Federal Capital Territory District Courts Act (amended) Bill, 2015

 LONG TITLE

A BILL FOR AN ACT TO AMEND THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT COURT ACT, CAP 495, LAWS OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA 1990

#OccupyNASS, #OccupyRMAFC or #OccupyBoth

Section 70 of the 1999 Constitution states that "A member of the Senate or the House of Representative shall receive such salary and other allowances as Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission determine"

Section 84(1) states that "There shall be paid to the holders of the offices mentioned in this section such as remuneration, salaries and allowances as may be prescribed by the National Assembly, but not exceeding the amount as shall have been determined by RMAFC". The Constitution goes further to mention the holders of such offices in Section 84(4) as the Executives, Judiciary, Chairmen and members of Executive bodies like Code of Conduct Bureau, Nigerian Police, INEC, RMAFC etc. Note that the Legislature is excluded from the list.

8.64 Billion wardrobe; Legislators and RMAFC

8.64 Billion wardrobe; Legislators and RMAFC

This article is not aimed at debating the enormity of the National Assembly wardrobe allowance or other allowances, but to shed more light on who wields the Constitutional powers to change the National Assembly's allowance and pay structure.

Though i share the opinion that political offices be made less lucrative, but this blog is not about personal opinions but about presenting facts to increase people's participation and perception about the Legislature, and also correcting the misconception that has formed the basement complex of both our terrestrial and social media platforms.

Contd: The vetoed Constitution Amendment Bill; 7th Assembly & GEJ

Welcome to the second episode.  

We hope to engage the 8th Assembly on amendment of section 6 on reviewing the 40 years old requirement to become an Electoral Commissioner downwards to 32 years. This will allow youth representation in the Nigerian electoral decision making process. 

Sequel to the first article on the details of the last Constitution amendment Bill, this second episode is also in partnership with Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC). Rising from a robust post-election experience sharing youth conference #YouthObservatory, the EOTM team decided to feature proposed amendments made to the Nigerian electoral process in the vetoed Constitution amendment Bill.

Proposed Amendments on Electoral Reforms, INEC and Political Parties

Section 65(2) (2) (b): Qualifications for election

This amendment gives room for independent candidates to contest elective positions, in the National Assembly. This is further replicated in the amended sections 106(d), 131(c), and 177, which are for the offices of the State House of Assembly, President and Governor respectively.

Section 66(1) (c): Disqualifications

This amendment in section 66 inserts an additional qualification barring persons from being elected into the Senate or the House of Representatives when they have been previously convicted for an electoral offence

The corresponding provision for State Houses of the Assembly is in the amended section 107.

Section 134: Election: two or more Presidential candidates

This amendment extends the time for INEC to conduct run-off Presidential elections from 7 days to 21 days.

A corresponding provision for gubernatorial run-off elections is in section 179.

Section 225: Finances of Political Parties

New section 225A empowers the INEC to deregister political parties for breaching registration requirements and/or failing to win presidential, governorship, local government chairmanship positions or a seat in the National or State Assembly.

Section 228: Powers of the National Assembly with respect to Political Parties

The amendment to this section confers on the National Assembly to make laws for the procedures, guidelines and qualifications for access to the ballot by political parties and independent candidates

Section 285: Establishment of Election Tribunals and Time for Determination of Election Petitions

This provision is altered to cover pre-election matters. Consequently, new subsections inserted under this section provide that a pre-election matter must be filed no later than 7 days of the event complained of while judgment must be delivered within 180 days from filling of the suit. An appeal on a decision in a pre-election matter must be filed within 14 days and disposed of within 60 days from the date of filling of the appeal by the court. The amendment here also addresses the issue of computation of time where an intervening event occurs within the stipulated period for hearing and determination of an election petition. The days of such supervening events that make it impracticable for judge to sit will not be counted as being 180 days period.

