*Saraki, Dogara, others at Aso
Villa
A major trouble-shooting effort was launched last night to halt
the imminent showdown between the Executive and the
Legislature.
On the agenda were:
- the controversial election sequence reordering, which is a
subject of litigation; - the 2018 budget, which is stuck at the National Assembly— four
months after it was presented by President Muhammadu Buhari;
and - the worrisome security situation.
Last night President Buhari met at the Presidential Villa with
the leadership of the National Assembly.
The meeting, which started around 9p.m, was attended by Senate
President Bukola Saraki, House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu
Dogara, Deputy Speaker Lasun Yussuff, Senate Leader Ahmed Lawan and
House Leader Femi Gbajabiamila, among others.
After the meeting, Saraki told reporters that the frosty
relationship between the Executive and the Legislature was
discussed. The budget was also discussed, he said.
Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Boss
Mustapha confirmed that the threat by the lawmakers to override the
President’s veto on the Electoral Act amendment was discussed. He
gave no details.
On the budget, the lawmakers were said to have complained that
some ministers were yet to defend their inputs.
Buhari was said to have directed the SGF to write the ministers,
directing them to defend their budgets.
Earlier in the day, the Senate during plenary decided to write
to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) to protest the ruling
stopping the lawmakers from overriding the President’s veto on the
Electoral Act Amendment Bill.
It was also learnt that based on legal advice, which suggested
that the President’s reasons for declining assent was not
watertight, the lawmakers had decided to override the veto next
week.
The controversy trailing the rejection of the Electoral Act 2018
amendment by President Muhammadu Buhari may be far from over.
The National Assembly yesterday listed “flaws” in the
constitutional provision relied upon by President Buhari to
withhold assent to the Bill.
The leadership of the two chambers of the National Assembly is
said to have met Wednesday night to consider submissions
from the legal department of the Assembly.
It was gathered that the legal advice dismissed the
constitutional provisions cited by President Buhari as basis for
his action “as baseless and of no effect to form the basis of
withholding assent to the Bill”.
The Senate and House Representatives leadership “accepted the
submissions received from the legal department,” a source said.
The implication of the acceptance of the submissions of the
legal department, the source said, “is that the two chambers may go
ahead to override the veto of Mr. President to the Bill.”
The source hinted that “the two chambers appeared to be poised
to do battle with Mr. President by exercising their power to
override the president on any issue they feel strongly about”.
He added that the amendment of the Electoral Act which altered
the sequence of elections, seems to be one of the issues the
lawmakers are convinced was done “in the best interest of the
country”.
The legal advice obtained by our reporter states: “The President
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vetoed the 2018 Amendment of the
Electoral Act of 2010 passed by the National Assembly in the
exercise of its constitutional powers under Section 58(4 oi)
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended
following reasons.
“Each of the legal and constitutional reasons advanced by the
President as a basis for the veto were examined in details
below.
“1. The President claims that the Amendment introducing a
specific sequence for elections under Section 25 of the Principal
Act 2010 infringed the discretion of the Independent National
Electoral Commission to “organise, undertake and supervise
elections.” This argument is flawed because correct legal position
however is that by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999 First Alteration Act 2010, Act No. 1, specifically,
Section 5 provides that “Section 76 of the Principal Act is altered
thus
“(a)subsection (1) in line 2, by inserting immediately after the
word ’commission’ ’the words’ ’in accordance with the Electoral
Act. “
“From the above amendment, it is crystal clear that the power to
regulate the principal elements of all Federal Electoral process
was expressed by the above amendment, removed from the Independent
National Electoral Commission and vested in the Assembly (N.A)
which has the power to make laws for peace, order and good
government” of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and any part
thereof.
“Furthermore, the phrases ‘organize, undertake & supervise’
elections under Section 15(a) of the 3″ Schedule to the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, according to the President, allegedly infringed
the discretion guaranteed” to lNEC by Section 25 of the of the
Principal Act.
