Opinion
Between Houses of Assembly And Public Hearing
The recent media reports on state Houses of Assembly objecting to certain sections of the Constitution proposed for amendment even when the people at a public hearing have given consent to amendment of such sections is thought provoking and triggers a feeling of uneasy calm in our nation’s politics.
It goes without saying that there seems to be more to the action of the honourable members than what meets the eye. The essence of a public hearing before a bill translates to an Act, is to enable the lawmakers feel the pulse of the people they represent, articulate and harmonise their views before arriving at a stand-point on any issue that affects the people. This process makes such bill when eventually passed into law, the “People’s Law”.
Besides, one fundamental elements of extracting views from stakeholders is to lend validity to the democratisation of our law making processes and give affirmation to the cliché “the voter is supreme”.
If the political aphorism that power resides in the people is anything to go by, then the down-playing of the people’s position in the draft to the National Assembly by our honourable members of State Houses of Assembly across the country, spells a dicey omen for our nascent democracy.
Ideally, the honourable members as representatives of the people ought to obtain the position of their constituents on any issue that concerns them. The position of the people they represent will, without gainsaying the fact, form the basis of their position and input to a law-making process.
This, however, does not imply that the honourable members saddled with such responsibility, having been so empowered by the people and law, can not fine-tune the people’s position to serve collective interest where such need arises. No doubt, states’ legislators are intellectually sound to represent the position of their people. But two good heads are better than one.
It will amount to exercise in futility if people’s interest as expressed and “carried” in a public hearing is discarded or bartered.
One of the sections that some state Houses of Assembly have expressed dissenting position against that of the people is 121. the National Assembly in its amendment draft to the state Houses of Assembly seek to give financial independence to the legislative and the judiciary arms so that they will be funded directly from the consolidated revenue fund that accrues to the state.
The reason is not far-fetched. For there to be practicable and felt separation of powers and avoidance of undue interference, the judiciary and legislative arms of government must be financially independent – extricated from the apron-spring of the executive.
A situation where these key arms of government go cap in hand to beg for funds portends harzardous consequences for our democracy, and their statutory functions.
The tendency to compromise statutory obligation is rife and indubitable if the two arms are not given financial autonomy because just as it is said “he who pays the piper dictates the tune”.
What will be responsible for a situation where honourable members of the state Houses of Assembly object to this laudable proposal that will enhance their performance and make them earn the respect of their constituents?
Why would they want to play a second fiddle role to their respective state chief executives? Is it a way to concede to the whim and caprices of state governors, some of who media reports say, are not satisfied with the proposed financial autonomy to legislature and judiciary?
In fact, if all is well with our polity, why will some governors allegedly express misgiving over financial autonomy to the judiciary and legislative arms?
The concern expressed by so many people is that some state chief executives seem not be selfless in their quest to hold the legislative and judiciary arms of government to ransom.
This is a challenge our lawmakers must rise up to, if they will be able to check the purported excesses of some state chief executives without qualm.
Now is the time most appropriate for those concerned to see the handwriting on the wall and rise to salvage themselves from political hegemony capable of driving a nail into the coffin of the essence of the principle of power separation among the arms of government.
It must be stated that financial independence is the fulcrum of an effective legislative and judiciary arm. And the honourable representatives must see the interest of their institutions and people paramount if our democracy will attain the much-desired maturity. Time will cither vindicate or condemn our positions.
Igbiki Benibo
Opinion
Should The Internet Go Bust
Opinion
Transgenderism: Reshaping Modern Society
Opinion
A Renewing Optimism For Naira
-
Education2 days ago
800 students gains Admission Into Federal University of Environment And Technology,Ogoni…vc
-
Business2 days agoFG Seeks Fresh $1b World Bank loan To Boost Jobs, Investment
-
Opinion2 days agoShould The Internet Go Bust
-
Rivers2 days agoEld Ogbu Bags Adventists Men Award…Pledge For Humanitarian Service
-
Sports2 days ago
Hammers Stun Newcastle For First Win
-
Niger Delta2 days agoCRIRS Targets Professional Bodies In 2026 Tax Reforms
-
Politics2 days ago
Ndume Blames FG, Senate For Nigeria’s ‘Country Of Particular Concern’ Designation By Trump
-
Business2 days agoBanks Must Back Innovation, Not Just Big Corporates — Edun
