15 Feb 2005 |
|
| Something new always comes out of Nigeria's National Assembly. This is not in terms of the quality service that the lawmakers render. It is not in terms of the quality of their thoughts, style or debate either. It is in terms of the surprises that they continually invent and the needless attention that they draw to their moral depravity. Our National Assembly now and in the past usually seizes public imagination rather dramatically only when the lawmakers are seeking to make laws that would promote their personal interests. They do this without either remorse or gumption, confirming the widely held view that what we are running is an alimentary form of democracy: that is the democracy, not of the people but of hungry stomachs and pockets waiting to be filled. The latest display of this shameless conduct can be found in a bill debated by the Senate a few days ago namely: "A bill for an act to provide remuneration for former Presidents, Heads of Federal Legislative Houses and Chief Justices of the Federation". This turned out to be a controversial bill on the floor of the Senate dividing their Distinguished Right Honourables as they like to be addressed (!) into two camps. In the end, the majority had their way, although the bill was sent to the Senate Committee on National Planning for further consideration. This is a bill that should attract public interest, for it advertises nothing but the flight of values in the corridors of power, the arrogance and immodesty of public officials, the misconception of the purposes of politics, and the low quality of that assembly. There are two issues at stake that have warranted this post-mortem, and our dismissive tone. At the heart of this bill sponsored by the Senate leader, Senator Dalhatu Tafida, is a proposal by the Senators that the emoluments of members of the National Assembly should be paid for life. Already, members of the National Assembly receive a handsome severance package when they lose their seats; they are also allowed to go about for the rest of their lives using the title "Senator". But the Adolphus Wabara-led Senate is saying that this is not enough. The members want to be treated as pensioners, drawing personal maintenance fees from the Nigerian state for the rest of their lives. And they want to amend the Constitution to this effect relying it seems on the powers granted the National Assembly in Section 80 of the 1999 Constitution, that is "Powers and control over public funds". This is not the first time that this bill will be debated and passed into law by the National Assembly. Now, the bill has been dug up with the National Assembly adding its own members to the pension roll. Only a few Senators opposed this bill on moral grounds, and their names ought to be recorded for posterity: Messrs John Mbata (PDP, Rivers), Julius Ucha (PDP, Ebonyi), Ike Ekweremadu (PDP, Enugu), Ugochukwu Uba (PDP, Anambra) and Uche Chukwumerije (PDP, Abia). When these gentlemen wanted to articulate their objections to the bill, however, they were shouted down by their colleagues including Senate President Adolphus Wabara. But they deserve praise in this matter for their courage and common sense. Their position deserves further amplification. Nigerians must take up the matter from where they left it off and protest the greed and selfishness of the National Assembly. While presenting the bill Senator Tafida was quoted as having drawn attention to the poor circumstances of some former Senators who did not return to the Senate in 2003, big men who have now become paupers. "I have seen some of my former colleagues who are now shadows of themselves, former Senators who come looking for N2, 000, N5,000", Senator Tafida said. Is this why a law should be passed to pay lawmakers for life? With due respect, this excuse is stupid. Members of the National Assembly should realise that they are in Abuja to serve not to turn themselves into a burden. Since 1999, we have been having in the National Assembly, a selection of men and women whose understanding of their own place in the scheme of things has been largely warped. The National Assembly has become a place where hungry persons make money and acquire unmerited relevance. Our lawmakers are discussing how to live off the state as parasites for the rest of their lives; and we have heard them loudly and clearly. But we have not heard what they are saying or what laws they are passing about the state of public infrastructure, about education, health and national security; about Nigeria's response to the international situation; about unemployment and inflation. These issues do not concern them, rather they are always loud and ambitious in promoting their own pecuniary interests even when their own rules of conduct prevent them from doing so. Our lawmakers break laws. This is the biggest conundrum of our lives. What is worse is their low sense of values. What kind of work have they done to make them merit "pay-for-life?" A lazy, generally unproductive assembly? And even if they can dig up any justification, no Nigerian would feel that these lawmakers should constitute themselves into such parasites. To make laws to serve personal interests is reprehensible. It amounts to an abuse of privilege. Members of the National Assembly are seeking to constitute themselves into "area boys" and "omo oniles". Anyone who has had any encounter with these two categories of Nigerians would immediately recall how unreasonable they often are. They