“1. The argument of the President that the sequencing of the
elections under Section 25 infringed the discretion of INEC without
expressly pointing out what specific aspects or ways and manner
cannot be a basis for legal or constitutional argument or decision.
With due respect, the opinion expressed is too general to establish
a basis for the exercise of a legal or constitutional power, more
so because “discretion” is a principle governed by the rules of
Administrative Law and not that of Constitutional Law, on which the
President claimed to have anchored his arguments.
“2) .Thirdly, the terms “organise, undertake and supervise” may
have conferred a wide discretion on lNEC in matters of all
logistics in the preparation and conduct of elections, the issue of
discretion only comes to fore in the actual details of the
preparation, organizing and conducting elections.
”It is respectfully submitted that the sequencing of the
elections in a Bill as to which was scheduled as first or last in
the conduct does not in any way hamper or affect the discretion and
capacity of INEC to organise, undertake and conduct these elections
into various constitutional offices provided.
“3) The new subsection (3) introduced into Section 138 of the
Electoral Act, which the President argued repealed two crucial
grounds upon which elections could be challenged, is not entirely
correct and the view could be misplaced for the following
reason:
“a. The new Subsection (3) to section 138 actually clarifies the
ambiguity contained in subsection 1 of the Principal Act and
reinforces the constitutional standards specified in Sections 65,
106, 131 and 177 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999. In addition, it further provides that no person shall
be qualified to contest elections in breach of any of the ‘Sections
66, 107, 137 or 182 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria as amended.
“The amendment to Section 152 (3)-(5), which collectively
imposed an obligation on the State independent Electoral
Commissions to apply the standard of ‘free, fair and credible
elections in the conduct of Local Government elections’ is within
the competence of the National Assembly to make laws in respect of
the procedure regulating elections into the Local Government
Councils in accordance with item 11 (Eleven) of the Concurrent
Legislative List of the 1999 Constitution as amended. What specific
aspects or ways and manner cannot be a basis for legal or
constitutional argument or decision. With due respect, the opinion
expressed is too general to establish a basis for the exercise of a
legal or constitutional power more so because “discretion” is a
principle governed by the rules of Administrative Law and not that
of Constitutional Law which the President claimed to have anchored
his arguments.
“Thirdly, the terms “Organize, undertake and supervise” may have
confer a wide discretion on lNEC in matters of all logistics in the
preparation and conduct of elections, the issue of discretion only
comes to fore in the actual details of the preparation, organizing
and conducting elections. It is respectfully submitted that the
sequencing of the elections in a Bill as to which was scheduled as
first or last in the conduct does not in any way hamper or affect
the discretion and capacity of INEC to organize, undertake and
conduct these elections into various constitutional offices
provided.
“3) The new subsection (3) introduced into Section 138 of the
Electoral Act, which the President argued repealed two crucial
grounds upon which elections could be challenged is not entirely
correct and the view could be misplaced for the following
reason:
“a. The new Subsection (3) to section 138 actually clarifies the
ambiguity contained in subsection 1 of the Principal Act and
reinforces the constitutional standards specified in Sections 65,
106, 131 and 177 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999. In addition, it furthe provides that no person shall
be qualified to contest elections in breach c any of the ‘Sections
66, 107, 137 or 182 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria as amended.”
“The amendment to Section 152 (3)-(5) which collectively imposed
an obligation on the State Independent Electoral Commissions to
apply the standard of “free, fair and credible elections in the
conduct of Local Government elections” is within the competence of
the National Assembly to make laws in respect of the procedure
regulating elections into the Local Government Councils
in accordance with item 11 (Eleven) of the Concurrent Legislative
List of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
“It is therefore not entirely correct, with all due respect, for
the Mr. President to argue that the amendment may raise
constitutional issues over the competence of the National Assembly
to legislate on Local Government elections. The Supreme Court of
Nigeria has decided on this issue in the famous case of Attorney
General of Abia State & Ors v Attorney General of the
Federation & Ors.
