Connect with us

Politics

Immunity Clause And Nigeria’s Democracy

Published

on

Since Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999, one of the most debated issues is the immunity clause in the country’s constitution. Contained in Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, it shields the President, Vice President, governors and their deputies from all civil and criminal proceedings against their persons for the duration of their time in office.

This means that as long as they are in office, no civil or criminal suit can be brought against their persons. They can only be tried either at the expiration of their terms in office, or if they are impeached by the National Assembly or their state House of Assembly, according to the laid-down guidelines in the Constitution (Section 143 for the President and Vice-President; section 188 for governors and deputy-governors).

The contention has always been whether the immunity clause should be retained, modified or totally expunged in the constitution in order to put the country’s democracy on track.

Until 2007, virtually all public office holders were in support of its retention. Their reason being that anything otherwise would drastically affect Nigeria’s nascent democracy, because, according to them, such public office holders will be more pre-occupied with numerous frivolous suits in court than their statutory roles, which is governance.

On the other hand, proponents of its abrogation argue that immunity encourages corruption and therefore gives room for bad leadership. Their position is given credence by the current numerous allegations against some of the country’s former Heads of State and Governors.

Interestingly, it was the late Nigerian president, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua who, as a serving President, first took a different stand in far away Davos, Switzerland upon his emergence as President in 2007 when he said “nobody in Nigeria deserves the right to be protected by law when looting public funds”. He went further to argue that the immunity granted public office holders breeds corruption.

Since then, others have also toed the same line of argument. For instance, Alhaji Ibrahim Shekarau, the Governor of Kano State has also thrown his weight behind the abrogation of the immunity clause.

A group, Champions for Nigeria (CFN), had also followed suit. The group had gone ahead to forward a petition to the National Assembly on the need to amend Section 308 of the Constitution. They reeled out countries that jettisoned the idea of immunity for their elected leaders. All arguments on this divide point to one direction, which is “immunity promotes corruption”

It is in this light that many view the current bill seeking to accord immunity to lawmakers at both the federal and state levels. It has thus once again brought to the fore salient points regarding the immunity clause.

Sponsored by a member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Ali Ahmed (PDP – Kwara), the bill, which has passed through second reading, seeks to amend Section 4(8) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

According to the bill, verbal or written comments made by lawmakers in the course of legislative duties will not be questioned in any court of law.

The argument against this bill is that, with such proposition coming at this point in Nigeria’s democracy, which has recorded such astronomical development in terms of awareness, it can only portend danger.

A legal practitioner, Mr Maxwell Opara was quoted as saying that the motive behind the bill is questionable. According to him, “Legislative immunity is not healthy for our democracy at this point in time; it is being pursued in bad faith”.

He explained that there had never been any case of a legislator being arrested or charged to court over his comments on the floor of the House. This is further buttressed by the argument that the legislators do not need such immunity because lawmakers are not liable for their utterances at plenary and at committee sittings.

It is, in fact, noted that legislative immunity is a universal convention, applicable in every democracy; that every issue in the House is a parliamentary one, hence “the rights and privileges of what you say in the House begins and ends there”.

The question, therefore, is “why the lawmakers should be pursuing their immunity at this time when many Nigerians are clamouring for the removal of the already existing immunity clause, given its apparent protection of corrupt officers?”

Many are asking if Nigeria’s democracy is still nascent; so much that facing her economic problems squarely (which is a determinant of its ability to resolve other problems) should continually be sacrificed for a few individuals privileged to be at the helm of affairs?

If so, at which point will Nigeria’s democracy be mature enough to truly consider making her leaders aware that they can be made answerable to their actions at any point of their stewardship? An unprejudiced answer will, to a large extent, determine the extent to which public office holders see themselves as servants or masters.

