Jibrin’s suspension casts the House in a bad light

There is no doubt that most lawmakers have read the constitution, but it is not clear if some understand it. A similar suspension like the one just meted out to Hon. Abdulmumin Jibrin has been proven to be unconstitutional.

By suspending Jibrin for a period of 180 legislative days, in line with the powers of the House to discipline its members, the lawmakers, in their anger, went overboard.

Though some Nigerians have some reservations about the timing of Jibrin’s allegations, many see him as a whistleblower. (Jibrin had made damning allegations on the Speaker, Hon. Yakubu Dogara, after he was removed from a prestigious committee by the Speaker.)

Granted, Jibrin has been a nuisance to the establishment in both parliaments – the House and Senate. In his bid to payback the Speaker, he sensationalized a usually activity of our lawmakers.

In trying to explain his case against Dogara, this is what Jibrin said about budget padding: “Even though the law allows it, this time it is senseless.  I saw the insertions in budgets of 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The only difference is that in 2016, the insertions went completely above the board.”

He actually sees nothing wrong with budget padding, but argues that Dogara went “above the board’’ in padding this year’s budget. Interesting, isn’t it?  But unfortunately for him, the ‘youthful exuberance and talkativeness’ he has been displaying by referring to the House as corrupt angered the establishment.

But anger is not enough to stand the country’s constitution on its head. Section 68 of the country’s constitution states clearly the conditions under which a lawmaker can be suspended. (Clearly these conditions have not been met in Jibrin’s case.)  In 2010, the court reaffirmed the position of the law when Senator Dino Melaye sought redress in the court after he was suspended by the same House of Representatives.

Even a non-supporter of Jibrin could see that his case was heard with the speed of light. This, itself, cast doubt on the fairness of the hearing, especially when it can be recalled that the embattled lawmaker accused the Ossai Nicholas-led committee, which was set-up to look into the allegations he made, of bias.

Jibrin had even acted like a typical Nigerian politician by running to the courts to refrain the House of Representatives from suspending him when he got wind of the plans to suspend him.

But the House did not mind that the case was already in court and that Jibrin had submitted his evidence ‘of corruption’ against principal members of the house to the ICPC and EFCC. It went ahead to suspended Jibrin for contravening Order 6, rules 1-4 of the House Standing Order and Chapter 9, paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct rules of the House.

It is important to note that no law or rule within Nigeria supersedes its constitution.

Besides, it is not clear where the House got the 180 legislative days suspension from. Though Section 60 of the constitution gives the parliament the right to regulate its activities, the duration of any suspension is not spelt out in the Legislative Powers and Privilege Act.

When the same house decided to suspend Dino Melaye’s for one year, Justice Adamu Bello of the Abuja High Court ruled that the House has no such power to suspend a lawmaker for more than 2 weeks according to the statue books. Has the House amended the statue book Justice Adamu Bello referred to? Even if it has been amended, it is not superior to Section 68 of the 1999 constitution!

Though Section of 24 of the Legislative Act states that any person who publishes anything which is incorrect in order to defame the parliament has committed an offence, it has not been proven beyond doubt that Jibrin was lying.

More importantly, by suspending Jibrin without showing the public that he was given a fair hearing – since Jibrin had criticized the composition of the Ethics and Privileges Committee and absented himself from the hearings – the house has presented itself as a very opaque and mean institution.

Perception, they say, is everything. From public opinion, many believe nothing has changed in the House. In fact, some refer to what has happened as a ‘’tyranny of the majority’’.