THE ALLEGATION OF SENATE STANDING RULES FORGERY PERSECUTION OR PROSECUTION

THE ALLEGATION OF SENATE STANDING RULES FORGERY PERSECUTION OR PROSECUTION 
                                By: 
Nurudeen Dauda-
June 28, 2016
nurudeendauda24@gmail.com 
nurudeendauda24@yahoo.com 
nurudeendauda.blogspot.com
                                nurudeendauda24@yahoo.com
Let’s leave the “shadow” and chase the “substance” of the case. The “substance” of the allegation being whether a crime has been committed or not. Whether a political vendetta or witch-hunt or not! Has the crime being committed or not? Let’s make no mistake by deviating from the “substance”. Those who come to equity must come with clean hands! For anyone to contemplate altering the Standing Rules of the Senate one must have observed that perhaps 90% of The Senators do not read their Standing Rules (Order) or knowing full well that Majority of the Senators are first-timers(about 76 Senators of the 109 Senate) who might not have known the previous rules.  
SOME FUNDAMENTAL ALLEGATION ON THE AMENDMENTS IN THE 2O11 AND 2015 STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE ARE: (1) On Method of voting provided in sections 3(3e) (i&ii), (f) and (k). THE 2011 STANDING ORDERS PROVIDES in section 3(3e) that When only two senators-elect are nominated and seconded as presidents of the Senate, the election shall be conducted as follows;(i)the Senate shall divide with proposers and seconders as Tellers;(ii)voting shall be conducted by the clerk-at-the-table using Division List of the Senate with the Tellers in attendance. The Clerk of the Senate shall submit the result of the division to the Clerk of the National Assembly ;(iii)the clerk shall then declare the senate-elect who has received the greater number of votes elected as President of Senate.
ON THE ALLEGE 2015 STANDING ORDERS AS AMENDED INTRODUCED: Electronic voting and secret ballot system to the procedure. The document provides in section 3(3e) that When two or more senators-elect are nominated and seconded as Senate president, the election shall be conducted as follows;(i) by electronic voting, or (ii) voting by secret ballot which shall be conducted by the clerk-at-table using the list of the senators-elect of the Senate, who shall each be given a ballot paper to cast his vote, with proposers and seconders as Tellers.(iii)The Clerk of the Senate shall submit the result of the voting to the Clerk of the National Assembly, who shall then declare the senate-elect who has received the highest number of votes as Senate President-elect.
(2) ON VOTING PATTERN PROPOSED BY THE SENATE ORDERS 2011 provides an election process where all senators are required to OPENLY DECLARE SUPPORT FOR CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE, while the allegedly forged 2015 version provides FOR SECRECY in the voting procedure. 
(3) ON RIGHT OF SENATORS-ELECT TO VOTE DURING THE INAUGURATION SITTING: Section 3(3k) of the Standing Rule 2011 provides that all senators-elect shall participate in the nomination and voting for the president and deputy president of the senate. On the other hand, the 2015 version provides in its section 3(i) that all senators-elect are entitled to participate in the voting for Senate President and Deputy Senate President.
“In a letter to the Police, challenging the amendments to the rules, members of the Unity Forum contented that at NO TIME was the Senate Standing Rule 2011 amended during the 7th Senate. The Police after its investigation concluded that the amendment to the Senate Standing Rules was illegal as it failed to follow laid down procedures provided by Section 110 as amended. In his statement to the Police, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Business in the 7th Senate, Senator Ita Enang,said the standing Order was not amended. Enang told the Police that the committee proposed the amendment of the 2011 standing order, but up to the expiration of their tenure, the proposal was not debated and approved or rejected at any sitting”-(Daily Trust Sunday :June 26,2016:P.6). Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, Senate Majority Leader of the 7th Senate, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) said that: " at no time did the 7th Senate amend the Standing Orders 2011…” --(Daily Trust Sunday :June 26,2016:P.6).
Senator Abdullahi A. Gumel said, During the induction course of the National Assembly, he was given a copy of the Senate Standing Order 2011(as amended) as the rule book to guide their conduct and working in the Senate. On resumption of the 8th Senate, a new standing Order 2015 as amended was shared to them with which all the Businesses of the Senate are being conducted.
THE LITIGATION:  Based on the recommendation of the Police investigation report dated July 14, 2015, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, on behalf of the Federal republic of Nigeria, sued the accused before a Federal High Court in Abuja. Former Clerk of the National Assembly, Salisu Abubakar Maikasuwa, outgoing clerk of the Senate, Ben Efeturi, President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki and Deputy President of Senate, Ike Eweremadu, are charged with conspiracy and forgery, an action contrary to sections 97 and 362 of the Penal Code law.
 LIKELY CONSEQUENCIES UPON COVICTIONS: The offence if confirmed upon conviction is punishable under section 364 of the penal code laws; the punishment of for forgery carries a punishment of a jail term of 14 years, a lawyer said. Mr Festus Okoye said that forgery was a serious offence, but added that its punishment would depend on the law in which the accused were charged-Penal Code (PC) or the Criminal Code (CC). According to him, the first consequence of being convicted for forgery would be a sentence to a jail term. Secondly, convicts will not be able to contest elections again. He added, however, that for someone already in the National Assembly, it will be different.
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE SENATE STANDING ORDERS: Section 110 of the Senate Standing Order 2011 provides that (i) any senator desiring to amend any part of the rules or adding any new clause shall give a notice of such amendments in writing to the president of the Senate, giving details of proposed amendment;(ii) the president shall, within seven working days, cause the amendment to be printed and circulated to the members. Thereafter it shall be printed in the Order paper;(iii)the mover or movers of the amendments shall be allowed to explain in details, the proposed amendments; thereafter the Senate shall decide by simple majority votes whether the amendment should be considered;(iv)if the decision is to consider the amendments, then another date shall be set aside by the rules and Business Committee, whereby an opportunity would be given to senators to further propose amendments, but must strictly be confined to the original amendments;(v)two third majorities shall decide the amendments, and such amendments shall form part of the Rules of the Senate. 
However, it is very easy to determine whether there is alteration between the Standing Orders of the 7th Senate (2011-2015) and the 8th Senate (2015-2019). Each every Senator is entitled to copy of the Standing Order at the beginning of every Senate. The Senator that raised the alert on the forgery was a member of the 7th Senator as well as the 8th Senate which probably meant he must have compared the Rules given to him.
What is fundamental is whether the forgery has been committed or not! Let the court determines whether the rules have been altered or not! The two (2) parties in contention argued that:(1) the rules have been altered (2) the rules have not been altered. Let the Law takes its course! Let the accused prove their innocence!
It is unthinkable or rather hypocritical to say that prosecution will distract the government from solving the numerous challenges facing the country after all the “Chief prosecution” officer of the land (the Attorney General of the Federation has no any Business being in government other than prosecution. While the Chief Law officer of the land focuses on job of prosecution the ministers of Power, Works and Housing; Transport, Labour and employment and Finance etc., will concentrate on their jobs of provisions of Roads, Power, Housing and Jobs etc. However, the concept of separation of power does not base it argument on individuals but rather institutions namely: (1) Executive,(2) Legislature, and (3) Judiciary . The heads of the three institutions come and go while the institution remains. There is difference between Institutional prosecution and Individual prosecution.

