President
Goodluck Jonathan and the House of Representatives members are set to be on a
collision course over the emergency rule in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, as the
chamber yesterday voted against the president using the statutory
allocations to the states to fund the emergency rule.
Goodluck Jonathan and the House of Representatives members are set to be on a
collision course over the emergency rule in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, as the
chamber yesterday voted against the president using the statutory
allocations to the states to fund the emergency rule.
Relying
on 305 of the 1999 Constitution, President Jonathan on May 9 declared a state
of emergency in the three states. Both the House and the Senate last week
approved the emergency rule.
on 305 of the 1999 Constitution, President Jonathan on May 9 declared a state
of emergency in the three states. Both the House and the Senate last week
approved the emergency rule.
Section
3(e) of the Transmitted Emergency Powers (General) Regulations 2013
provides for the “utilisation of the funds of any state of local government in
the emergency area.”
3(e) of the Transmitted Emergency Powers (General) Regulations 2013
provides for the “utilisation of the funds of any state of local government in
the emergency area.”
The
House had, during the consideration of the proclamation on Tuesday rejected the
section, but a Conference Committee that interfaced with the Senate
approved it last Thursday.
House had, during the consideration of the proclamation on Tuesday rejected the
section, but a Conference Committee that interfaced with the Senate
approved it last Thursday.
At
yesterday’s session, the chamber said the president lacked the constitutional
power to fund the emergency rule with the allocations of local governments and
states concerned. A total of 194 of the 197 members that attended yesterday’s
plenary asked the president to run the emergency with funds from the Federal
Government purse.
yesterday’s session, the chamber said the president lacked the constitutional
power to fund the emergency rule with the allocations of local governments and
states concerned. A total of 194 of the 197 members that attended yesterday’s
plenary asked the president to run the emergency with funds from the Federal
Government purse.
The
lawmakers expressed disappointment at the manner with which their resolution of
21 May, 2013 on the utilization of the funds of the affected states and local
governments were overruled at the conference committee of the two chambers.
lawmakers expressed disappointment at the manner with which their resolution of
21 May, 2013 on the utilization of the funds of the affected states and local
governments were overruled at the conference committee of the two chambers.
To
demonstrate its seriousness that the presidency must stay away from the
allocations belonging to the three states, the chamber deleted
Section 3 (e) of the Transmitted Emergency Powers (General) Regulations.
demonstrate its seriousness that the presidency must stay away from the
allocations belonging to the three states, the chamber deleted
Section 3 (e) of the Transmitted Emergency Powers (General) Regulations.
In
addition, the lower chamber pleaded with the Senate to concur and adopt
the new resolution.
addition, the lower chamber pleaded with the Senate to concur and adopt
the new resolution.
The
motion was moved by Ibrahim El-Sudi (PDP, Taraba). He said the matter was
constitutional and that by virtue of Section 305 of the Constitution as
amended, the president was empowered to do declare a state o emergency in any
part of the country.
motion was moved by Ibrahim El-Sudi (PDP, Taraba). He said the matter was
constitutional and that by virtue of Section 305 of the Constitution as
amended, the president was empowered to do declare a state o emergency in any
part of the country.
El-Sudi,
who headed the ad hoc committee that investigated the near collapse of stock
exchange last year stressed that in considering the details sent to the
National Assembly, the House of Representatives resolved resolved to
appoint a six-member conference committee to meet with the Senate’s five-member
team to harmonized differences if there was any.
who headed the ad hoc committee that investigated the near collapse of stock
exchange last year stressed that in considering the details sent to the
National Assembly, the House of Representatives resolved resolved to
appoint a six-member conference committee to meet with the Senate’s five-member
team to harmonized differences if there was any.
He
recalled that when the conference committee of both chambers met on Tuesday,
May 22, 2013 to considered areas of differences, the committee adopted the
Senate version on the Proclamation Order.
recalled that when the conference committee of both chambers met on Tuesday,
May 22, 2013 to considered areas of differences, the committee adopted the
Senate version on the Proclamation Order.
He
said: “The committee also adopted clauses 3 © and (4) of Senate version of
the Emergency Powers (General) Regulations 2013. The committee further adopted
the addition of the words ‘in Public Order, Peace and Security’ and included
the House version of clauses 1, 2, (3) and 5 © of the Emergency Powers along
with the Explanatory Note.
said: “The committee also adopted clauses 3 © and (4) of Senate version of
the Emergency Powers (General) Regulations 2013. The committee further adopted
the addition of the words ‘in Public Order, Peace and Security’ and included
the House version of clauses 1, 2, (3) and 5 © of the Emergency Powers along
with the Explanatory Note.
“Aware
of the fact that Section 3 (e) of the Transmitted Emergency Powers (General)
Regulations 2013, which provides, for the utilization of any funds of any state
or local government in the emergency area’ was unanimously rejected and deleted
by the House but retained by the conference committee of both chambers.
of the fact that Section 3 (e) of the Transmitted Emergency Powers (General)
Regulations 2013, which provides, for the utilization of any funds of any state
or local government in the emergency area’ was unanimously rejected and deleted
by the House but retained by the conference committee of both chambers.