Credits to Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre and UK aid

Recall of Legislators

The primary role of the Legislature is to make laws, laws that reflect and protect the interest of the public. Legislators are elected to represent the views of their respective constituency in this law making process. Therefore, it is expected that legislators engage citizens/constituents, to effectively discharge their duties. In some cases Legislators tend to put party and personal agendas over the public interest.
What happens when legislators are failing in their primary duties? What can the citizenry do, when they lose confidence? Well, the good news is, the Constitution already envisaged that. The constituents hired  representatives with their votes, therefore the constituents also reserves the right and powers to fire them with votes, if  their representatives are performing below expectations or drifting away from their job description.
To recall a member of the National Assembly is the Constitutional right of the electorate. The constituents gives their mandate to a legislator, and any form of misuse or non-usage of the mandate, makes him/her liable for a recall. A quick look at what the Constitution says about recall of members; 

Section 110 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended says 

A member of the House of Assembly may be recalled as such a member if -  

(a) there is presented to the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission a petition in that behalf signed by more than one half of the persons registered to vote in that member's constituency alleging their loss of confidence in that member; and  

(b) the petition is thereafter, in a referendum conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission within ninety days of the date of receipt of the petition, approved by a simple majority of the votes of the persons registered to vote in that member's constituency.

The basis for recall according to the provisions of the Constitution is loss of confidence, and loss of confidence in its interpretation has an extensive meaning.The 8th Assembly will be inaugurated tomorrow, it is imperative that the public engage their representatives and hold them accountable at every step of the way. 

THE FIRE BRIGADE APPROACH

On Thursday 4^th of June, 2015, Senator Ita Enang moved a motion that the Senate suspends its rules, to allow the Senate expedite the concurrence proceedings of the 46 Bills originating from the House of Representatives. Apparently, there has been a prior agreement between the leadership of both chambers to suspend their rules to pave way for speedy concurrence. All bills not concurred to by both Houses is considered dead by the end of the 7^th Assembly. Therefore, such bills will start de novo in the 8^th Assembly. The entire process adopted by the Senate has earned its place in the Nigerian history as the FIRE BRIGADE APPROACH.

Allow me to dedicate a few lines to the Constitutionality and legality of the Senate fire brigade approach. Section 4 of the Nigerian Constitution as amended, gave the National Assembly the express and statutory powers to regulate their proceedings. In other words, the Constitution provides the Senate and House of Representative with the necessary powers and backing to set and enforce their own rules, their own guidelines, their punishment and ultimately decide their own modus operandi. Due to this Constitutional requirement, the National Assembly formulated some sets of binding rules namely; the Senate Standing Order and House of Representative rules for the Senate and House of Representatives respectively. These rule books guides all legislative proceedings and legislators alike, any such proceeding flaunting the set rules will be ruled out of order.

Now, what makes the fire brigade approach legal? Since the Constitution empowers the Senate to regulate self, the real question is, did the Senate pass those 46 Bills in accordance to the provisions of their rule book? Before you answer that, let me take you on a little journey through the provisions of the Senate Standing Order.

First, Order 86(5) of the Senate Standing Order says “when a Bill originating in the Senate has been read the third time, a printed copy of it signed by the Clerk of the Senate and endorsed by the President of the Senate shall be forwarded by Clerk of the Senate to the Clerk of House of Representative together with a message desiring the concurrence of the House of Representative” This is a standard procedure always observed by both chambers. The House with the originating Bill must have considered the Bills before sending it to the other House for concurrence. In this situation, the 46 Bills have been duly considered by the originating house which is the House of Representative. The Bills have gone through the first, second and third readings, committee level, hearings and clause by clause considerations by the House of Representatives.

Secondly, Order 86(6) says “When a bill which originated in the House of Representative has been read the third time; the Clerk of the Senate shall (a) retain the bill and send a message to the House of Representative that the Senate has agreed to the Bill without amendments” This provision explains the possibility of Senate not finding fault with a Bill originating from the House of Representatives. There could be a scenario, whereby the Senate has nothing to subtract or add by the way of amendment to Bills originating from the green chamber. Therefore, it will be safe to say the Senate believes the House of Representative has done a thorough job on the 46 Bills.

Thirdly, Order 79(1) says “Every Bill shall receive three readings previous to its passage, which each readings shall be in different days, unless the Senate unanimously directs otherwise and the President of the Senate shall give notice at each reading whether it is first, second or third” This sections accords the Senate the powers to expedite their own proceedings upon a unanimous decision. The Senate can choose to ditch their traditional three readings in three different days, to allow three readings in just a day.

