In the last few days attention has been shifted to Immunity Clause as enshirned in the Nigerian constitution. The call for its removal in the constitution has indeed become a source of controversy. The clause, as currently enshrined in the nation's constitution, allows the president and the governors, as well as their deputies, protection from prosecution over offences while in office.
The recommendation for the removal of the clause was one of the highlights of the report of the House of Representatives' Ad hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution. The report was presented to the House by its chairman and Deputy Speaker, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha, penultimate Thursday.
The lower chamber of the National Assembly in its constitution amendment report tabled last Thursday on the floor of the House seeks the removal of the immunity that bars those occupying the positions of presidents and governors from prosecution.
The committee said the immunity promotes impunity and should go. While presenting the committee's report at the plenary, Ihedioha said, "In line with the results from the Peoples' Public Sessions, the Committee also removed the immunity from prosecution from criminal offences for persons occupying the position of president, vice president, governor and deputy governor, and to stem impunity levels."
The report of the House of Representatives was based on the demands of Nigerians during the November 10, 2012 People's Public Sessions on the constitution and some of the recommendations submitted by individuals and groups during the various public hearings on the proposed constitution amendment organised by the National Assembly.
To many Nigerians, the report of the lower chamber is a clear departure from what the upper chamber did on the same subject as the Senate's committee, led by the Deputy Senate president, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, retained clause on the ground that it was "an anarchybreeding push to tamper with it".
Since the House of Representatives makes its position on the immunity clause public, the proposal to expunge the immunity clause from the constitution has been generating mixed reactions among many stakeholders in the country, especially between the ruling class and politicians. Section 308 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) stipulates that no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the president during his period of office.
Therefore, many see the proposed removal of the immunity clause which protects the president, vice president, governors and their deputies from civil or criminal court proceedings while in office, as suggested by the House of Representatives, as a serious issue that may change things positively or negatively in the polity considering the status of the public office holders involved.
The controversy stemming from the position of the House of Representatives stems from how some public office holders, especially governors and their deputies, have been alleged to be using their office to commit crimes in view of the immunity they enjoy.
Cases, no doubt, abound of some violations by the public office holders while in office. The violations vary from money laundering to embezzelement of public funds and killings. Besides, some of them are accused of victimising the oppositions in their respective states.
Reason, therefore, that some governors have had to face trial after they left office. Against the background of the notoriety with which some governors and other public office holders commit crimes while in office, the proposal for the removal of the immunity clause, to many people would serve as a restraint. They believe that it would make them to be more accountable to the public. But some people think differently.
They are of the view that grannting the wish of the House of Representatives by removing the immunity clause poses a great danger to Nigerian democracy because it would expose the concerned political office holders to unguided public attacks which might lead to disruption in the running of the affairs of the states. The concerned political office holders are however not finding the plan to remove the immunity clause funny.
Already, some of them have started kicking against its removal. The Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters, Dr. Ahmed Gulak, during an interview penultimate Friday said that the retention of the immunity clause in the constitution was the best thing that could happen to the country. He said that the removal of the clause would not be good for Nigeria. Gulak also warned that unscrupulous persons, who were bent on getting at public officials out of sheer envy, would capitalise on the removal of the clause to cause distraction in the system.
His words: "The president, vicepresident, governors and their deputies really need immunity. Immunity is the best thing that has happened to this country today. "These public office holders should not be distracted.
The removal of immunity will expose them to frivolous litigation by unscrupulous elements that want to get at them out of sheer envy and not based on constructive criticism. Removal of immunity will not be good for this country. The recommendation will fail." A governor from the South-West who spoke on the matter on the condition of anonymity declared that no governor would support the removal.
He said what is important for the governor is to be courageous enough to protect Nigeria's democracy. "The very essence of governance, the way they want to go about it, would be defeated because I can bet you that no governor would have the time to do anything other than court cases around the country; as such, none of us would support it, let alone our state assemblies. It will not work because no Nigerian who loves this country would want such a clause to be removed; I am not saying this because I want to be protected as a sitting governor.