*Saraki, Dogara, others at Aso
Villa
A major trouble-shooting effort was launched last night to halt
the imminent showdown between the Executive and the
Legislature.
On the agenda were:
- the controversial election sequence reordering, which is a
subject of litigation; - the 2018 budget, which is stuck at the National Assembly— four
months after it was presented by President Muhammadu Buhari;
and - the worrisome security situation.
Last night President Buhari met at the Presidential Villa with
the leadership of the National Assembly.
The meeting, which started around 9p.m, was attended by Senate
President Bukola Saraki, House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu
Dogara, Deputy Speaker Lasun Yussuff, Senate Leader Ahmed Lawan and
House Leader Femi Gbajabiamila, among others.
After the meeting, Saraki told reporters that the frosty
relationship between the Executive and the Legislature was
discussed. The budget was also discussed, he said.
Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Boss
Mustapha confirmed that the threat by the lawmakers to override the
President’s veto on the Electoral Act amendment was discussed. He
gave no details.
On the budget, the lawmakers were said to have complained that
some ministers were yet to defend their inputs.
Buhari was said to have directed the SGF to write the ministers,
directing them to defend their budgets.
Earlier in the day, the Senate during plenary decided to write
to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) to protest the ruling
stopping the lawmakers from overriding the President’s veto on the
Electoral Act Amendment Bill.
It was also learnt that based on legal advice, which suggested
that the President’s reasons for declining assent was not
watertight, the lawmakers had decided to override the veto next
week.
The controversy trailing the rejection of the Electoral Act 2018
amendment by President Muhammadu Buhari may be far from over.
The National Assembly yesterday listed “flaws” in the
constitutional provision relied upon by President Buhari to
withhold assent to the Bill.
The leadership of the two chambers of the National Assembly is
said to have met Wednesday night to consider submissions
from the legal department of the Assembly.
It was gathered that the legal advice dismissed the
constitutional provisions cited by President Buhari as basis for
his action “as baseless and of no effect to form the basis of
withholding assent to the Bill”.
The Senate and House Representatives leadership “accepted the
submissions received from the legal department,” a source said.
The implication of the acceptance of the submissions of the
legal department, the source said, “is that the two chambers may go
ahead to override the veto of Mr. President to the Bill.”
The source hinted that “the two chambers appeared to be poised
to do battle with Mr. President by exercising their power to
override the president on any issue they feel strongly about”.
He added that the amendment of the Electoral Act which altered
the sequence of elections, seems to be one of the issues the
lawmakers are convinced was done “in the best interest of the
country”.
The legal advice obtained by our reporter states: “The President
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vetoed the 2018 Amendment of the
Electoral Act of 2010 passed by the National Assembly in the
exercise of its constitutional powers under Section 58(4 oi)
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended
following reasons.
“Each of the legal and constitutional reasons advanced by the
President as a basis for the veto were examined in details
below.
“1. The President claims that the Amendment introducing a
specific sequence for elections under Section 25 of the Principal
Act 2010 infringed the discretion of the Independent National
Electoral Commission to “organise, undertake and supervise
elections.” This argument is flawed because correct legal position
however is that by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999 First Alteration Act 2010, Act No. 1, specifically,
Section 5 provides that “Section 76 of the Principal Act is altered
thus
“(a)subsection (1) in line 2, by inserting immediately after the
word ’commission’ ’the words’ ’in accordance with the Electoral
Act. “
“From the above amendment, it is crystal clear that the power to
regulate the principal elements of all Federal Electoral process
was expressed by the above amendment, removed from the Independent
National Electoral Commission and vested in the Assembly (N.A)
which has the power to make laws for peace, order and good
government” of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and any part
thereof.
“Furthermore, the phrases ‘organize, undertake & supervise’
elections under Section 15(a) of the 3″ Schedule to the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, according to the President, allegedly infringed
the discretion guaranteed” to lNEC by Section 25 of the of the
Principal Act.
