Ever since Nigeria’s Eighth National Assembly was born in controversial circumstances on June 9, 2015, it has been trailed by one crisis or the other, ranging from the controversy surrounding the election of principal officers, through the alleged forgery of the procedural rules used in the election of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, to the arraignment of the Senate President before the Code of Conduct Tribunal for allegations of corruption and false declaration of assets.
The various crises could have been avoided but for the personal ambition of some self-centred politicians in both chambers of the National Assembly, who colluded with the opposition to defy the wishes of the leaders of their party, the All Progressives Congress, regarding the election of the principal officers of both chambers.
This is particularly true of the red chamber, that is, the Senate. Historically, the United States Senate, upon which the Nigerian Senate is based, was formed on the example of the Senatus (Latin for Council of Elders) of ancient Rome. Ordinarily, the Senate of a parliament in the modern state is the upper chamber of the legislature and has exclusive powers not granted to the lower chamber, that is, the House of Representatives. Such powers include consenting to or confirming the appointments of Cabinet ministers, federal judges, military and other federal uniformed officers, and ambassadors. It is for this and other reasons that the Senate is widely considered to be a more deliberative and prestigious body than the House of Representatives. That’s why, in saner democracies, only seasoned politicians, appropriate professionals, and acclaimed intellectuals populate the Senate.
True, there are many notable and well-qualified members of the Eighth Senate, many lack senatorial presitige. That’s probably why at no other time in Nigerian history has the prestige of the Senate been eroded as much as that of the Eighth Senate. This is due in part to the initial recalcitrancy of the Senate President, and his band of supporters; the controversy surrounding his election, including the cloud of the alleged forgery of the Senate rules used for the election; and the corruption allegations arising from alleged false claims in his asset declaration forms in 2003, 2007, and 2011.
True, Saraki should be presumed innocent until proved guilty by the Code of Conduct Tribunal; nevertheless, the appearance of wrongdoing continues to mar his reputation as the leader of the prestigious body of lawmakers, raising the question as to why such a person should lead the Senate, when there are many others who could do so creditably, and without rancour. In advanced democracies, politicians in his position would have resigned in the face of similar charges.
But, then, the majority of the senators recently told the world that they see nothing wrong in Saraki’s behaviour, by passing a vote of confidence in him, thus admitting the transfer of the appearance of wrongdoing hanging over his neck to themselves. Of the 83 senators, who endorsed Saraki, following his disgraceful appearance in the dock on charges of corruption and deception, Gbenga Olusesi had this to say: “The political endorsement by the 83 senators of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, eloquently confirms the extent the monster called corruption has eaten deep into the fabric of the Nigerian political class. This also confirms that the present crop of senators is not ready to co-operate with President Muhammadu Buhari to fight corruption which has been the bane of the nation’s development” (The PUNCH, October 5, 2015).
Some have argued that the endorsement of Saraki by fellow senators, while his case is still pending in court, was done in exchange for membership of “juicy” committees or other lucrative assignments, while others argue that the senators’ action was in exchange for financial inducement. Yet, others argue that it was the senators’ reaction to the defilement of their chamber by the arraignment of their President.
Whatever explanation is advanced, the senators’ action is despicable. Why not wait until Saraki has successfully defended himself before reaffirming his leadership of the Senate? What would the hurried endorsement mean if he was found guilty at the end of the day? What killed the sane voices in the Senate or are there none?
Clearly, Saraki is doing all he can to convince Nigerians that he not only deserves his job but that he has been working hard and well. Thus, after 100 days in office, he got his staff to deflect attention away from the controversies surrounding his person and present job by making them write profusely about the accomplishments of the Eighth Senate under his watch. For example, “In 100 days of Eighth Senate: The gains of visitation”, his Special Adviser, Yusuph Olaniyonu, wrote about the visits of the Saraki-led Senate to Borno and Adamawa states and New York City in the United States (Vanguard, September 13, 2015), while, “In Eighth Senate: 100 days of people-centred motions, bills”, his Chief Press Secretary, Dannie Onogu, recounts several motions as well as bills that passed through the first reading (Peoples Daily, September 18, 2015).
It would have been useful if Saraki took time to convince Nigerians that the Senate rules used to elect him were not forged, thus clearing one of the many controversies surrounding him and the Eighth Senate. Like everything else around Saraki, the investigation of the alleged forgery is itself mired in controversy. There have been several claims: (1) that the police had concluded the investigation and submitted their report to the Justice Department; (2) that the investigation confirmed that the procedural rules used in the election of the Senate President and his deputy were illegally amended; and (3) that the police report is now missing. Yet, the “missing” report was earlier quoted as reaching a damning conclusion: “This practice where some group of senators amends the Rules of the Senate without following legal procedures is not only criminal but portends danger for our growing democracy and should be discouraged” (Vanguard, July 27, 2015).
Whatever might have happened to the police investigation and the report, all we now know is that nothing else is heard about the matter. It may well have died the Nigerian way. It will be most unfortunate if the CCT case against Saraki were to die that way, because it will also portend danger for our democracy and for the fight against corruption.
Compare the Nigerian situation with that of the United States, where many legislators have been jailed for document forgery and for filing false disclosure forms similar to the Nigerian asset declaration forms. For example, in 1992, Congressman Walter Fauntroy was convicted of filing false disclosure forms to hide unauthorised income. Similarly, in 2002, Jim Traficant was found guilty of 10 felony counts of financial corruption, following investigations into his disclosure forms. He was sentenced to eight years in prison and expelled from the House of Representatives.
Saraki may not have been the only one in this false disclosure fix. Nor is he the only beneficiary of the forged Senate rules. Nevertheless, his case before the CCT deserves a fair and concluded trial. Otherwise, the fight against corruption will suffer a hiccup from which it may never recover. Similarly, it is in the interest of the Senate to seek a resolution to allegations of forgery of the procedural rules used in the election of the Senate President as such a resolution will remove the cloaks of suspicion and illegitimacy hanging over the Eighth Senate.
PUNCH
END
Be the first to comment