Connect with us

Politics

Senate turns down Buhari’s request to delete section 84(12) of Electoral Act

Published

on

Senate Delegation to visit Ekweremadu in UK

 

The Senate yesterday turned down President Muhammadu Buhari’s request to amend the Electoral Act, 2022 that specifically requested for the Senate to outrightly delete section 84(12)

This followed the woeful failure of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill to scale through second reading on the floor during plenary.

The proposed law, “A bill for an Act to Amend the Electoral Act 2022” was overwhelmingly rejected during its second reading

Before a voice vote on the bill, for which the nays had it, several lawmakers spoke against going ahead to amend the Act and urged that the Senate abide by a court ruling, which stopped the National Assembly from tampering with the electoral law.

President Buhari had, in a letter to the National Assembly last week, asked the federal lawmakers to amend the Act, by deleting Section 84 (12), which, according to him, constitutes a “defect” that is in conflict with extant Constitutional provisions.

The section required political appointees to resign their appointment before participating in primary elections.

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday barred President Buhari, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Senate President from tampering with the Act.

The judge, Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling on an ex-parte application by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), said the Electoral Act had become a valid law and could not be amended without following the due process of law.

The Court maintained that the Electoral Act, has become a valid law could not be altered without following the due process of law.
But the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, on Tuesday, said the court ruling would not stop the National Assembly from amending the Electoral Act 2022.

He said the court ruling violated the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on Separation of Powers

In the move to reject the bill, Senator Adamu Aliero fired the first salvo for the bill to be stepped down after the Senate Leader, Yahaya Abdullahi, moved a motion for the bill to be read a second time.

Aliero, who came under a point of order, drew the attention of his colleagues to the provision of Rule 52(5) of the Senate Standing Order.

Read Also >> MARITIME SAFETY: NIMASA, NiMet Sign MoU

Order 52(5) provides that, “Reference shall not be made to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending, in such a way as might in the opinion of the President of the Senate prejudice the interest of parties thereto.”

He, therefore, advised the upper chamber to step down consideration of the bill pending the vacation of a court order delivered by the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday.

According to the Lawmaker, going ahead with the amendment of the Act was in clear conflict with the sub judice rule in law which prevents the legislature from deliberating or considering any matter already before a court of competent jurisdiction.

“Going ahead to consider the bill obviously will mean that we are disrespecting that order, and this is an institution of the Senate – the symbol of Nigeria’s Lawmaking body.

“We should not be seen to be disobeying the court order. No matter how bad that court order is, we should respect it.

“So, I’m of the opinion that we should stop considering this bill pending the time the court set aside that order, and I think I’m speaking the opinion of my colleagues here”, Aliero said.

The Senate President, while ruling on Aliero’s point of Order, insisted that the move by the upper chamber to amend the Electoral Act was in line with exercising its Constitutional duties amid following due process.

“To be specific to this particular request, for us in the Senate, it is to look at the request and follow our due process.
“Looking at the request does not mean granting the request. Members of the National Assembly are at liberty to review the request to see if the arguments by the Executive arm of government are convincing enough.

“If the arguments are not convincing enough, the National Assembly can deny the request, and that is how it is. We have no incumbrance from that order.

“So, it is for Senators here to decide to vote for this amendment or vote against it.

“I think we are not breaching any law, in fact, we are trying to promote democracy because to do otherwise may mean that one day someone will go to court and say that the Senate of the National Assembly should not sit.

“I want to appeal to all of us, that we are on the right course and my ruling remains that we are going ahead to consider the proposal which the Leader of the Senate is leading the debate.

“At the end of the debate, we are going to vote, and the vote will decide the fate of the bill.

“I’m sure all of us know that whatever we do here is to protect democracy and the sanctity of the upper chamber”, the Senate President said.

The Senate Leader was then given the floor to lead the debate on the Electoral Act Amendment bill.

Contributing to the debate, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (Abia South), kicked against the deletion of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill as requested by President Buhari.

He said, “There are certain things that we see which we think we don’t even have to come here to debate.

“One of those things is the fact that in every democracy, all over the world, there are certain rules which we don’t need to be told about.

“One of those rules is the fact that you cannot be a referee and a player on the same field. It is either you’re a referee or a player.

“So, every other place in the world where democracy is practised including Nigeria, we don’t need to be told that if we want to run for office, we have to resign. That is a sine qua non that we don’t even need to debate.

“Yet here we are today in Nigeria, and people think they can sit in an office and contest an election and become candidates and continue to sit in that office until the date of the election.