“1. The argument of the President that the sequencing of the
elections under Section 25 infringed the discretion of INEC without
expressly pointing out what specific aspects or ways and manner
cannot be a basis for legal or constitutional argument or decision.
With due respect, the opinion expressed is too general to establish
a basis for the exercise of a legal or constitutional power, more
so because “discretion” is a principle governed by the rules of
Administrative Law and not that of Constitutional Law, on which the
President claimed to have anchored his arguments.
“2) .Thirdly, the terms “organise, undertake and supervise” may
have conferred a wide discretion on lNEC in matters of all
logistics in the preparation and conduct of elections, the issue of
discretion only comes to fore in the actual details of the
preparation, organizing and conducting elections.
”It is respectfully submitted that the sequencing of the
elections in a Bill as to which was scheduled as first or last in
the conduct does not in any way hamper or affect the discretion and
capacity of INEC to organise, undertake and conduct these elections
into various constitutional offices provided.
“3) The new subsection (3) introduced into Section 138 of the
Electoral Act, which the President argued repealed two crucial
grounds upon which elections could be challenged, is not entirely
correct and the view could be misplaced for the following
reason:
“a. The new Subsection (3) to section 138 actually clarifies the
ambiguity contained in subsection 1 of the Principal Act and
reinforces the constitutional standards specified in Sections 65,
106, 131 and 177 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999. In addition, it further provides that no person shall
be qualified to contest elections in breach of any of the ‘Sections
66, 107, 137 or 182 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria as amended.
“The amendment to Section 152 (3)-(5), which collectively
imposed an obligation on the State independent Electoral
Commissions to apply the standard of ‘free, fair and credible
elections in the conduct of Local Government elections’ is within
the competence of the National Assembly to make laws in respect of
the procedure regulating elections into the Local Government
Councils in accordance with item 11 (Eleven) of the Concurrent
Legislative List of the 1999 Constitution as amended. What specific
aspects or ways and manner cannot be a basis for legal or
constitutional argument or decision. With due respect, the opinion
expressed is too general to establish a basis for the exercise of a
legal or constitutional power more so because “discretion” is a
principle governed by the rules of Administrative Law and not that
of Constitutional Law which the President claimed to have anchored
his arguments.
“Thirdly, the terms “Organize, undertake and supervise” may have
confer a wide discretion on lNEC in matters of all logistics in the
preparation and conduct of elections, the issue of discretion only
comes to fore in the actual details of the preparation, organizing
and conducting elections. It is respectfully submitted that the
sequencing of the elections in a Bill as to which was scheduled as
first or last in the conduct does not in any way hamper or affect
the discretion and capacity of INEC to organize, undertake and
conduct these elections into various constitutional offices
provided.
“3) The new subsection (3) introduced into Section 138 of the
Electoral Act, which the President argued repealed two crucial
grounds upon which elections could be challenged is not entirely
correct and the view could be misplaced for the following
reason:
“a. The new Subsection (3) to section 138 actually clarifies the
ambiguity contained in subsection 1 of the Principal Act and
reinforces the constitutional standards specified in Sections 65,
106, 131 and 177 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999. In addition, it furthe provides that no person shall
be qualified to contest elections in breach c any of the ‘Sections
66, 107, 137 or 182 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria as amended.”
“The amendment to Section 152 (3)-(5) which collectively imposed
an obligation on the State Independent Electoral Commissions to
apply the standard of “free, fair and credible elections in the
conduct of Local Government elections” is within the competence of
the National Assembly to make laws in respect of the procedure
regulating elections into the Local Government Councils
in accordance with item 11 (Eleven) of the Concurrent Legislative
List of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
“It is therefore not entirely correct, with all due respect, for
the Mr. President to argue that the amendment may raise
constitutional issues over the competence of the National Assembly
to legislate on Local Government elections. The Supreme Court of
Nigeria has decided on this issue in the famous case of Attorney
General of Abia State & Ors v Attorney General of the
Federation & Ors.
Read more https://www.nairalaw.com/buhari-seeks-peace-over-order-of-elections-budget/