The lawmaker representing Ahoada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency of Rivers State at the House of Representatives, Solomon Bob, speaks with DIRISU YAKUBU on the need to remove immunity for the vice president, governor and deputy governor.
Immunity clause was included in the constitution to allow the president and other beneficiaries to focus on the business of governance. Why are you pushing for the removal of the clause?
Nigeria is not as litigious as America. The most litigious society in the world is America. So, why has that argument not held water there? Why have the governors and presidents in America not been distracted by litigations? It is a very spurious argument. Assuming that was the case, can you compare that with the untold levels of impunity, corruption, and indiscipline that we are exposed to as a result of retaining this absolute immunity?
If a man wants to engage in actions that can permanently make him a guest of the courtroom, that is his business. He has to blame himself. You can’t blame those going to court against him. The courts are not dumb not to recognise a frivolous action. I am very sure that the courts will do the right thing. If an action has no merit, they will throw it away.
How optimistic are you about this bill?
I’m not very optimistic because the powers that be will not allow it. Some of my colleagues have described the bill as fantastic but they fear the governors will not support it. But that’s not our business. It is not our business to speculate what governors will do or not do. Let’s pass it first and push the ball to their court. Then, let Nigerians see that they (governors) are obstructing what has been generally applauded as a necessary amendment.
As federal lawmakers, we are not going to make laws in state assemblies. Let’s do our bit. If we fail to do our bit, how can we blame somebody else for not doing their own? With this bill, we want to see a less corrupt society, a less lawless, reckless society and a less undisciplined place. We must do away with this notion that we can go after these people when they leave office. What the hell is that? If people know that they can be pursued while in office, they’ll be more careful of their actions. It is counterintuitive to think that we have to wait until they finish their terms to take action against them.
Do you see your colleagues, particularly those in the same political party as the president supporting this proposed legislation?
I think it is important to make a big clarification. I didn’t say the president’s immunity should be totally removed. I am saying it should be circumscribed, curtailed but not made absolute. His immunity should be only for matters regarding his functions and duties as president as provided in the constitution. We are simply proposing that as long as the action we are talking about is consistent with his role as enshrined in the constitution, he cannot be liable personally, either in civil or criminal matters.
Similarly, when the vice president becomes president either in an acting capacity, he can be entitled to the same immunity that the president has. But as vice president, he doesn’t need it. Governors don’t need it. The deputy governors do not need it because in the first place, how do you give immunity to people who don’t need it? The things we permit in this country are not necessary at all. We need to think through these things, analyse them and tell ourselves the truth.
The way things stand today, a governor can walk into a room, shoot all the people and leave. He is shielded from prosecution because he has immunity. We can’t continue this way.
As I said, many of my colleagues are aware of the merits of this bill. They see it as a very good proposal that can address many of the ills plaguing society today. The fear is that governors who have a big say in making it becoming a law, will not support it. You know that for any amendment to the constitution to take place, it requires the support of two-thirds of the state houses of assembly. But we should do our part as federal lawmakers and wait until it gets to the court of the governors.
In the 9th Assembly, the then Speaker now Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, proposed immunity for federal lawmakers. You also mentioned earlier that congressmen in the United States of America enjoy a certain level of immunity concerning comments made in Congress. Are you likely to support this in the future?
No! We already have too many centres of absolute madness, where people are capable of doing anything without being held accountable. We have a president, vice president, 36 governors, 36 deputy governors. This means the total number of governors and deputy governors is 72. If you multiply this by the number of federal lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives, the madness this immunity would bring will be out of this world. It makes no sense. I was part of those who killed that bill in the 9th National Assembly because it made no sense. I stood against it and I was happy that I did. It makes no sense. Why do you need immunity? I know of instances of governors in the U.S. who are removed from office for mere infractions. There was one who sold a Senate seat, about five years ago. Immediately, the Federal Bureau of Investigation swooped on him and detained him. While he was in detention, the House impeached him and he went to prison.
Many Nigerians will ask: what importance is the removal of the immunity clause?
People say justice delayed is justice denied; sanction should follow as soon as possible when an offence is committed. Delay in prosecution can cause a lot of things. First of all, there will be too many things that will be done that will hinder the process of prosecution. They could have destroyed many shreds of evidence. A lot of people who would ordinarily have acted as witnesses would have been bought, they may have been corrupted. Documents would have been lost. It is always easier to deal with a matter of an infraction especially when it is criminal while it is happening. I know there is no time bar for criminal liability. But it is always easier and better to deal with it while it is hot, to put it that way. So, they don’t see the benefits that will accrue to the country. If people don’t see the benefits that will accrue to the country, by making sure that people are held accountable for their actions, while they are actually in a position to be held accountable, then they are not serious about leading the country.
If a man commits a serious offence, it is only right that he is arrested and prosecuted immediately. If you wait until eternity, there will be no justice. A man commits an offence one month into his term, but you say he has four years first, and maybe a few months to the end of his tenure, he dies. If it’s a criminal offence, that’s the end. So, why will you wait for a long time for the man to leave office when you can take action and ensure that he’s accountable for whatever he’s done?
Does Nigeria need a new constitution or will an amended 1999 constitution give Nigerians the fresh start they are craving for?
I think we need a brand-new constitution. I have said it many times. A constitutional amendment is becoming a ritual every four years. If we can’t get a new constitution, then the president should submit a comprehensive constitutional reform proposal to the National Assembly. That can go very far to changing fundamentally the structure of this very constitution.
Source:
punchng.com
Source link
