Let it be established that the matter before us as Nigerians, is not that of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan versus Akpabio. If there is anything like that, it is Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan versus the Senate, because while Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan acted on personal grounds, Akpabio acted as a presiding officer. Let’s say the truth. Whatever personal relationship exists between the two senators must not be taken to the floor of the Senate.
The sanctity of the Nigerian Senate has again been called to question. Power-play has replaced serious legislative business. For an institution that was created to serve as a constitutional shrine for the high priests of legislative politicking, the demystification of the Senate is a worrisome development.
Since the constitutional reconstitution of the Senate in 1999, following the return of democracy, it has been one scandal after the other. From the orchestrated humongous amount demanded for furniture by the lawmakers in 1999, to the rumoured payments for anticipated contract awards, the Nigerian Senate has been turned into a theatre of political absurdity.
|
|
Some of us knew it would come to this the moment we noticed that two classes of people were being elected to the hallowed chamber following the 1999 experiment. First, we noticed the election of underaged representatives.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Senate, by tradition, is the parliamentary council of elders, created to conduct serious business of state — an assignment that extends from law-making to the stabilisation of the polity.
|
|
|
|---|
The Senate was never dreamt of as children’s playground. It was conceived to be a revered institution inhabited by celebrated adults — people who have traversed life, gained wisdom, exhausted their ambitious instincts and are looking for a controlled environment where they can impart intellectual and experiential services for the benefit of mankind.
This informed the historic statement by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831, that the United States’ Senate “contains within a small space, a large proportion of the celebrated men of America. Scarcely an individual is to be seen in it who has not had an active and illustrious career. The Senate is composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates and statesmen of note…”
These were the people that the Senate was created for, not people with uncontrollable emotional outbursts — children spoilt by wealth and poor upbringing. The legislature, from the revered Roman Senate to the American presidential construct of 1787, was meant for serious-minded people whose juvenile frenzy had been tamed and were ready for cultivation.
That brings me to the second reason the Nigerian Senate has been in turmoil since 2003. Someone may ask why I am referring to 2003 when this dispensation actually started in 1999. The truth is that the 1999 Senate had mature, committed and widely experienced individuals; although it was an experiment, because the real thing started after the first four years of democracy.
The moment moneybags started invading the Senate in 2007, as though it were another luxurious business centre called a oil well, things changed from bad to worse. In a jiffy, these bankrollers started either buying their ways into the revered assembly of distinguished elders, or procuring its seats for their spouses and children.
Getting elected into the Senate was no longer a matter of qualification, but that of affordability. America experienced this scenario more than two centuries ago. So, there is nothing new about that, except that Nigeria is setting an unequalled record.
As soon as this happened, the deified platform, which is the legislative equivalent of the Supreme Court, got soaked in scandals. Some of the members hardly occupy seats allotted to them up to twice a month. They are always on business and holiday trips. When they show up on the floor, they want to be treated as celebrities.
As someone who witnessed Senate politics from the first Senate in this dispensation, as a reporter and observer, I do wonder most times whether the Nigerian Senate would ever accomplish the dreams of its founding fathers, bringing to memory the words of Prime Minister William Gladstone, that the Senate is “the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics.”
Let’s come back home. A few days ago, another drama was staged in the Nigerian Senate. It was actually not supposed to be a big deal, because one of the high points of any law-making institution is argument upon arguments, as long as such arguments do not breach the Standing Rules. The Senate floor is meant for the exchange of ideas, even if the exchanges are sometimes conducted in ungentlemanly manners.
I am not likely to have the full detail of what happened. However, we were informed that sitting arrangements had to be adjusted in the Senate because of the exit of people from opposition political parties to the ruling party. Arising from this, certain senators were moved from their initial seats to new seats, to separate opposition party members from the ruling party members.
A few hours after this was done, hell released some heat that melted the peace of the Senate. It happened when one of the female senators, Mrs Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan from Kogi Central, walked into the hallowed chamber, headed towards her traditional seat — the one she occupied since her election to the Senate, only to realise that there had been some adjustment in the sitting arrangement. Her seat then carried another person’s name tag. She halted, to be sure she was not making a mistake.
I suspect that she must have asked any of her colleagues about what happened. What she did next was to lower her senatorial self into a seat that was not assigned to her — the same seat she sat on the previous sitting day, but which was now carrying a different name tag. It is either the new occupant of the seat raised an objection, or someone must have drawn the attention of the Senate President to the development. Such details are not available to me.
By the way, the Senate President is mandated by the Senate Standing Orders 2023, as Amended, to assign seats to every member of the Senate. Chapter 3, Order 6(1) of the Senate Standing Rules states that, “The President of the Senate shall allocate a seat to each senator.” The next provision states that, “A senator may only speak from the seat allocated to him, provided that the President of the Senate may change the allocation from time to time.”
Two things are clear from the two citations above. First, is the fact that only the Senate President can determine where a senator sits in the chamber. As is usual in administrative procedure, he can delegate that function to someone under his command. The second point is that the same Senate President can unquestionably choose to change the sitting arrangement without consulting any senator. That is his prerogative.
Well, as it is already known, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan did not like the idea of being assigned a new seat, irrespective of what the Standing Orders say, and no matter the justification on the part of the Senate President for doing so. She refused to move to her new seat.
Let’s be clear here: no matter how we interpret Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s action, it was in total breach of the Senate Standing Rules and a huge snub of the Chair. It does not matter her opinion of the Senate President. That’s personal.
It was at this point that the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, intervened. He asked Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to move to her seat. She refused, and instead talked back at the Senate President.
While Akpabio was acting in line with Orders 65 and 66 of the Senate Standing Orders, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan acted on personal conviction, which was in violation of the Senate code of conduct. There is no question about that.
In the days of the late Chuba Okadigbo, the invocation of Order 66(2) would have been carried out with such speed and authority that would have shocked everyone. Okadigbo had no stomach for anyone who attempted to grandstand in the Senate. People said he was intellectually arrogant. The truth, however, was that Okadigbo had great respect for the institution of the Senate.
Order 66(2) states that after any senator, who acts in violation of the Order, and has been cautioned, “if such a senator refuses to resume his or her seat, the President of the Senate, or the Chairman shall order such a senator whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the Senate during the remainder of that day’s sitting; and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of this Order.”
Let it be established that the matter before us as Nigerians, is not that of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan versus Akpabio. If there is anything like that, it is Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan versus the Senate, because while Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan acted on personal grounds, Akpabio acted as a presiding officer. Let’s say the truth. Whatever personal relationship exists between the two senators must not be taken to the floor of the Senate.
My humble advice is this, we have had enough of the drama. The Senate leadership should convene a closed session, sit down and settle this matter. Whoever is found to have goofed should apologise to the Senate in the open. The issue of sexual harassment is a moral issue. It is hardly accompanied with evidence. This media war should end and the orchestrated court cases should be withdrawn. We are already sufficiently embarrassed!
Sam Akpe writes from Abuja.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