think of nothing but their own ill-digested motives. Where does the National assembly expect Nigeria to find the money from? And what is our business with former Senators begging for N2,000 or N5, 000? Such Senators should look for work. If they are humble enough they can always find something to do. What we are dealing with is the warped nature of our value system. Are we going to allow a law like this just to protect former Senators from begging for N2, 000? Every fool who makes it to a public office in Nigeria suddenly begins to believe that he is an eternal ward of the state. After stealing the state blind, he wants to remain in the power loop one way or the other. He or she does not care because after all, Nigeria is an oil-rich country, and we are told everyday that oil prices are rising in the international market, and the country's external reserve is rising too. So, why do any productive work when you are already part of the system? The opportunity to serve in public office should be seen as high honour that is enough in itself. It should be noted that indeed the kind of law that the National Assembly is seeking to make had also previously been considered by the Edo and Delta states of Assembly. In these two states, the lawmakers debated bills in which they sought to impose the welfare of former Governors, Deputy governors and legislators on the state. The proposals were similarly indecent. Nigerians must be worried about the kind of persons that they elect into public offices. You may well ask whether we actually elect our representatives in the light of recent revelations. Well, we should. Whatever makes it difficult for us to do so, must be removed if we hope to enjoy the benefits of democracy. One Senator reportedly stood up and argued that legislators in other parts of the world receive remuneration for the rest of their lives! This is not true. Besides, it amounts to a comparison of apples and oranges. What the Senate Committee on National Planning should find out is whether the legislators in other countries receive money from the state as former legislators or as beneficiaries of a functioning social security system. A Senator tried to draw attention to this distinction, he too was shouted down. What exactly do these Senators want? Their conduct is a reflection of the larger Nigerian society. Rent-collection at all levels has become a way of life and it is worse in public service. Everybody is seeking to collect rent from the Nigerian state. Very few persons are interested in service and sacrifice. The average public official is interested in himself or herself, not Nigeria. It is sad because Nigeria needs people who will defend her interests. The second point on which the Senators were divided had to do with whether or not former military rulers should be entitled or not to pay-for-life, or whether they should remain members of the Council of state. The position of the Senators may sound populist but it is impracticable. Senator Tafida who sponsored the contentious bill and a few other Senators had argued that Section 84(5) of the 1999 Constitution excludes former military Heads of Government from pension for life. They are wrong. The aforementioned section of the constitution states as follows: "Any person who has held office as President or Vice-President shall be entitled to pension for life at a rate equivalent to the annual salary of the incumbent President or Vice-President: Provided that such a person was not removed from office by the process of impeachment or for breach of any provisions of this constitution" The lawmakers seem to be suggesting that the Constitution needs to mention Heads of State expressly or that former military leaders had violated the Constitution and hence should be denied pension for life for that reason. Would Babangida qualify for pension for life because he used the title, President? And if Tafawa Balewa were alive, would he be denied pension because the constitution does not use the word Prime Minister? The confusion that the Senators seem to be entertaining here is compounded by the declaration in The Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, Section 5 (c) thereof which states that the membership of the Council of State shall include "all former Presidents of the Federation and all former Heads of the Government of the Federation". Section 84(5) of the Constitution is clear enough about the categories of public officials who are entitled to pension for life. The National Assembly should not waste its time on this any further lest it creates difficulties for incumbent Heads of Government. The exclusion of former military Heads of Government from Section 84(5) and the Council of State could for example, attract both ethnic and religious protest with foreseeable implications. Their inclusion of Chief Justices of the Federation in their proposal is also curious because in any case, Chief Justices are usually civil servants who are entitled to pension anyway. There are more important issues to which the National Assembly should devote its attention. Squabbling over pension-for-life and proposing laws that are bound to cause tension in the polity is counter-productive. And it ought not to trigger a copy-cat mentality in the State Houses of Assembly on the question of pension-for-life. The Nigerian people can use the money that the lawmakers are seeking for themselves to serve better purposes.
|
||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.