Eleven members of the House of Representatives are so aggrieved over the New House rules that they have gone to court to challenge it. In this interview with Victor Oluwasegun, Hon. Aliyu Madaki (APC Kano), who spearheaded the move, speaks on the reasons that informed their decision.
What exactly is the reason you’re in court over the new rule book of the House?
There is no organisation, society or government body that will work without rules and regulations guiding it. In the House, we have our rules book. What we are contesting in court is that the rules were changed and it is our belief that the way and manner the rules were changed, the procedures of changing the rules were not followed. Not only that, it is also our contention that some undemocratic things have been put into the new rules. And if you recall, on the 8th of October when these rules were changed, I came through Point of Order, eight times, not once or twice, but eight times. I tried to draw the attention of the House that these new rules we are trying to pass are not only undemocratic, they are also unconstitutional. This is because I believe that the constitution of Nigeria in Sections 36 and 39 gives me freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of religion and freedom of association, and it is my firm belief that with these new rules that the House has adopted, those constitutional rights given me by the people of Dala Federal Constituency will be infringed upon.
So what are the procedures that are wrong?
When I discover they will not heed my pleas, I called for a division. If you read our standing order section 77, says if the presiding officer rules on something if you’re not in agreement with what he ruled on, you can call for division…I don’t know, it’s as if I’m going into the substance of the case and I don’t think that is proper and the case is in court, but I believe there are so many procedures that have not been followed, even the changing of the rules.
But some people as laymen will look at it and say the new rules are laudable, especially because of some things that have happened in the parliament in the past, especially the snatching of the Mace and things like that.
Do you watch other parliaments in the world? I watched recently about two or three months, I saw a parliament in Asia, the president came and they were throwing eggs at him. In a democracy, there is bound to be disagreements. We’re not here to serve our personal interest, but to serve our constituents, but with the new law we have now, we cannot even do our work, because if I stood up to talk or contribute to a debate or to disagree with a presiding officer and he asked me to sit down based on the new rule and I refuse, I will be suspended for 30 plenary days. Do you understand what 30 plenary days mean? It means 30 days of sitting. If you count 30 days of sitting, it would give you about three months. In those months, that constituency will not be represented in the National Assembly. And in the new rule, the Speaker can suspend you for 6 months for approaching the Mace, or for intending to approach the mace. I don’t know how we can read intention.
Do you think you’re being victimized?
I don’t know. That was why I raised it on the floor. I said it that nobody on that floor can stop me from talking. That is what I’m here for. I don’t go to any government agency seeking for contract or favour, quote me. I do my job. I try to serve the interest of my people in the best way possible. And in this motion…Kano, we are traders, our airport was the first in the whole of Nigeria. But because of the economic situation in the country, things went so bad. But I thank God, in the 7th Assembly I raised between 7 to 8 motions on the airport. Now, go to Kano Airport, it has come back to life. It was through one of those motions that I raised that Emirate Airline was given permission to land in Kano.
What was the issue with Emirates and Kano and the BASA agreement?
The BASA, you know is Bilateral Air Service Agreement signed between Nigerian and United Arabs Emirate giving landing rights to Emirates Airlines to fly Abuja and Kano routes as one single route. After they were given the approval, after they have sold tickets to customers, they were about to start operations, just two weeks, the then federal government wrote a letter to Emirate informing them to suspend the Kano leg of the agreement, and that it would be for a very short period of time. And we all know what happened. After that, elections held and the government lost. They don’t have an interest in any airline going to Kano or anywhere in Nigeria because they were leaving office. I just brought the issue, that as an assembly let this resolution be passed that the suspension be lifted because the agreement has been signed and Emirates Airline is ready to go to Kano. That was all. And somebody now decided to keep it somewhere. And I went to him as a friend and begged. He said when we return from break. When we came back I didn’t see it. I went to him again, said please this week put it. This week, I didn’t see it on the Order paper so, that was why I had to bring it to the floor.
So, are you satisfied with the Speaker’s ruling that it should be first come, first served?
What the Speaker did was the right thing by saying first come, first served because I’m aware that there was someone who brought his own last week and it is in this week’s Order Paper. So, I don’t want a situation where we will be staying in the Animal Farm where some animals are more equal than others.
There were eleven members that went to court on the new rules issue, are they all in agreement over the issue?
How would I put somebody’s name that is not in agreement? If you know me very well, I won’t put the name of someone who has not consented on the list. Let anyone on the list look me in the eye and tell me he has not consented. I won’t do that. I am not that kind of person. If you see me in the chambers, whatever is right, I will stand up and say this is right; if it is wrong, I will say this is wrong. I will never defend the un-defendable. I said it the day this new rule was passed that I would go to court. When I said it, I didn’t intend to carry anyone along with me. If I believe in my cause, if I’m the only one, 359 can be on one side and I will be on the other side. That is if my conscience tells me what I’m doing is right. And my conscience tells me in this case that I am right. This is not for me. I have said it that day, that tomorrow I can be the Speaker’s friend. And I’ve never seen in a democracy where members of parliament will sit and give one single person this kind of sweeping powers. I have never seen it.
But you are just eleven members, are you not in the minority in the House?
We are eleven that went to court, but we are not eleven that are against the rules. If you get the video of what transpired that day, I have it here, you will see I’m not in the minority, even when they took the voice vote, and that was why I asked for a division. When you request for a division, it means you did not agree with the voice vote. What we’re using here is the voice vote. And serious issues like changing the law, in my own sincere opinion, we shouldn’t use voice vote for changing the House rule. It is just like changing the constitution; we don’t use voice vote, it has to be crystal clear that this is what you’re voting for or against. But voice vote can be easily manipulated. Very easily. That is why I requested for a division that day. I have the tape.
THE NATION
No comments:
Post a Comment