Is National Assembly living up to expectation?

By Emmanuel Oladesu, Deputy Editor

The legislature is the first organ of government and the most democratic institution with deep taproot across the nooks and crannies of the country. Its core feature is representativeness. To that extent, it is perceived as the anchor of popular rule.

The assumption is that it is the people’s assembly, as reflected in the ancient Athenian arrangement. Thus, in a modern time, it is dangerous for unelected representatives to sneak into the law making body through the back door, by malpractices and even judicial technicalities.

During coups, the greatest casualty, usually, is the parliament. On assumption of office, the military rulers often fused the legislative functions with the hijacked executive roles, thereby violating the doctrine of separation of powers and the accompanying checks and balances.

Throughout history, any representative body, be it legislature, a national conference or a sovereign national conference, is usually feared by the military and dreaded by the civilian executive because it represents the voice of the people. That was why an ad hoc conference of 1994 gave the military dictator, Gen. Sani Abacha, a terminal date in power.

So powerful is the National Assembly that, against the run of presidential opinion, the head of the anti-graft body was not cleared, thereby forfeiting his nomenclature of substantive authority.

The legislative organ should be the mirror of democracy. Although the judiciary can also curb the excesses of the power-loaded executive, it is the primary duty of the parliament to act as a proper legitimate check through its various oversight functions.

The executive should act in utter sensitivity to the presence of a very active and articulate legislature always ready to defend public interest through its monitoring of executive activities. It is often said that in presidential democracy, the president can sanction an “unwise” member of the legislature in national interest.

However, the doctrine of separation of powers does not anticipate acrimonious relationship among the organs, but a politically and constitutionally regulated relationship in an atmosphere of cooperation for public good.

On no account should there be rivalry between the two foremost arms of government. In many developing countries,  the contrary is the case. The African experience is that the parliament is envious of the executive as the dominant custodian, controller and dispenser of state resources. The executive, in the past, tried to cow the legislature, through financial control. The anomaly may have been erased by parliamentary financial autonomy.

Whenever the legislature musters the strength to enlist on the side of public interest, there will be a better service delivery by executive. The executive is made answerable to the people through their elected representatives who have the constructional powers to vet, inquire and even whip the executive to line.

Only a patriotic National Assembly can always rise to the occasion. When legislators aid and abet, when they demand for financial favours, or when they allow themselves to be financially induced by ministries and agencies under the executive arm, they are grossly compromised. It is a disservice to democracy.

Historians will reveal the details of the show of shame on the floor of the hallowed chamber during the third term debacle. It was a moment of national anxiety when the agents of the executive attempted to induce lawmakers to subvert the constitution. The people rose against the kleptocracy of the Upper Chamber.

The executive depends on the legislature for the passage of budget and screening of nominees for sensitive positions. The unnecessary controversy over budget padding generated a row. But, should lawmakers not include in the budget certain neglected aspects of expenditure not captured by budget drafters? Are the proposed projects inserted not for the benefit of their far flung constituencies? Do they have the power to do so? It is debatable.

The delay of parliamentary procedure for critical approvals can slow down governmental activities. This may have bearing on public welfare. Speed is required. It is important that the executive should always see the legislature as a partner, not in acrimony, but progress. It is desirable that skilled advisers and assistants should always be hired by the executive to conduct the business of democratic liaison between the two organs.

It is also incumbent on the National Assembly to monitor the implementation of budget by the executive to prevent failure.

The oversight functions of the parliament are very huge. In a corrupt society like Nigeria, effective discharge of the functions can foster probity, financial discipline, transparency and accountability.

The most important duty of the National Assembly is law making. It is a rigorous process. But, what is the worth of a bill that is passed into law without the consequential presidential asset? Can the National Assembly veto the president, If he refuse to assent?

There is the subsisting controversy over remuneration for legislators. Critics have alluded to an inexplicable jumbo pay. Effective discharge of parliamentary duties can shift attention to progress made instead of hidden reward for labour in the chambers.

In the last two years, the National Assembly has been on the weighing scale. Opinion is divided on the performance of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The National Assembly, according to the President and Speaker, are on course. The evidence is underscored by the number of Bills, resolutions and the discharge of oversight functions without hindrance. However,  many stakeholders believe there is an opportunity to do better. It is not a bad idea if lawmakers are regularly trained and retrained to keep abreast of international standards in lawmaking and oversight functions. Legislators should also give feedback to their constituents.

The current constitution review is a challenge to the National Assembly.  Representatives of ethnic nationalities and some civil society groups believe that nothing will come out of the money gulping endeavour. The reason is that the two previous attempts ended in a fiasco.

Also, there is no meeting point between the quest for a brand new constitution and piecemeal amendment. At issue is whether the review can herald true federalism.

The ethnic mouthpiece has maintained that the foundation of the National Assembly is faulty, being a product of a military imposed 1999 Constitution. To the former, only a national conference can give Nigeria a new peoples constitution. Instructively, the report of the 2004 and 2014 national conferences were thrown into the dustbin.

Also, parliamentarians are also baring their fangs, ready to assert the constitutionality of the institution of parliament. To them, the powers to amend is enshrined in the 1999 Constitution.

However, the National Assembly can really make a difference by making the resolution of the contentious national question the focus of the review. The important issues are devolution of power, state police, review of revenue allocation, fiscal federalism and resource control and affirmation of states’ control over local governments.

If these are not realised, the review is a waste of time and resources.