In an obvious attempt to shield the National Assembly members from prosecution, a bill seeking to grant constitutional immunity to legislators has scaled through its second reading in the lower chambers, the House of Representatives. This bill effectively seeks to provide extended protection for the activities of legislators during legislative proceedings, plenary sessions and debates. That is, the bill covers all spoken and written speeches from questioning and prosecution by a competent court of jurisdiction.
The consolidation of the amended bill, sponsored by Ali Ahmed (PDP, Kwara), seeks to secure the freedom of speech and liberate the legislative actions of members during official plenary sessions of the National Assembly. It therefore begs the question: “What is the rationale behind the shadow of constitutional immunity to make reckless statements and incitements on the floor of the National Assembly?’’ However, if indeed the rationale of the consolidated bill is to safeguard the right to freedom of speech among respective members, then do they need protection from criminal and civil prosecutions? Does it not therefore follow that if legislators cannot be held accountable for their actions (i.e. both written and spoken speeches), then civil society organisations and the general public can also not hold them accountable for their actions of omission and commission.
Unfortunately, in recent times, it has become glaring and commonplace for elected officials to dramatically heat up the polity through unrestricted use of inflammatory statements during public hearings, debates and plenary sessions. The grounds for the passage of this bill cannot therefore be placed on enhancing the free flow of debate as is being argued by proponents of the bill. This stance cannot be compared to what is tenable in advanced democracies because governance systems and institutions in such democracies provide additional instruments and policies that mainstream transparency and accountability into the legislative process.
On the other hand, this bill has the potential to give rise to an increase in contentious deliberations, unwarranted accusations and a corresponding erosion of legislative ethics by providing an unguarded anti-transparency cloak on the legislative process through the adoption of constitutional immunity for legislators.
Besides, the passage of this bill cannot be regarded as a priority because it does not directly impact on the lives of millions of Nigerians, who have elected these same legislators to enact credible laws. If indeed, the lawmakers have nothing to hide, why do they seek constitutional immunity to shield them from civil and criminal prosecutions from utterances made during public hearings, plenary sessions and debates? Given the tradition of routine political and financial scandals that have engulfed the House of Representatives in recent years, a public observer can be forgiven to infer that this bill silently propagates the use of legislative powers to effectively camouflage a well-orchestrated attempt at providing a licence for the routine excesses of a scandal prone chamber.
A number of considerations and pertinent questions come to light when critically assessing the likely motivations behind the passage of the consolidated constitutional immunity bill, namely: Why the sudden interest and rush in passing this bill? Is there an underlying issue that has yet to come to the eye of the general public? Is this bill made for the protection of a select few or is this actually a sincere attempt at encouraging robust legislative debates? Regardless of your political affiliations or legislative dispositions, the House of Representatives, through its past deliberations, controversies and within the current political atmosphere, makes it difficult for this bill to be seen in a positive light for a number of reasons. In fact, its timing makes it suspicious as an effort to cover up debate on corruptions charges against legislators by using the instrumentality of the proposed law to render such accusations once made at the chamber as non-challengeable in court.
On the surface, this might look like a harmless bill, which should be passed in the interest of encouraging free flow of debates and freedom of speech by respective House members during the discharge of their daily legislative duties. But a closer scrutiny of the political dimensions and party calculations involved in the operation of this bill, should give the average Nigerian cause for serious concern. The bill has the potential to further erode the stability and public trust in an already fragile and disenchanted chamber. The rise of politically charged speeches embedded with ethno-religious sentiments has many a time during the course of legislative activities in the National Assembly raise more political tension outside the chamber than helping to unite Nigerians. It is therefore necessary for the conduct of lawmakers to be guided and not simply unregulated to avoid overheated sessions in the National Assembly.
Clearly, accountability and transparency can only be entrenched in governance systems through the continuous strengthening of democratic institutions, when our elected officials conduct their legislative actions/ duties within the reach of the law. It is expected that our elected legislators conduct themselves in an above board manner. Furthermore, the very nature and leadership status of these elevated custodians of the public trust demand a constant rigorous examination of their conduct through careful public scrutiny. From the above it is clear that freedom of speech can only be guaranteed when every legislative member is not beyond the arms of the law… when no lawmaker can elude the long arms of the law even when there are sufficient grounds for an indictment by a competent court of law.
Indeed, it should be advocated that constitutional immunity be limited for all members of the National Assembly especially as it relates to their conduct beyond their legislative duties as well as during plenary sessions, public hearings and debates among others. We call on the National Assembly that at the time when Nigerians are raising questions about their conduct, they should pay more attention to their oversight function role(s), so as to make governance work for the citizens rather than engaging in self-protection to further erode the confidence and public trust of the people on this veritable institution of democracy.
•Musa (Rafsanjani) is the Executive Director of Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, Abuja
Punch Nigeria