“So, how would we continue to debase democracy in this way?
“Mr President, I think, a cursory look at this paper shows that this paper is dead on arrival. And I urge you, my colleagues, to help us to continue to deepen democracy by insisting that this bill not be read a second time in any manner whatsoever.”

Smart Adeyemi (Kogi West), who was also opposed to the consideration of the bill said, “one of the hallmarks of democracy is Justice, Fairness and Equity.

“Indeed, Mr President, it is a settled matter in law that you cannot be a judge over you own case.

“In any election, where people have the added advantage of holding executive power, either by proxy or directly or by appointment, for such people to have access and compete with others who came from the street, I think is an unjust society.

“Therefore, Mr President, I disagree with all the arguments on the need to consider a decision that has already been settled.”

A move by the Deputy Senate President, Ovie Omo-Agege, to sway his colleagues were unsuccessful.

The bill, when eventually put to a voice vote for a second reading by the Senate President after its consideration, received a resounding ‘nay’ from Senators in the majority across party lines

During the voice votes, a drama had ensued as Lawan after calling out for votes was shocked that the Ayes was a lonely voice for which he decided to repeat the call asking his colleagues whether they did not hear him.

After the repeated call for votes, the Nays still had it overwhelmingly

The Senate leader Yahaya Abdullahi while leading the debate said, “Permit to lead the debate on this very important bill seeking to amend section 84(12). The bill was read the first time on Tuesday

“You may recall that the bill was passed into law and assented to by the President and commander in chief on the 25th February 2022, however, the president expressed reservation on section 84(12) which states as follows, No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the Convention or Congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election in cases where it holds earlier than 30 days earlier to the national election.

“This provision has been interpreted by as being interpreted by the executive arm government as introducing qualification and disqualification criteria that are ultra vires to the Constitution by way of disqualification of serving political officeholders.

“It is my humble opinion that this proposed amendment be looked into by this distinguished senate which can come out with an objective position that will strengthen our electoral processes as well as our democratic disposition.

Politics

Ondo Election Legal Battle Intensifies As PDP’s Ajayi Files Appeal

Published

on

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2024 Ondo State governorship election, Agboola Ajayi, has filed an appeal against the December 2 ruling of the Federal High Court in Akure.

The court had dismissed his lawsuit challenging the eligibility of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, and his running mate, Olayide Owolabi Adelami.

Ajayi, in his notice of appeal dated December 7, 2024, alleged that Justice T.B. Adegoke erred in dismissing his case, which was marked FHC/AK/CS/99/2024.

READ MORE: Davido Spotted With Burna Boy’s Mother At Tony Elumelu’s All White Party

The PDP candidate’s initial lawsuit raised concerns over discrepancies in the certificates submitted by Aiyedatiwa to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Ajayi argued that these discrepancies violated electoral laws and called into question Aiyedatiwa’s qualifications to run for office.

Key Allegations in Appeal

Ajayi presented multiple grounds for his appeal, accusing the Federal High Court of failing to properly evaluate the evidence before it.

He claimed that: “Unexplained Certificate Discrepancies: Ajayi stated that the trial court failed to address “unexplained and irreconcilable differences” in the names on Aiyedatiwa’s certificates.

According to him, “The 1st Respondent submitted different certificates with different names that were not the same. Throughout the dispute before the trial court, the 1st Respondent never presented a Deed Poll to explain the irreconcilable differences.”

Failure to Grant Reliefs: He criticized the court for dismissing his reliefs despite what he described as compelling evidence.

Ajayi argued, “The lower court failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented before it, which was essentially documentary. The refusal to grant the reliefs in the face of credible evidence on record occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.”

Neglect of Documentary Evidence: Ajayi contended that the court neglected its duty to evaluate critical statutory documents, which he said were central to proving his case.

He added, “The court was called upon to examine and evaluate the documentary evidence but failed to do so, instead relying on extraneous matters without giving appropriate consideration to whether those assertions were correct.”

Standing to Sue: The PDP candidate argued that the trial court erred by dismissing his legal standing to challenge Aiyedatiwa’s nomination. He noted, “The issue of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate is both intra- and inter-party affairs of an interested party in an election, as in this instant case.”

Ajayi is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s judgment and grant the reliefs he sought at the trial court.

These include an order invalidating Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy due to the certificate discrepancies and setting aside the December 2 ruling.

Specifically, he requested, “An order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Akure, Ondo State, delivered on the 2nd of December, 2024, by Hon. Justice T.B. Adegoke.”