Assuming the allegation is true, is it right? Or should it be overlooked?  However, if the allegation is false, I am of the opinion that a severe damage be charged against the petitioners. Our Laws must be obeyed and adhered to irrespective of who ox may be got. 
May God bless Nigeria!

Popular posts from this blog

ISRAEL V. PALESTINE :THE HYPOCRISY OF TWO STATES SOLUTION

ISRAEL V. PALESTINE :THE HYPOCRISY OF TWO STATES SOLUTION                             By:                 Nurudeen Dauda                October 19, 2023 nurudeendauda24@yahoo.com nurudeendauda24@gmail.com nurudeendauda.blogspot.com "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict"-Martin Luther King, Jr. Permit me to add my voice on the ongoing massacre of women, children, and armless civilians in Palestine. In my thought, it is not about who triggers the present massacre of the Palestinians , but it is time to talk about the 76 years of massacre of women, children, and the armless civilians of Palestine by the state of Israel which is being watched helplessly by the entire world. Before 1948, the Jews worldwide lived predominantly outside Palestine.They lived predominantly in easter...
Read more

INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY ON THE WAY

INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY ON THE WAY                                By:                          May 19th, 2023 nurudeendauda24@yahoo.com nurudeendauda24@gmail.com nurudeendauda.blogspot.com Barring any last minute changes a "bill" for the recognition of an independent candidacy will be transmitted to Mr president for his "assent". In my thought, if the "bill" is finally "signed" into law it will largely "checkmate" the "excesses" of "governors" and "moneybags" politicians who often denied "credible" candidates "tickets"in order to pave ways for their "anointed" ones no matter their weaknesses. In our modern day politics, we have had enough cases where "credible", "competent", and "popular" candidates loss primary elections due to lack of "money" or "godfather" or state governor's anointment.  In my thought, allowing independent...
Read more

ZAINAB'S ORDEAL: A CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESSES

ZAINAB'S ORDEAL: A CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESSES                         By              Nurudeen Dauda                May 5, 2019 nurudeendauda24@gmail.com nurudeendauda24@yahoo.com nurudeendauda.blogspot.com To begin with, there is now an alleged "drug cartel" in our airports which specialised in planting drugs on unsuspecting airtravellers. Of the six alleged members of the drug cartel arrested in connection with planting of Tramadol in a bag bearing Zainab Habibu Aliyu's name, three were said to be "clearing agents", two were said to be staff of a"security company" and one a staff of an "airline handling company". In my observation, the arrest of Miss Aliyu in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in respect of 2000 packs of "Tramadol" said to be found in a bag bearing her name has nothing , but succeeded in exposing our institutional weaknesses.Heads shoul...
Read more