Continue Reading

Politics

FG’s Economic Policies Not Working – APC Chieftain

Published

on

A senator who represented Taraba Central, Mr Abubakar Yusuf, has declared that the economic policies of President Bola Tinubu are not yielding the expected results.
His comment is one of the strongest internal critiques yet from within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
The comment underscores the growing dissatisfaction within sections of the ruling party over the direction and impact of the administration’s economic reforms amid rising living costs and fiscal pressures across the country.
Mr Yusuf, who served in the Senate between 2015 and 2023 under the platform of the APC, made the remarks during an appearance on national television.
Responding to a question on whether the administration’s economic direction, often referred to as Tinubunomics, was working, Mr Yusuf answered in the contrary.
“For me, it is not working. I am a member of the APC. I would be the last person to hide the facts”, he said.
He said while the government might be operating diligently within its policy structure, the framework itself is ill-suited to Nigeria’s current realities
“Within the policy framework, yes, they are doing their best, but it is not the framework that is suitable for Nigeria at the point in time that President Asiwaju came into power,” he said.
Mr Yusuf criticised the immediate removal of fuel subsidy on the day the president was sworn in, arguing that the decision lacked sufficient consultation and planning.
“I am one of those who say President Asiwaju ought to have waited. Not on the day he was sworn in to say subsidy is gone. On what basis?”, he asked.
He urged broader engagement before major fiscal decisions are taken.
“Sit down with your cabinet, sit down with your ministers, sit down with your advisers,” he said, dismissing the argument that subsidy removal was justified solely on grounds of corruption.
The former lawmaker identified “structural flaws” in the country’s budgeting system, particularly the envelope budgeting model.
“One of the basic problems is that before you budget, you should have a plan. The envelope system we have been operating has been you budget before you plan. That has been a major issue”, he said.
He argued that allocating spending ceilings without aligning them to concrete development strategies inevitably weakens implementation and delivery.
“If you give me an envelope which is contrary to my plan, whether it is plus or minus, there is no way I am going to implement my plan. It is bound to fail,” he said.
Mr Yusuf called for the scrapping of the envelope budgeting system, noting that he had consistently opposed it even during his years in the National Assembly.
“It is not good for us. It is not going to work well for us,” he said.
He further blamed poor capital releases and persistent deficit financing for undermining budget performance over the years.
“We could not meet 60 percent of our capital budget in all these years. No releases. If you make a budget and the release is very poor, there is no way the budget will be executed”, he stated.
According to him, weak fund disbursement mechanisms and reliance on deficit financing have entrenched a cycle of underperformance.
“Our budget ought to have been a surplus budget, but all our budgets have always been deficit financing budgets,” Mr Yusuf added.

Continue Reading

Politics

Reps To Meet,’Morrow Over INEC’s 2027 Election Timetable

Published

on

The Nigerian House of Representatives has resolved to reconvene for an emergency session tomorrow February 17, 2026, to deliberate on issues arising from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) release of the timetable for the 2027 general elections.
The decision was disclosed in a statement issued by the House Spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi, who described the electoral body’s announcement as one of “constitutional and national significance.”
INEC had fixed February 20, 2027, for the Presidential and National Assembly elections.
According to the statement, members of the Green Chamber were notified of the emergency sitting through an internal memorandum from the Speaker’s office.
The session is expected to focus on legislative matters connected to the newly released timetable, reflecting the House’s resolve to act promptly on issues affecting the nation’s democratic process.
Rep. Rotimi noted that all related businesses would be treated with urgency and urged lawmakers to prioritise attendance in view of the importance of the deliberations.
INEC had on Friday formally unveiled the comprehensive schedule for the 2027 polls, including timelines for party primaries slated for July to September 2026, as well as the commencement of Continuous Voter Registration in April 2026.
The development comes amid ongoing consultations and proposed amendments to the Electoral Act ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Continue Reading

Politics

Group Continues Push For Real Time Election Results Transmission

Published

on

As the controversy over the transmission of election results continues across the country, the Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), a pro democracy organisation in the country, has criticised the National Assembly for not giving express approval to real time transmission of elections results.
To this end, the group is calling on all civil society organisations in the country to mobilise and push for a better Electoral Reform in the country.
This was contained in a press statement titled, “Defence For Human Rights and Democracy Demands Real Time Election Transmission of Result”, a copy of which was made available to newsmen in Port Harcourt.
The group described the refusal of compulsory real time transmission of result results by the Senate as undemocratic, adding that the situation will give room for election manipulation, rigging and voters apathy.
It said that the provision of mandatory real time transmission of election results would have significant improvement on the nation’s democracy.
According to the statement, “Since the return of democracy in 1999 to date, it is 27 years, so our Democracy has metamorphosed from being nascent and as such significant improvement should have been recorded.
“Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is really disappointed at the National Assembly, especially the upper chamber (Senate) for not approving ‘Real Time Electronic Transmission of Election Result’.
“This undemocratic act of theirs, if not tamed, will give room for election manipulation and rigging’”.
Signed by Comrade Clifford Christopher Solomon on behalf of the organisation, the statement further said, “The Defence For Human Rights and Democracy unequivocally supports real time transmission of election result”, stressing that his group will resist any act by the National Assembly to undermine the nation’s democracy.
“DHRD,unequivocally supports ‘True Democracy’, which is Government of the people, by the people and for the people.
“Therefore, anything that will crash the hope of Nigerians to Freely, Fairly and Transparently elect candidates of their choice in any given election should and will be vehemently resisted because good governance begins with leaders elected through credible process. By so doing, leaders have entered a social contract with the citizens to equitably manage their affairs and abundant resources”, the statement added.
It urged the National Assembly to revisit the issue in order to avoid civil unrest.
According to the DHRD, “To avoid civil unrest,voters apathy, election rigging and manipulation, rather to promote citizens participation, advancing our Democracy and entrenching free, fair, credible and acceptable electoral outcome, the National Assembly should amend the electoral act in a manner that will deepen our democracy and boost citizens confidence.
“On this note, The Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is calling on all other civil society organisations (CSOs) to mobilise, organise and push for a better electoral act amendment by the National Assembly”.

By: John Bibor

Continue Reading

Trending