“An order granting the reliefs sought by the appellants as plaintiffs before the trial court.”

Ajayi also faulted the court’s interpretation of Section 29(1)-(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022. He argued that the provisions were given a “narrow and restrictive” reading, which ignored the broader intent of the law.

The appeal is the latest development in the heated political contest between the PDP and APC in Ondo State.

Legal experts believe the outcome of the case could significantly impact the governorship race.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Adeleke Congratulates Ghanaian President-Elect, Mahama

Published

on

 

Osun State Governor, Senator Ademola Adeleke has congratulated the newly elected president of Ghana, John Mahama.

This was gleaned in a government house statement in Osogbo on Monday in which Gov Adeleke described President Mahama as “a true democrat and a genuine friend of Nigeria”

Gov Adeleke stated, “we have been sharing deep thoughts about the true essence of democracy and the imperative of respect for people’s will as the bedrock of virile democratic state.

ALSO READ: Midterm Scorecard: Adeleke Appreciates Osun Residents, Assures On More Democratic Dividends

“All through his days in the opposition, he adopted the best of democratic model with unbending faith in the capacity of voters to decide and the necessity of the system to accept the voters’ will as expressed without any equivocation. His faith in the electorate amidst hard work of electioneering campaigns paid off with a resounding victory at the polls.

“I further commend the ruling party for conceding defeat without attempting any electoral hijack. This was a demonstration of electoral maturity worthy of emulation by actors within the Nigerian space.

“I rejoice with my dear brother as our dreams come true by the grace of God and the people. As he prepares to return to the State House, I have no doubt that he will take Ghana to greater heights.

“I call for a closer, more robust relationship between Nigeria and Ghana. Both countries must deepen cooperation under mutual respect and opportunities. Our brotherly relationship should extend to the sub-national level for the benefits of citizens and residents of our dear nations.”

Continue Reading

Politics

SERAP Urges Akpabio, Abbas To Assess Human Rights Impacts Of Tax Reform Bills

Published

on

 

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged Nigeria’s Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas “to urgently assess the human rights impacts of Nigeria’s reform bills currently being discussed by the National Assembly including on Nigerians living in poverty.”

According to the SERAP said, “any discussion and consideration of the tax reform bills must ensure full compliance with provisions of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligations and commitments.”

The call was contained in a letter dated December 7, 2024, under the signature of its deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare, in which the SERAP stated, inter alia, “The assessments should be transparent, include public participation, and shape the provisions and measures that are ultimately passed. The outcome of any such assessments should be widely published.”

ALSO READ: Like America, Like Ghana: Opposition Defeats Ruling Party In Presidential Election

The SERAP urged Akpabio, and Abbas “to pass a resolution directing Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to hold Nigeria’s state governors to account on their spending of trillions of naira of revenue derived from taxes including VATs collected by their states since 2015 and to ensure the recovery of any proceeds of corruption.”

The letter, read in part: “SERAP urges you to ensure the inclusion in the tax reform bills of transparency and accountability mechanisms to ensure that any revenue derived from taxes covered under the bills are not mismanaged, diverted or pocketed by politicians, their family members and close associates.

“SERAP notes that Nigerian authorities have the discretion to develop laws on taxation most appropriate to their circumstances.

“However, the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and human rights and anticorruption treaties to which the country is a state party impose limits on the discretion of the authorities in the development of any such laws.

“Our preliminary review of the provisions of the tax reform bills shows that the bills contain some provisions that are antithetical to human rights and the rule of law.

“For example, section 28(2)(c) of the Tax Administration bill among others, requires financial institutions including banks to provide to tax authorities ‘the names, addresses, or any other information of new or existing customers.’

“Under section 28(4), financial institutions must make ‘additional disclosure” about their customers ‘if it is required by a notice signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant tax authority.’

“These provisions, especially the phrases ‘any other information’ and ‘additional disclosure’, if implemented, could be used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to privacy of customers.

“The risks of violations of human rights are illustrated by the absence in the bills of sufficient safeguards against abuse of access to personal data of customers.

“The provisions also give little or no consideration to data protection, thereby increasing the risks of misuse by public authorities of a customer’s personal details including their home address.

“Another troubling provision of the tax reform bills is section 57 of the Tax Administration bill which grants broad, extensive and intrusive powers to tax authorities which may be misused to undermine Nigerians’ human rights.

