, then you should understand that it is a quasi-judicial body. That is why it is not under the judiciary. If it were under the judiciary, nobody would have had an issue with it; the principle of checks and balances works for the executive, legislature and the judiciary. What I want you to understand simply here is this: it is very easy for Nigerians to say, yes, it is because of this (Saraki’s prosecution); yes, of course. If the Senate President was not taken to that court, most of the issues being tested wouldn’t have come out.
Does that mean the National Assembly wouldn’t have amended the CCB/CCT Act if Saraki had not been dragged to the tribunal?
It is not a question of “wouldn’t have.” When you have a law and you have not tested it, how would you know whether it is effective or ineffective? Now, issues have been raised. Because the case is in court, I am constrained to make reference to it. But what I will tell you is that our own perspective is one in which we have seen beyond reasonable doubt that this law has now been properly tested, showing its weaknesses and strengths, and on the basis of that, we felt duty bound to act.
Do you think the amendment you are making to the Act is enough to correct the so-called “abuses”?
Absolutely! I want you to realise one thing: where do you leave checks and balances? You are talking about justice. Our thinking was that this is an administrative tribunal and they said, no; that it goes beyond that; that it is criminal. The moment they said it is criminal; remember that in criminal matters you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution. You cannot take it away from somebody, but, already, there has been media pronouncement of guilt by implication. That is one fundamental problem I want you to understand. The second thing I want to say is that if you look at the various provisions (of the constitution), the law is rational. The moment it is not rational; the moment it is not reasonable to your common sense, whether you are a lawyer or not, it does not make sense.
The National Assembly is taking away some powers over the CCB and the CCT away from the President in terms of appointment of members of the bureau…
We didn’t take away the powers.
But the amendment is that the Senate must confirm the appointment…
Yes, we have to confirm it.
That didn’t apply before…
Yes.
Have you not taken some powers away from the president if his appointments into the CCB are no more automatic?
Now, this is the check and balance.
Don’t you think it is possible for the National Assembly to influence or manipulate the operations of the CCB through the amendment?
How?
If there is a case against the Senate President or any other senator and certain persons are needed to be part of the CCB for efficiency, will the lawmakers not use their powers to confirm the appointment to frustrate the bureau?
Let me tell you the reason why the National Assembly is different. We are 109 members representing diverse interests. If you see us agreeing on an issue, you should know that that issue is genuinely correct. If you don’t see us agreeing on an issue, you will hear dissenting voices. Is that possible at the other end (presidency)?
But what if the majority of the lawmakers share a common interest of frustrating the CCB or a particular CCT case?
What is democracy? How do you know who the winner is? What is the basis? It is the majority. That is it! Let me tell you one thing: when you look at things being said, right and wrong, what might be right to you may be wrong to me. So, in every democracy, there are interests. You can never remove interests but what is important is for you to pursue an interest that promotes the common good, not a few. One thing is this: it is easier for people to now look at the subject matter from the lens of what is happening to the Senate President alone; forgetting that the Senate President is just one individual and this law will outlive all of us. We need to ask ourselves: have we addressed the most fundamental issues? If we have not addressed the most fundamental issues, it means that it could happen to you. In a democracy like ours, it is not right for you to allow certain lacuna for people to exploit and use. Nobody is saying the CCB and the CCT should not do their jobs, they should. If they are going to do their jobs, let them do them well. But surely, we are also saying – like you asked about the timing – that there is everything wrong with it.
If members of the Senate are representatives of the people and you said the amendment you are making is for the common good of the people, is there any condition in which you may not have to listen to the people to do what you want to do?
Tell me, what are people saying?
There are protests and criticisms against the amendment…
Which protests? Who are the protesters? I am representing Niger-North (Senatorial District). I came here by virtue of 172,000 votes, with another over 80,000 votes for my opponent. The fundamental question is: when you say “the people,” give me an evidence of the number of my people from my constituency that this issue (amendment) is their major concern right now. That is not their major concern. I am representing eight local government areas and their major concern is not this; their major concern is how the Federal Government is going to repair roads totalling 1065 kilometres out of the 2165 kilometres in Niger State. I, Senator Sabi Abdullahi, am telling you that these roads I have mentioned are their (the people’s) major preoccupation and concern.
