The House of Representatives on Tuesday resolved to reconsider the bill which seeks to strip the President the powers to appoint and remove the chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal from office.
The contentious bill which passed through third reading on the floor of the House on the 31st May, 2016 was adopted by the Senate on Thursday, 27th October 2016.
The House resolution was passed sequel to the adoption of the motion sponsored by Femi Gbajabiamila, Majority Leader who raised a point of order to suspend relevant rules of the House, to enable the House to reconsider the passage of the bill, which he noted was a “violent infraction of the constitution.”
Gbajabiamila who warned against violation of the extant laws of the land, argued that the bill as passed by the House contravenes with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The lawmaker who stressed the need for the House to uphold legislative tenets by reconsidering the bill in relations to Section 1(3), Part 1 Schedule 5, Section 17(1 & 4) and Section 15(3 & 4) which provide for the appointment, removal and retirement age of the chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.
“This House has always been the House of the people. We have never been detached from public opinion or perception.
“It is not under your leadership and our membership, that the House will lose its integrity. When we discovered that the clauses are infractions to the constitution, we should put our breaks and reconsider it,” Gbajabiamila urged.
After heated debate on the motion, Speaker Dogara asked the Majority Leader to follow the provision of the Standing Rules by way of substantive motion to enable members to contribute to it.
He said: “We all know the rules as aptly pointed out by Honourable Chinda. And the reason why it has to come by a substantive motion is to put it on notice so that members will not be ambushed.
“Nobody is saying we cannot reconsider it but let us follow the provisions of our rules so that members will have the ample time to go through with the reasons you are raising.
“So for us to suspend the rules to take this motion, it will be like an ambush, so it is better that all of us are well informed and it is tabled for debate.”
However, the motion was opposed by some lawmakers namely Kingsley Chinda (PDP-Rivers) and Edward Pwajok (PDP-Plateau).
Chinda who cited House Order 9 Rule 1(6), argued that the bill can only be amended by way of a substantive motion.
In his remarks, Edward Pwajok who cited Section 58 of the 1999 Constitution, noted that since the bill has been passed by chambers, the President could either give or withhold assent.
The amendment include alteration of the “tenure of
the Office of the Chairman and members of the bureau; amending the entry age of the chairman and members of the bureau; relocating the power to exercise authority over the bureau from Mr. President to the National Assembly; extending (the) power of the Attorney General of the Federation to prosecute to private legal practitioners to enable the bureau to prosecute its cases; and making certain provisions clearer and more elaborate,” the report of the amendment stated.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
