Between party supremacy and parliamentary autonomy
On
April 10 and 11, 2017, a rainbow coalition of political heavyweights in Nigeria
gathered in Abuja. Political party chairmen, present and past leadership of
national and state assemblies, academics, international donor partners, members
of the civil society and media juggernauts were all present at the national
conference on “Political Party Supremacy and the Dynamics of Parliamentary Autonomy
in Nigeria: Towards a more Harmonious Relationship” organised by the Political
Parties Leadership and Policy Development Centre of the National Institute for
Policy and Strategic Studies.
The roll
call include the Vice President Yemi Osinbajo represented by Senator Babafemi
Ojudu, Senate President Bukola Saraki (represented), former Senate President
Ken Nnamani and his Deputy, Senator Ibrahim Mantu, erstwhile Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole
and his Deputy, Emeka Ihedioha, another former Speaker of House of Reps, Ghali
Umar Naaba, Senator Chris Anyanwu, Senator Shehu Sani, Ambassador Tijjani
Muhammad-Bande, veteran journalist, Dr. Tonnie Iredia and Rt. Hon. Abdumumin
Ismaila Kamba who is the chairman of Conference of Speakers of State
Legislatures of Nigeria, to mention but
a few. I was one of the privileged participants at the august event.
According
to Jonathan M. Juma who is the Acting Director General of NIPSS, the aim of the
conference was to find viable answers to the following questions: What should constitute party supremacy in the
context of Nigeria’s political system? What is the limit of party supremacy?
What constitutes parliamentary autonomy in the context of Nigeria and to what
extent can this be influenced by the political parties? What are the implications of a polarised
party in the National Assembly? What happens when there are gaps in the
understanding of members of the political parties as well as the National Assembly
as to what constitutes party supremacy and parliamentary autonomy? What happens
when the interest of a political party conflicts with the interest of the
National Assembly? What constitutes an appropriate behaviour of political
parties in their relationship with their members in the National Assembly? What
a bouquet of posers!
Various
paper presenters and discussants at the two day conference were unanimous that
both the political parties and the parliament are weak despite 18 years of
unbroken existence of the two institutions of democracy, since the advent of
the Fourth Republic in 1999. The reason
is not far-fetched, each time there is military coup, both institutions are
proscribed. So, at the turn of every return to civil rule, they have to be
rebuilt. Another point of consensus is that party supremacy and parliamentary
autonomy are both desirable but cannot be absolute. It came out strongly that the ceding of the
position of ‘Party Leader’ to the president and the governor is an aberration
which has impacted negatively on our democratic culture. This has made them to
wield a lot of influence on the bonafide
elected party executives at different levels. The confab also revealed that weak financial
base of political parties and overreliance on few moneybags for the running of
the institution has greatly undermined its supremacy and disciplinary powers
over its errant members.
The
phenomenon of according sitting president and governors ‘Party Leader’ was
cited as the rationale behind the overbearing attitude of these people. They dictate
to party executives who to become leader of the parliament as well as who among
the members should be accused and punished for anti-party activities. Examples
cited include the undue meddlesomeness of former President Olusegun Obasanjo in
the emergence of Senate Presidents and Speakers of House of Representatives
under his presidency. The failed attempt by former President Goodluck Jonathan
to impose Speaker of House of Representatives during his tenure as well as the unsuccessful
bid by the All Progressives Congress leadership to railroad its members to vote
for other persons than those that eventually emerged as Senate President and
Speaker of House of Representatives in the eight National Assembly. Instance was also cited of the governors’
pressure on the Speakers of States House of Assembly to reject financial
autonomy during the 2010 constitutional amendment exercise.
It
also came to the fore during the conference that the undemocratic way some of
the party executives emerged (many of them are alleged to be surrogates and
hirelings of the president, governors and big party financiers) made them not
to be independent minded. Many of the party executives therefore jettison the
country’s Constitution as well as those of their political parties. They are
wont to acting ultra vires
particularly during congresses, conventions and party primaries. The ensuing
culture of impunity is what Prof. Mohammed J. Kuna from the Independent
National Electoral Commission called the new normal.
In
proffering solutions to enhancing harmonious relationships between the
political parties and the parliament, various speakers put out different
suggestions. Among them is the call for credible leadership of both
institutions which will be responsive and responsible to the yearnings of their
members. Issue of internal party democracy has to also be taken serious with
party members having a huge say in the decision making processes of their
political parties. Public funding was also advocated for political parties in
order to whittle down overdependence of political parties on political barons
and godfathers. Negotiation was equally identified as key to amicable
resolutions of conflicts between the two institutions. Supremacy of political
parties and autonomy of the legislature should also be within the context of
rule of law and legality.
In
order to bridge the communication gap between political parties and the parliament,
I suggested at the conference that parties with representatives in the
legislature should also have liaison officers the same way president and
governors have in the national and state assemblies. This will ensure that
parties are not caught unaware about any brewing crises that may warrant their
early intervention. Many speakers at the meeting also called for the
reestablishment of the Centre for Democratic Studies to train elected political
office holders on positive core values they need to uphold while in office. It
was brought to the attention of the participants that the Act setting up the
National Institute for Legislative Studies has been recently amended to include
democratic studies. This is commendable. It is hoped that the institute will be
well resourced to play this pivotal role.
Four
things shocked me at the conference. The first is that I learnt that the
Ministries, Departments and Agencies which are being over-sighted are
responsible for the provision of logistics for members of the parliament. This
is an aberration! National and State Assemblies are supposed to adequately
provide the logistics for the various committees set up to conduct oversight of
MDAs. Two, former Deputy Senate President Ibrahim Mantu said Nigerians are ‘greedily
corrupt’ and need to be born again. Third is the absence without representation
of the All Progressives Congress chairman, Chief John Odigie- Oyegun who was
supposed to speak on “Political Party Supremacy and the Challenges of Parliamentary
Autonomy in Nigeria”. The last shocking revelation was that made by Dr, Hakeem
Baba-Ahmed who is the Chief of Staff to
Senate President when he said you cannot call someone thief if he or she has
not been convicted by a competent court of law. Amazing!
Comments
Post a Comment