Lastly, Order 45(1) says “No rule shall be suspended except by the vote of two thirds of the Senate” That is, with required number of votes, the Senate is allowed to set aside any of their rules. I can vividly remember that the Senate had to set aside their rules to allow professor Jega and his entourages, who are not elected senators, access into the red chamber. Senator Ita Enang simply moved that the Senate do suspend their rules hindering the speedy passage of 46 Bills in one sitting. The motion was duly seconded, question put and positive.

These Bills are quite important and really affects an average Nigerian. It’s my job to analyze Bills and so far Whistle Blower Bill and Sexual Offences Bill have been very interesting and I find them very important. I promise to publish my research analysis on this blog soon. In my opinion, I think it would have been really sad to allow these important Bills go start afresh in the 8^th Assembly. It might just take the 8^th Assembly another four years to get this level, bearing in mind that the bulk of the 8^th Assembly legislators are first timers.

Back to the question, do you think the Senate passed those 46 Bills in accordance to the provisions of their rule book? Do you think they were being patriotic? Or do you think they just like to abuse powers? One last question, who do you think benefits if those 46 Bills are signed into law? Do not forget you are the judge and jury.

Babajide Olusola Omojola

Sexual Offences Bill Simplified

Section 7 of  the  Sexual Offences Bill

In the picture above lies the part of the sexual offences Bill that directly deals with the general misconception.

 The media in the past few days has been all about the National Assembly making eleven years, the legal age to have sex. A number of people already share this view, including some elder statesmen and notable Nigerians.

Well, I believe nobody should be blamed for this wrong perception about the bill. A wise man once told me that in Nigeria, information is cheap but not accessible. This is the lacuna this blog actually intends to fill, to make information about every bill available in to all and sundry.

Not to bore you with the blog’s mission statement and vision, permit me to quickly proceed to the order of the day.

The bill does not say it is okay to have sex with anybody above eleven years, the bill simply says, sex with anybody below the age of nineteen years is not sex but defilement. The bill simply criminalizes any form of defilement with persons below nineteen years.

Since the bill seems to be self-explanatory, then why the controversies? I believe the controversy and the heated arguments on social media emanated from the word LIABLE. The bill read “offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less upon conviction will be sentenced to imprisonment for life” this clause simply means, any form of defilement with this age group, be it consensual defilement, false age declaration defilement or forced defilement attracts the same penalty.  Really, I doubt if there is any girl or boy from this age group that is mature enough to consent or make an accused believe they are years older. That will be the court’s stand no matter how good your lawyer is.

“A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and eighteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life”. This is where the word LIABLE crops in, the only difference between this clause and the last one is the word LIABLE. For easy understanding I’ll suggest we use the word LIABLE interchangeably with LIKELY. In simple terms, this clause is invariably saying any offence of defilement with this age group will definitely earn you a jail term, but you are likely to get a reduced sentencing depending on the following circumstances. Is it consensual? Is the accused genuinely made to believe a false age? Were steps taken by the accused to properly ascertain the defendant’s age? The list goes on.

 To fully understand this clause, we need to take look at the provisions of sub-section (7) which says that the above mentioned questions shall not apply if the accused person is related to such child within the prohibited degrees of blood affinity. That is, if the accused is a relative of a child aged twelve to eighteen years, s/he will surely get a sentence of imprisonment for life. As a relative, you are believed to have already ascertain the necessary facts before willfully going ahead to commit the crime of defilement.  I believe the bill is trying to be fair to those who genuinely thought the defendant is above eighteen years old.

To correct the wrong notion, I’ll like to remind us all that the bill refers to anybody below nineteen years of age as a child. Secondly, the bill regards any form of sexual interaction with a child as defilement and not sex. Thirdly, the bill does not legalize the offence of defilement with children from the ages twelve to eighteen years, rather the bill says accused people with this age group will be given a fair hearing, and might less than life sentence depending on the peculiarity of the case.

In conclusion, what the blog seeks to achieve is to present you with facts and unbiased analysis, for you to be the judge and the jury.

Babajide Olusola Omojola