“Further
aware of the public outcry and outright opposition by majority of Nigerians
especially indigenes of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa on the content of the above
quoted regulation.
aware of the public outcry and outright opposition by majority of Nigerians
especially indigenes of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa on the content of the above
quoted regulation.
“Mindful
of a near consensus of opinion of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and
constitutional lawyers across the country regarding the constitutionality of
the said action.
of a near consensus of opinion of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and
constitutional lawyers across the country regarding the constitutionality of
the said action.
“Further
mindful of the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Emergency Powers Act no. 1 of
1961 (as modified) which provides: ‘(2) Any such regulation. Order or rule may,
without prejudice to the validity of anything lawful done there under, at
anytime be amended or revoked by resolutions passed by both Houses…
mindful of the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Emergency Powers Act no. 1 of
1961 (as modified) which provides: ‘(2) Any such regulation. Order or rule may,
without prejudice to the validity of anything lawful done there under, at
anytime be amended or revoked by resolutions passed by both Houses…
“Concerned
that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has in a plethora of decided cases
interpreted the intent and purport of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution as
amended on the finances of the states and local government of the federation
and on whether Federal Government via National Assembly can validly make laws
conferring power or imposing duties and state functionaries.
that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has in a plethora of decided cases
interpreted the intent and purport of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution as
amended on the finances of the states and local government of the federation
and on whether Federal Government via National Assembly can validly make laws
conferring power or imposing duties and state functionaries.
“Further
concerned that chapter 1, part 1 of the 1999 Constitution as
amended, Nigeria is a federation and operates federalism as a system of
government with states retaining a large measure of independence and autonomy.
concerned that chapter 1, part 1 of the 1999 Constitution as
amended, Nigeria is a federation and operates federalism as a system of
government with states retaining a large measure of independence and autonomy.
“Encouraged
by the Supreme Court of Nigeria pet Niki Tobi in the case of A G, Abia versus A
G, Federation (2004-2007) 3 LLRN pg 1360 at pg 1332 for the National
Assembly to acquaint itself with the decision of the court on all matters
relating to law referred to it avoid taking contrary action.
by the Supreme Court of Nigeria pet Niki Tobi in the case of A G, Abia versus A
G, Federation (2004-2007) 3 LLRN pg 1360 at pg 1332 for the National
Assembly to acquaint itself with the decision of the court on all matters
relating to law referred to it avoid taking contrary action.
“Further
encouraged by the need to ensure that our laws, orders, resolutions or
regulations are not in conflict with the 1999 Constitution as amended or
any court decision which we all swore to preserve and protect.
encouraged by the need to ensure that our laws, orders, resolutions or
regulations are not in conflict with the 1999 Constitution as amended or
any court decision which we all swore to preserve and protect.
Minority
Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila (ACN, Lagos), who supported El-Sudi said the
constitution was clear, though the Supreme Court could reverse itself on
earlier pronouncement in the light of new evidences and facts.
Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila (ACN, Lagos), who supported El-Sudi said the
constitution was clear, though the Supreme Court could reverse itself on
earlier pronouncement in the light of new evidences and facts.
He
said: “But in this case, it was clearly stated that under no circumstances can
the Federal Government seize the funds of states or local governments.”
said: “But in this case, it was clearly stated that under no circumstances can
the Federal Government seize the funds of states or local governments.”
Gbajabiamila
highlighted the frustration of the lawmakers on how their resolution of
the utilization of funds was disregarded at the conference committee, saying:
“I can’t understand why because, the outcome negated all the efforts put into
the document by the House.”
highlighted the frustration of the lawmakers on how their resolution of
the utilization of funds was disregarded at the conference committee, saying:
“I can’t understand why because, the outcome negated all the efforts put into
the document by the House.”
He,
however, attributed the use of language as part of the problem of the
document saying: “On the use of administration, if on one hand the
administrator was given powers to carry out sweeping functions, what is there
for the governors of the affected areas to administer?”
however, attributed the use of language as part of the problem of the
document saying: “On the use of administration, if on one hand the
administrator was given powers to carry out sweeping functions, what is there
for the governors of the affected areas to administer?”
The
only voice against the motion, Kingsley Chanda (PDP, Rivers), who said
situation in the affected areas was not normal as the constitution was
suspended was shouted down by his colleagues.
only voice against the motion, Kingsley Chanda (PDP, Rivers), who said
situation in the affected areas was not normal as the constitution was
suspended was shouted down by his colleagues.
In
his ruling, the Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal said the adoption of the harmonized
version was accompanied with several voices about the impropriety of the
document.
his ruling, the Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal said the adoption of the harmonized
version was accompanied with several voices about the impropriety of the
document.
When
he called for the voice vote, 194 lawmakers voted in favour of
the motion.
he called for the voice vote, 194 lawmakers voted in favour of
the motion.
Source: Sun