But yours is just a district out of 109…
That is exactly the meaning of representation. Go to each of the senators or you provide the evidence of Nigerians who are protesting in all of the districts. We are in a democracy. See the number of people who come here and make some noise, who are they representing? In my constituency, people are dying in hospitals because basic equipment are not there. Those are the major concerns. How come these are not addressed with the same vigour. The point I am making is very clear: if something negative happens, are you saying that we should be blackmailed or intimidated into refusing to address it?
If the amendment process had been subjected to public hearing, don’t you think that, perhaps, you would have felt the mood of the people towards the process?
Who told you that it had not been subjected to public hearing?
But Senator Samuel Anyanwu, while presenting the report of his committee, which worked on the amendment bill, admitted that the exercise was suspended due to public outcry over it…
We were just trying to be sensitive because the media tried to drum the support that it was because of the Senate President. The Senate President is just one individual and if it is going to take the experience of the Senate President for the lapses in this law to be addressed, why not. That is why I said this law had never been rigorously tested before until we had this case. Otherwise, how do you explain it that the basis and fact of the case of Tinubu and Saraki are the same, yet the judge (who ruled in Tinubu’s case) had to say that he erred when he passed the judgment (that set Tinubu free)? Come on! Let us face the reality. Is that good for justice, for a judge to say he erred? I will tell you, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong in you or me or any other Nigerian for that matter, having an experience that will enable us to see through a new lens the challenges of that case. That is the meaning of law; it is dynamic. In doing this, remember, the National Assembly is an institution. All the dramatis personae that are there today; how many of them were in five, eight, 12 and 16 years ago? That is the point we should take note of. So, there is no self serving here. We are doing it in the overall interest of this country. Are we going to be there perpetually? No, we are not going to be here forever.
Most importantly, remember that this case is before a court and the Nigerian Constitution is extremely clear on the fact that the National Assembly cannot make a law and allow it to have a retrospective effect. That has put paid to any attempt by us to say we have amended the law and it has principles that may favour the Senate President, no.
If Mr. President himself is subject to our oversight, why are we having problems with any other body being overseen by the National Assembly? If the National Assembly has the powers to appropriate for the entire country and to amend the Nigerian Constitution, why are we nursing any fear of what the National Assembly should do? Are we doing anything outside what the constitution says we should do? Are we doing anything outside our powers?
Do you think the President will ever sign this bill into law?
That is not my worry. When it is time and it is sent to him, perhaps, ask him if he will sign it or not.
Don’t you think this whole process might end up being a futile exercise?
If he does not, the constitution itself anticipated that there could be futile effort; that is why it says the National Assembly should send it to Mr. President, he either assents to it or withholds his assent and tells us why he is withholding his assent. And if he withholds his assent, the National Assembly has its procedure on what to do. The constitution has already speculated that. As far as I am concerned, that (possible withdrawal of presidential accent), to me, is too premeditated. Let us finish our work and we will send it to Mr. President and if he does not sign it, then we have the issue to consider. But for now, ours is to do our job.
Does that mean the National Assembly might veto the CCB/CCT Act Amendment Bill?
Like I told you, when we get to the bridge, we will cross it. Get it very clear: when we are making law, we are not making law to satisfy anybody. Laws are dynamic; they are meant to outlive us but they are supposed to be made for the peace, orderliness and good governance of the federation. Where you have a law that has allowed people to drag things back and forth on the basis of technicalities and what not, is it not just rational and reasonable that such laws should be made clearer to remove all elements of ambiguity; so that if there are cases, they can be dispensed with, clean and clear, without any technicalities? Is that not the essence of law making? Where have we erred in what this amendment plans to do? Already, some people have succeeded in making the people to see the National Assembly as bad, which is rather unfortunate.
Does it not mean that you’ve not been carrying members of the public along in some of your activities?
We have always carried the public along. Tell me, apart from when we have executive sessions, which is allowed by our rules, are our plenary sessions not covered by journalists? What is the role of the journalists? Why are they there? Can the entire Nigerian public be in the chamber? Who are their proxies to get the information about what we are doing? Have they not been there?
But the media can only report the decisions you’ve already made, while members of the public want to be part of the process leading to that.