“In particular, section 57(1) provides that ‘an authorised officer of the relevant tax authority shall have free access to all land, buildings, places, books and documents, in the custody or under the control of a person, public officer, or institution, for the purpose of inspecting the books or documents.’

“Such official will also have free access to ‘any property, process or matter which the officer considers necessary or relevant for the purpose of collecting any tax.’

“Under subsection 2, ‘the relevant tax authority shall take immediate possession of [any] removable media and the related removable equipment or computer used to access the stored documents on the media in order to prevent the accidental or intentional destruction, removal or alteration of records and documents.’

“Section 57(5) seems to pre-empt the nature of any judicial authorisation required for tax official ‘enter any private dwelling’ by prescribing that such authorisation will ‘be valid for a period of three months from the date of its issue or such lesser period as the judicial officer considers appropriate.’

“Under subsection 6, the tax official is required to ‘produce the written authorisation and evidence of identity “on first entering the private dwelling’. The official will only produce such evidence subsequently if they consider it reasonable to do so.

“These provisions are broadly worded and could be misused to violate Nigerians’ human rights.

“The provisions also do not contain any special safeguards which means that the broad, extensive and intrusive powers granted to tax authorities could be arbitrarily exercised without any accountability.

“Section 57 also does not contain any explicit provisions that would allow the court to examine the lawfulness or necessity of any authorisation before or after any entering.

“The provisions of section 81 of the Tax Administration bill essentially oust the jurisdiction of the court in pending tax matters by stating that ‘the pendency of a legal proceeding shall not affect the performance of the duties or obligations of any taxable person under this Act or any other tax law.’

“The provisions could be misused to infringe the rights to equality and the right of access to courts, denying the right of an effective remedy to any aggrieved party.

“Several other provisions of the tax bills lack mechanisms for effective oversight and accountability, as required by the rule of law in a democratic society, thereby increasing the risks of abuse of power or arbitrariness. The provisions could be misused to violate Nigerians’ right to property and fair hearing.

“The tax bills also do not seem to contain provisions for a fair balance between the authorities’ powers to collect taxes and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.

“The absence of provisions in the tax bills on meaningful judicial oversight and review and accountability procedures would also undermine the rights of Nigerians including to privacy and disproportionately affect disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups.

“Under human rights law, states including Nigeria are required to make the promotion and protection of human rights central to their tax systems. Nigeria needs a rights-based tax system that works for the people and not the politicians, their family members and close associates.

“The country also needs transparent, democratic and rights-aligned tax reforms to unlock the maximum available resources for the full realisation of human rights.

“Furthermore, there are credible reports that several state governors continue to divert or mismanage the revenue derived from taxes, impeding the funding of public goods and services that are crucial for the progressive realisation of human rights.

“In many states, millions of Nigerians continue to be denied access to essential public services such as water and basic sanitation while millions of children of school age roam the streets.

“SERAP is concerned that growing reports of corruption in the use of tax revenue and other public resources continue to disproportionately affect poor Nigerians and other most vulnerable segments of the population.

“SERAP is concerned that the opposition by some state governors against the tax reform bills may be politically motivated and reduce the tax payable to the national treasury. State governors should constructively engage in good faith in the processes to adopt a national tax system for the country.

“We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken in the consideration of the tax reform bills.

“If the offending provisions of the tax reform bills including those outlined above are not addressed and brought in conformity with human rights standards and safeguards, SERAP shall take all appropriate legal actions to compel you and other members of the National Assembly to comply with our request in the public interest.

“SERAP notes that the tax reform bills, if properly aligned with human rights standards, would enhance the ability of the Federal Government, states and local governments to fulfil their human rights obligations and adequately fund public services essential for human rights.

“However, without transparency and accountability, revenue derived from taxes may not be spent to combat poverty and fund development as well as provide essential public goods and services for Nigerians.

“The National Assembly has the constitutional responsibility to conduct and publish human rights impact assessments of the tax reform bills to ensure that proposed reforms best protect, advance and fulfill people’s human rights.

“SERAP also urges you to revise and repeal several of the provisions of the bills, particularly the Tax Administration bill.

“SERAP urges you to include provisions in the tax reform bills that will ensure that Nigerians have access to all relevant data and information on fiscal policy and government revenues, including from the corporate sector.

“According to our information, members of the National Assembly are currently discussing Nigeria’s tax bills which primarily aim to ‘provide uniform procedures for a consistent and efficient administration of tax laws in order to- (a) facilitate tax compliance by taxpayers; and (b) optimise tax revenue.’

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2022. Biztellers, powered by Alphaxristi.