From Ndubuisi Orji, Abuja
One the topical issues in the ongoing review of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is the removal of immunity clause from civil and criminal prosecution for the Vice President, governors and deputy governors. Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill seeking to alter the constitution in that regard. However, less than 24 hours later, the House rescinded its decision, saying the proposed legislation will be subjected to robust debate.
Nonetheless, the sponsor of the bill, Solomon Bob, in this interview, insists that there is no basis for the immunity currently enjoyed by the Vice president, governors and deputy governors. Bob, who represents Ahoada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency of Rivers State, says immunity fuels impunity in government.
Excerpts:
You are proposing a bill to qualify immunity for the President and remove it outrightly for the Vice President, governors and deputy governors, what is the objective of the proposed legislation?
The objective of the bill can be glimpsed from the bill’s long title and the explanatory memorandum. The objective is to curb or extinguish impunity; curb corruption; curb or remove lack of accountability and enthrone transparency. And it is clear, executive positions where you have immunity are the places where you have the most money.
In a system where we are seeking to fight corruption; the places where you have the most money; operators there are protected from being accountable. You are invariably protecting, shielding, promoting, encouraging corruption. The places where you have persons enjoying immunity are those executive positions where persons who occupy the offices are most guilty or most predisposed to impunity, abuse of power. So, if you shield them, or protect them from being accountable for their actions, you are invariably protecting impunity and lawlessness.
So, it is totally counter intuitive to say that you want to fight impunity, you want to fight lawlessness, you want to bring about respect for rule of law, you want to curb corruption or eliminate corruption, and then the places where these things I have described are most prevalent, the places where they are most found are the places where you stop due process of law from being applied. It makes no sense at all.
So, talk about fighting corruption and enthroning a regime of law and order, due process is farcical talk. Totally farcical. It has no bearing or relationship with what the real aspiration is. That amounts to mere theorising. So, the whole objective of the bill on immunity is to bring about transparency, accountability and law and order by guaranteeing absence of impunity and more scrutiny in fighting corruption.
Your bill is proposing the removal of immunity for the Vice President, governors and deputy governors, why retain that of the President. Are you insinuating that the President can not be corrupt?
The President’s own, I think it is keeping with traditions all over the world; most presidents enjoy some form of immunity. Most presidents all over the world; I have done my research. I have studied 16 constitutions all over the world. Even in America, where we copied this presidential system, most presidents enjoy some form of immunity. Though in America, a president has no constitutional immunity. His immunity is as defined by DOJ-Department of Justice. In America constitution, nobody has immunity from criminal or civil prosecution, even the President. Like I said, in keeping with traditions, all over the world, the US President enjoys immunity based on the Department of Justice’s interpretation. So, conventionally, he gets some immunity. Some level. But nothing resembling immunity applies to the vice president. Nothing representing immunity applies to any of the governors.
I have studied constitutions from India, Australia, South Africa, Canada, name them- about 15 to 16 countries, I have studied their constitution. What we have here is absurd. Indescribably absurd situation. And these countries that I have mentioned don’t have impunity and levels of corruption near what we are experiencing here.
Critics say the level of corruption and abuse by the Executive arm of government is function of the failure of the legislature, which is supposed to oversight them. How would you react to that?
Not necessarily. At the federal level, there is a greater percentage of attention paid to these things. At the state level, almost zero. Now, you do not give someone an open cheque to do as he wishes and then try to pass the buck to someone else for not exerting more control.
So, the starting point is to ensure that these powers are not absolute the way they are in the constitution for the governors. In respect to the vice president and the deputy governors, what is their job? The work of vice president, the work of a deputy governor, their jobs are ass assigned to them by their principlas. So, while do you give them immunity?
The bill is (proposing that) if a president for some reasons becomes indisposed, or infirm and is unable to carry out his functions, and the vice president takes over, even in acting capacity, the immunity of the President becomes his own as ell. But so long as he remains vice president, he cannot have immunity. That is the interpretation all over the world.
Do you see this bill scaling through the constitution review process, because within twenty-four hours after it was passed for second reading, the House rescinded its decision?
I am aware of the reason, why they passed a motion for rescission. Thy said ‘oh, there was no debate on it.’ But we have a tradition here too, where bills on constitution review, even after first reading, they are referred to the Constitution Review committee to work on it and anybody who has any objections can come there to argue their objections.
But I am also not aware of the reason why a rescission motion was quickly rushed to the parliament, because, I think that certain quarters were uncomfortable with it. So, they moved and a lot of pressure applied to have it rescinded until a debate is taken. I am ready for a debate.
There is no way anybody can win an argument to retain immunity for governors, deputy governors, vice president and the president’s own in the form it is couched in the constitution. No. President has to have immunity, but it has to be circumscribed. His actions are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, if they are done in the course of his official job as President. But if he goes outside the perimeters of his job as the president and does something in his private capacity, he cannot enjoy immunity. That is the tradition all over the world. You don’t give somebody full license to behave as he wants while in office and you say you want to go forward, going forward to where?
You also want local government delisted from the constitution as a tier of government, so that states can create and fund local government, what informed that?
What informed that is my understanding of constitutional law. And like I told you earlier, my study of constitutions all over the world, especially federal constitutions. And I also go back to my reading of the founding constitution- 1960 constitution, 1963 Republican constitution. Now, those constitutions never had any provision for local government, whatsoever. And that is in keeping with the tradition of federalism all over the world.
Federalism is a two-tier system. Two tier system, not a three-tier system. Power is shared in a federal system between federal government and the constituents’ states. Local government are creations or babies of states. And local government has no business being listed as an item in a federal constitution. No! States ought to have their own constitution or laws regarding local government functions, creation, funding and whatnot. These local governments are created on needs basis. If you want to create 30, that is up to you. If you want to create 20 it is up to you. But if you put it in the constitution, it becomes almost like fixed item, an item cast in stone.
No state now, I can assure you, in this country can create a local government. Forget about the glib talk about how we will create local government, we will create state. It is impossible. How are you going to do that. Because local government has become tool for revenue sharing. States know this. It has become a sensitive weapon for how much money you get.
So, if State A tries to create 20, State Z will create 40. Because the more local government you have the more money you make. So, the moment the door is opened for any state to create local government, other states will pour in with their own. So, because of the fact it is tied to revenue from the federation account.
So, to remove that rigidity and create room for flexibility and administrative convenience, you remove it from the constitution and take it back to the state where it should reside ordinarily. And the states can do as they wish. You want to have 50 local government areas, that is yours. You want to have 50, that is yours.