And who told you that we’ve not been getting to the people before taking those actions? Do you know the number of people I have talked to; do you know the number of people I have consulted? Is my consultation a public affair? It is partly yes and partly no. It is a very straightforward issue and the process of lawmaking means there is a public hearing. Remember, this particular amendment, I will tell you that we (first) stepped it down not on grounds of it being unreasonable; it was just by being sensitive.
Being sensitive to what?
…To the fact that people will not understand the issues clearly.
Even now, many still don’t understand it clearly.
Well, if they don’t; some people understand it clearly and some people don’t, and that is normal in a democracy. But if the majority understands, the few who don’t understand will have their say and the majority will always have their way. Remember, this (amendment) came from the House of Representatives; it was passed by the House and was sent to us for concurrence and we have done the concurrence. Some of the things they did, which we did not agree with, we have done our own and we (both chambers) need to now harmonise them. There is a conference committee that has already been set up. Do you think it is right for the National Assembly to be intimidated into not doing its job? Have you ever seen that happen? We have to do our job.
You made mention of the fact that the public is against certain things. I will tell you, for example, that the so-called anti-social media bill; if we were to go by the submissions by people during the public hearing, that bill ought to be considered. The Supreme Court – the highest court in the land – gave us its opinion and said it was a necessary law in view of the emerging ills that the social media is popping up; that it was necessary for us to have elements of privilege and responsibility. But at the end, what happened? We stepped it down based on sentiments. Yet, today as I am talking to you, I know beyond reasonable doubt – if you are to be objective and honest – that the social media itself is doing some damage to you, even as a professional. It has its positive side and at the same time it has a negative side. So, that is the dynamics of our society. Laws are supposed to be reviewed to serve the needs of the people; it is not the people who are supposed to serve the law. Emotions are high on the issue of this (CCB/CCT Act amendment) bill rather than facts, truth and reality.
Why did you listen to the emotion of the public over the anti-social media bill but ignored a similar emotion over the CCB/CCT Act amendment?
It is the committee that recommended that we should drop this (anti-social media) bill.
Does that mean you didn’t consider the “common good” factor as you claimed to have done for the CCB/CCT Act amendment?
Their reason was that some of the provisions of the bill had been properly catered for in another law. It was not as if in listening to it (public outcry), it was just blank. But let me ask, what alternative is there for this (CCB/CCT Act)? So, the analogy does not fit in. For the other one (anti-social media bill), there is the Cyber Crime Act. In fact, when I was told (about the Act) and I read it, its provisions are more stringent than what was proposed in the so-called anti-social media bill. Remember, what was tagged anti-social media bill was not just designed; it was for petitions; it was designed to address (the spate of) frivolous petitions, which people will write with their hands. The other thing was if you transmit it (frivolous petitions) with social media platforms. That was all. Let me tell you, if we continue to yield to such kind of sentiment, we will never make progress as a people. In many instances, who are those championing these sentiments? Is it the totality of Nigerians? No. It is a few, committed but noisy and persistent individuals who try to make sure that it is their narratives that dominate (public) discussions.
With that, I will tell you that for making this (amending the CCB/CCT Act), time will vindicate us; that we have carried out this exercise to make sure that the fight against corruption succeeds. Whatever they do (to Saraki at the CCT) is subject to further tests before two courts – the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. And that is a proper judicial platform, while this (tribunal) is a quasi-judicial platform. Now that many cases have pointed that this thing (case) must have criminal intent; that they (the tribunal) will look at it as criminal, the constitution is very clear that if it’s a criminal case, there are certain key conditions and precedents that must be fulfilled. It is not possible for me to say I am suing you or prosecuting you for a criminal case and I will trample on your fundamental rights. It is not possible for me to say that I am prosecuting you for criminal case and I will bring in unconvincing evidence and say that the evidence cannot be subjected to the Evidence Act; it is not possible. Those are the lacunas we have seen and said let us use this test case (Saraki’s CCT trial) to strengthen the provisions here (in the CCB/CCT Act) so that at the end of the day, we don’t have ourselves going back and forth. Corrupt cases can be resolved quickly and everybody will be happy that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.
Punch
END
Be the first to comment