May 20, 2003
Anti-Graft Law: The "Expedient" Amendment
OurRights appears every Tuesday or Thursday in ThisDay newspaper.
About two weeks ago, the Senate and House of Representatives overturned President Obasanjo's veto of the amended anti-graft law, passing it into law at their separate chamber's session.
It could be recalled that the amendment to the anti-graft law by the National Assembly generated a lot of controversy. While the leadership of each of the houses of the National Assembly argued that the amendment is expedient so as to insulate the Anti-Graft Commission from being used by the executive to witch-hunt and victimize its (perceived) political opponents, the executive had argued that the effect of the amendment is to whittle down the powers of the Commission making it ineffective in actualizing its mandate and thus refuse to give its assent to the amendment.
In the midst of the controversy, four honourable members of the House of Representatives instituted a legal action challenging the amendment of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission Act 2000 (the Anti-Graft Law) on the ground that the National Assembly did not comply with standard legislative procedure in amending the Act, amongst other grounds. The presiding judge in the matter had on March 12, 2003 ruled that the status quo be maintained pending the determination of the suit.
It was however in disregard of the court order that the House of Representatives and the Senate on May 7 and 8 respectively overturned the president's veto and passed the amended anti-graft bill into law. The effect of this was to heighten the controversy and put the legislative and judicial arms of government on collision course with widely reported threat and counter-threat of arrests being issued against each other.
This development is indeed worrisome; especially when its far-reaching implications are put in perspective. Nigeria at this point in time does not need any further heating of the polity. The pertinent questions to ask at this juncture are: in whose interest is the amendment anyway? Is it indeed for the general good or for the good of a few? It is pointless attempting to rubbish the judiciary in this matter.
The 1999 Constitution in Section 4(8) provides that the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly or by a House of Assembly shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts of law and of judicial tribunals established by law. This provision thus empowers the judiciary to entertain suits arising from deliberations of the legislature.
Interestingly the recent Court of Appeal decision on the Electoral Act 2002 is another landmark, which will go a long way to reduce friction between the executive and legislature, with a favourable impact on the polity. The court of Appeal has interpreted the quorum required by the constitution for the conduct of any legislative business to mean one-third of each House's entire membership and not of members present. It also interpreted "passed again" in overturning the president's veto (prescribed in Section 58(5)) to mean being subjected to full legislative process.
No doubt the judiciary has played a pivotal role in helping to stabilize the polity and deepen democracy in Nigeria in the last four years.
CRP calls on the judiciary to continue to tow this laudable path, even with is intervention in the amended anti-graft law saga.
CRP also calls on the outgoing National Assembly to place national interest above all personal interests in helping to find a lasting solution to the problem of corruption in Nigeria.
Copyright© 2005 Constitutional Rights Project (CRP). All rights reserved.
Our Rights Column |