Delegates at the ongoing National
Conference in Abuja may vote in favour of the removal of immunity clause
from the constitution, if the growing consensus of opinion on this
issue among members is anything to go by.
Saturday PUNCH investigations
showed that proponents of an amendment to Section 308 of the Nigerian
Constitution, which deals with immunity for the President and state
governors, had begun moves to ensure that the proposal sailed through.
Saturday Punch learnt that the
proponents were already discussing with other delegates to ensure they
got the required votes to delete the clause from the nation’s
constitution.
Further checks revealed that delegates from across the country were ready to vote against the clause.
In separate interviews with Saturday PUNCH, delegates from different parts of the country supported the removal of immunity clause especially for criminal cases.
According to them, any president or governor that commits a criminal offence should step aside for prosecution.
The House of Representatives, in its
ongoing constitutional amendment debate, had voted in favour of the
amendment of Section 308 of the constitution which stipulates immunity
for selected elected government functionaries.
The amendment seeks to remove immunity from a President or governor facing criminal prosecution.
But the Senate retained the immunity
clause for both civil and criminal suits. Both chambers will meet later
to reconcile their positions.
Specifically, Section 308 of the
constitution states, “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
constitution, but subject to subsection (2) of this section.
“(A) no civil or criminal proceedings
shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section
applies during his period of office;
“(B) A person to whom this section
applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in
pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and
“(C) No process of any court requiring
or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies,
shall be applied for or issued;
“Provided that in ascertaining whether
any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings
against a person to whom this section applies, no account shall be
taken of his period of office.”
The section applies to the President, the vice-president, state governors and their deputies.
But opposing this section of the constitution, delegates at the National Conference from the north, in separate interviews with Saturday PUNCH, argued that the immunity clause was being used as a cover-up by corrupt public office holders to loot the nation’s treasury.
A conference delegate of the civil
society groups, Auwal Rafsanjani, said the clause had outlived its
usefulness and should be removed.
According to him, the immunity clause,
has over the years, been used as a cover-up for the looting and outright
stealing of Nigerians’ common patrimony.
He said, “It is so bad that the people
who enjoy this immunity evade justice even after their tenure because of
our weak and corrupt institutions.
“You can get away with acts of
corruption especially if you are a member of the ruling party. In other
words, immunity has served as an incentive for those who want to loot.
“The only reason some people are
requesting that immunity be retained is to protect public office holders
from being distracted. But anybody taking up public office must realise
that if they do anything wrong, they must face the music.”
Rafsanjani explained that in other
climes, when a public office holder commits a crime, he either resigns,
or is asked to go and face prosecution.
This, he said, makes public office
holders to be careful and desist from doing things that could portray
them and their offices in bad light. He explained that the reverse was
the case in Nigeria because people commit these crimes with impunity.
He reiterated that these crimes were not
restricted to financial crimes, adding that they included human rights
violations and other infractions.
Another delegate from Kano State, Dr.
Junaid Mohammed, said he would support the retention of the immunity
clause only for the president and the vice-president.
He said, “I expressed the position of
Kano State on the issue in the last exercise which is that immunity
should be confined to the sovereign who should be the President and the
Vice- President.”
Mohammed said the position was accepted
unanimously but later dropped following arguments put forward by a
retired court judge who joined the discussions later.
He, however said, “Now the issue is
coming back and I have no doubt in my mind that this conference as I see
it, given the opportunity, will vote the immunity clause out and
retain only that of the sovereign.”
Another delegate from Borno State,
Mohammed Kumaila, said, “I believe it should be removed as it would
enhance good governance, reduce impunity and corruption.”
However, the Secretary General of the Middle Belt Forum, Mr. John Dara, has a slightly different opinion.
He said, “The President should still enjoy full immunity, while governors should be given partial immunity.
“An American governor was caught saying on telephone that he would sell a vacant senatorial seat.
“He was indicted and impeached.
Governors should be protected from civil litigations (and) not from
criminal offences which include corruption offences.”
Also, the spokesperson for the
pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, Mr. Yinka Odumakin, said
that the clause must be expunged from the constitution to tackle
corruption in the country.
He said, “I back the removal of immunity
clause because when you have a presidential system of government and
you have immunity clause, you are building a monarchy.
“To that extent, immunity mandates
corruption. For civil offences, immunity can stay; but for criminal
offences, immunity must go.
“To tackle corruption in this country,
you have to change the constitution. When you concentrate power in the
centre, it brings two things–corruption and inefficiency. The structure
we run presently encourages and mandates corruption. Until we change
that, we cannot move forward.’’
In the South-South, a former Minister
of Housing, Chief Ndueso Essien, said many Nigerians would support the
removal of immunity clause because governors had been enjoying so much
power while some of them had been operating recklessly.
Essien expressed the need for the President and governors to be protected from civil litigations.
According to him, such litigations could distract the Executive from achieving its developmental goals.
He stated, “Definitely, many of us
support the removal of the immunity clause in the Nigerian Constitution
because it (immunity clause) has given the governors too much power.
Some of them operate recklessly. That is why some of them are desperate
to be in the Senate.
“However, they (President and governors)
should be protected from civil litigations in order to avoid anything
that will prevent them from achieving their developmental goals for the
state and the country,” Essien said.
On how to solve the
problem of corruption, he said, “The concentration of so much power at
the centre is not good for the country. When the military took over in
1966, they adjusted the constitution to suit the military government.
Copyright PUNCH.
