2015 war reaches National Assembly

Both the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and its sibling, the House of Representatives, have always toed different lines in their relationship with The Presidency.
While the House of Representatives has traditionally usually been combative in its approach, the Senate has always moved with a greater ‘caution’, often offering the president a shoulder to lean on.

That was until a few weeks ago when things began to change.

The Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution has submitted a report endorsing the proposal for a single, six-year tenure for the president. This ordinarily should have been seen as supportive of the Dr. Goodluck Jonathan presidency, which had always flown the kite, except for the snag – a sitting president is precluded from benefitting from it!

Those who insist they see in Jonathan’s body language that he has more than a passing interest in not only continuing in office, but possibly doing so for another six years after the expiration of his current mandate, believe that the Senate may no longer be as friendly to him as they used to be.

As if this is not enough, while the Senate is at this, the House of Representatives is also working on a bill that seeks to simplify the process of impeachment and removal of the president in such a way that it would be an entirely a National Assembly affair.

Things are changing, but in whose favour? Is it a coincidence that both levels of the National Assembly are simultaneously working on different documents that seem to give the president the short end of the stick?

The embarrassment caused by the recent election conducted by the Nigerian Governors Forum is still festering seriously, and many would vow they could see the hand of the president in that as well, despite denials by his image makers and loyalists. Is the political class somehow involved in this evolving scenario trying to use the National Assembly to balance ‘political terror’ against the president? Is this all, in fact, in the interest of the common Nigerians?

Deputy Editor, OLAWALE RASHEED, takes a hard look at the unfolding drama:

AS schemes for the 2015 race heighten, contending forces for political power have turned the two chambers of the National Assembly into a battle ground of sort with the Senate appearing to be siding with the president and the House of Representatives militantly pursuing anti-presidency agenda.

The dome is increasingly becoming a theatre of war witnessing an apparent balance of terror between forces loyal to President Goodluck Jonathan and those committed to stopping him in 2015. The Senate, for some time, has served as a stabilising platform, citing the need for it to cool down the polity amid tension generated by struggle for political power.

The Senate, led by David Mark, is obviously tilting towards a pro-Jonathan stance, a position that is not surprising to watchers of the political space. For the House of Representatives, the Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, appears unruffled by his undeclared determination to battle the number one citizen on all fronts. Hence, while Mark is investing energy in what many observers consider a pro-Jonathan stabilisation role, the House leadership is given to a stop-Jonathan campaign, which is manifesting on various fronts.

At a time the president seems to be dealing with dissidents within his party, his opponents have employed a section of the legislature to hit back at him. With most governors running for safety due to their own records and repercussions of their political acts, the National Assembly appears to be the right place to stage a fight back.

This week alone, both chambers mostly demonstrated their allegiances in their handling of the constitution review and other legislative matters. The Senate has awarded the president many of his demands in the amendment process. Eventually, the president has secured his wish for a single presidential tenure even if it means he will not be benefitting from the provision. The question of local government autonomy is decided in favour of the president, a provision that is likely to weaken the president. And since most states operate caretaker system, fund will not even go to any state without democratically elected local government officials. As if to pass a subtle warning to whomever, a new provision barred the vice president from succeeding a dead president.

The Senate’s version of the amendment thus largely serves the will and agenda of the president or that of his larger caucus. That action of the upper chamber has further tightened the noose around the president’s opponents even as challenges exist as to how the heavily anti-governors amendments will sail through the state assembly. It is also yet to be seen how the Senate will secure the support of the lower house for those politically volatile amendments.

The anti-president forces may have got the message clearly even when it was disguised. Hence, suddenly, from a ruling party member, a bill came to the floor seeking to simplify the impeachment process against the president. The sponsor of the bill must have been instructed to raise the bill because many see it as an afterthought, especially as the House has finalised its proposals on the amendment.

The fact that the House Leader, Mulikat Akande-Adeola, opposed the bill was considered a sign that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) caucus in the House is now split between pro and anti-Jonathan elements. The bill seeking to remove the role of the Chief Justice of Nigeria in the impeachment process is clearly designed to at least provide political problem for the president to contend with. By passing the bill into second reading despite many objections, the House appears to be demonstrating its bitterness in the struggle against the president. The bill, now through to the second reading, may be rammed through the third reading and, therefore, find its way into the House’s version of the constitution amendment bill.

The countenance of many legislators, who voted to pass the bill into the second reading, showed that the last may not have been heard of the bill. Those reading the development beyond the surface believe that the Senate will find it hard to convince the House to drop the bill if it ever gets into the House’s version. Any mistake to allow the bill to emerge as part of proposed amendment for the consideration of the Houses of Assembly may create a booby trap for the president. This is more so as such possibility will be easily embraced by many state governors who have axe to grind with the president.

The House has also suspended issues on the 2013 budget in what many observers regard as a ploy to paralyse the administration. The deadlock over budget may not end soon and may affect the overall performance of the government. Both the House and the executive are not ready to shift ground and the House members, even when hurt by the development, appear to believe the executive will be the worse for it.

Again on Wednesday, certain curious amendment proposals were unveiled. Analysist see the proposals as targetted at witlling down the powers of the President.

The proposals sought amendments to Sections 136 and 181 of the constitution, to stop the successor to a president or governor who died in office from contesting election for the same office in any subsequent election.

Clause 11 of the report wanted Section 136 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to be substituted with a new Section 136 (2) to read: “Where a vice-president-elect or vice-president succeeds the president-elect or president, in accordance with Subsection (1) of this section, he shall not be eligible to contest for the office of the president in any subsequent election.”

Also, Clause 17 of the draft bill wanted Section 181 to be altered to read: “Where a deputy governor-elect or deputy governor succeeds the governor-elect or governor, in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, he shall not be eligible to contest for the office of the governor in any subsequent election.”

The Senate also sought to strengthen the legislative arm by ensuring that bills sent to the president for assent automatically became law after 30 days.

Checks, however, showed that the House has not got the boldness to go the whole hug against the president. Unlike in the past, no impeachable offences have been compiled or raised on the floor of either the House or Senate. The Senate, this time around, does not have the likes of Arthur Nzeribe, who specialised in raising the stakes up to the brink to enforce horse trading. The House lacks the guts of those radical lawmakers of 1999 to 2007 who are ready to battle the president for the cause they believe in.

Some analysts have attributed the relative calm in the National Assembly to the dexterity of the Senate President. The stability in the Senate is seen as a factor regularly weakening the resolve of the lower house. Others also posited that the calibre of previous House members is more intimidating than what obtains now.

As the confrontation continues on all fronts, the executive is still having the upper hand. The David Mark factor is a plus for the president in his battle with opponents employing the House in a proxy war. What is more, Speaker Tambuwal is not a Ghali Naaba, hence, the heat is not yet directly felt by the presidency. There is also the thought that President Jonathon is not Olusegun Obasanjo, hence, the inexperienced House has a bit of latitude.

Some observers, however, see current trend as a long-term threat to the interest of the executive. A more enraged lower house may become more emboldened to plant foothold in the upper chamber. Why the president may not worry much is that the chairman of the National Assembly, Mark, is still, a General in the political field.