Despite the announcement Wednesday by the spokesman of the House of Representatives, Hon. Abdulrazaq Namdas, that a tweaked version of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill will be retransmitted to President Muhammadu Buhari for his assent, the leadership of the National Assembly has said that it will go ahead with plans to override the president’s veto.
This is just as the Senate thursday protested the injunction granted by a Federal High Court, Abuja, restraining it from overriding the president’s veto on the bill.
However, in an unexpected turn of events, Namdas on Wednesday said the National Assembly would expunge two amendments to the bill, but would retain the amended section that altered the sequence of elections, and retransmit the bill to the president for his asset.
Although THISDAY had tried to ascertain from the Senate if the House’s position had the concurrence of the upper legislative chamber, the Senate remained mum on the announcement all through Wednesday.
However, it emerged yesterday that there was some miscommunication between the Senate and House, as the leadership of the National Assembly has now agreed to go ahead and override the president’s veto on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill.
Sources among the leadership of both chambers confirmed to THISDAY yesterday that the announcement made by Namdas arose from lack of communication, as the House did not consult with the Senate before rushing to speak to the media on the issue.
They added that contrary to Namdas’ statement on the bill, it will not be resent to the president for his asset, nor would any of the amended sections be expunged, stressing that lobbying had entered high gear to either defeat the planned vote to override the veto or ensure it passes.
Namdas, during his briefing, said the lawmakers had agreed with two of the reasons tendered by the president in rejecting the amendments to bill.
The first was Section 138, which the Buhari had said would limit the rights of candidates in elections to a free and fair electoral review process.
The second was Section 152(3)-(5), which the president objected to on the grounds that it might raise constitutional issues over the competence of the National Assembly to legislate over local government elections.
The two sections would therefore be expunged, Namdas had said, adding however that the legislature did not agree with Buhari’s contention that the amendment to Section 25 of the Electoral Act, might infringe on the powers of INEC to organise and supervise elections.
The lawmakers had changed the sequencing of elections in the country for the National Assembly elections to be held first, before elections into the state Houses of Assembly and governorship on a separate day, while the presidential election would be conducted last, to complete the general election cycle.
Section 25 of the Principal Act was amended and substituted with a new Section 25(1) which provides that the elections shall be held in the following order: (a) National Assembly elections (b) State Houses of Assembly and Governorship elections (c) Presidential election.
The amendment is expected to whittle down the bandwagon effect of presidential elections on other elections.
THISDAY, however, gathered that the legal department of the National Assembly has proffered a position different from the announcement made by Namdas, contending that the reasons proffered by the president for vetoing the bill were faulty.
According to the legal advise of the department, which was obtained by THISDAY, the president’s position that the amendment to Section 25 of the Electoral Act might infringe on INEC powers was unjustified when considering that Section 76 of the Constitution had been amended in 2010 to provide that INEC will conduct elections in accordance with the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
The legal department further explained that the president was not explicit as to what aspects or in what manner the powers of INEC would be infringed upon if the amendment is passed.
The president’s position was therefore deemed too general, the advise from the legal department held.
The department further counselled that the grounds for rejecting the new Sub-section 3 of Section 138 on the grounds that it might limit the rights of candidates in elections to a free and fair electoral review process, was also misplaced.
Proffering reasons, the legal department said the new sub-section clarifies the ambiguity contained in Sub-section 1 of the Electoral Act and reinforces the standards in Sections 65, 106, 131 and 177 of the Constitution. This is also because it provides that no person shall be qualified to contest elections in breach of Sections 66, 107, 137 and 182 of the Constitution.
The advisory also noted that the president’s rejection of the amendments to Section 152(3)-(5) was not right, as it was within the competence of the federal legislative body to make laws in respect of the procedures regulating elections into the local government areas in the country.
“The matter has also been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General of Abia State & Ors v Attorney General of the Federation,” the legal department held.
ThisDay