"What is most important is for us to be courageous enough to protect our democracy and that is why if, as governors, we fail to do something about this, we would have bequeathed a bad legacy to our successors. "We are not bothered about that because, at the appropriate time, the recommendation will give way for sound reasoning; we are waiting for them at the level of the states to see if their recommendations will carry the day or not," the governor said.
Speaking to Saturday Mirror, a lawyer and former Alliance for Democracy (AD) governorship candidate in Osun State, Akinrogun Tunde Odanye, said the immunity clause should remain to prevent president and governors from distractions while in office. His words: "I think the drafter of the constitution who puts immunity clause in the constitution knows what they are doing. It is proper, correct and I know it is a norm in most civilised nations. The whole essence of it is not to distract the president and governors while in office.
Without the immunity clause there would be many potential frivolous charges, which may serve as distractions to governors.
"Those who are talking about the removal of the immunity clause are thinking of major criminal offences where president and governors will not be able to hide under immunity clause. If any governor commits any criminal offences while in office, the House of Assembly can impeach the governor if he is found guilty. I think the immunity clause should remain."
Also speaking on the issue, a renowned constitutional lawyer, Prof. Itse Sagay, said that the president and governors are symbols of sovereignty and authority in the country, therefore, anything that is designed to rubbish them is to rubbish Nigeria's image and sovereignty. He said the removal of the immunity clause may not be necessary since there is room for prosecution of the governors after the expiration of their tenure in office.
The National Publicity Secretary of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said removing immunity would only serve to distract people who were protected by the clause. He said: "The issue of immunity clause is not the problem of Nigeria. Immunity does not mean impunity. Removing it will be an error. Immunity is just to protect the governor and the president from being distracted.
"After four or eight years as the case may be, such governor or president can be investigated and prosecuted." To those who think otherwise, a removal of the clause would sanitise the system and force many public office holders to be well-disciplined and be careful about what they do while in office since there would be no protection for them from being tried in court of law as a president or governor.
A renowned lawyer, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), who applauded the plans by the House of Representatives to expunge the immunity clause, said that its removal would make the beneficiaries rule consciously and with caution. He, however, added that if the clause must be removed, heavy damages must be slammed against litigants who maintain frivolous case against them.
The spokesman of the Save Nigeria Group (SNG) and Afenifere, Mr. Yinka Odumakin, also expressed support for the removal, saying it would check corruption. He said: "It is good for our democracy, we should not subscribe to leadership by criminals. We saw what the likes of the former governor of Delta State, James Ibori, did while in office. He enjoyed the immunity for eight years, even after office the court could not try him until the London court sentenced him on corruption. "I think the immunity clause should go; anybody who commits crime should face the music.
We have many criminals in government who want to protect their crime, we have certificate forgers, thieves, murderers and all kinds of crooks in power that they want to cover their tracks and hide under immunity clause. Ironically the immunity clause has been the saving grace for them, therefore, it should go."
Notwithstanding the arguments for and against the proposed removal of the clause, many still believe that there are countless benefits to be derived if the immunity remains.
For example, it is obvious that but for immunity clause, many governors from the opposition party, would have been removed as a result of the onslaught against them. Delta State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr Charles Ajunya (SAN), while baring his mind on the issue said the removal would rubbish the effectiveness of law.
"If we allow immunity clause to be removed, the country will be lawless with high rate of crimes and other related acts and no governor will be able to carry out his functions effectively," he said. Lai Mohammed is also of the view that, "We cannot afford this (removal of immunity clause) at this time of our democracy, not to allow our governor not to have been immuned.
"Guess what would have happened to Governor Rotimi Amaechi if he is not covered by immunity in the tango between him and the people at Abuja. We all know what happened to Ngige; despite immunity, he was kidnapped." As far as many are concened, the immunity clause enshrined in the constitution is not an issue but the weakness of the institutions of the society.
Let all the institutions be strong and virile, then Nigeria would work, they said. For the House of Representatives wish on immunity clause to sail through, the recommendation requires the endorsement of two-thirds of the 36 state assemblies of the federation.
The concurrence of the Senate is also required for the bill to become law even if passed by the lower house. As the lower chamber continues its debate on constitutional amendment, many people are watching with keen interest whether the immunity clause will be removed or not.
National Mirror
Our constitution is definately something we have going for us right about now...I don't think there's anything that needs change just yet