NASS committed to electoral reform – Senator Braimoh
Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee on Culture, Tourism and National Orientation, Senator Yisa Braimoh (PDP, Edo North), speaking in an interview in Abuja says the Senate has done well so far and the National Assembly is committed to electoral reform.
By Ben Agande
How would you assess the third legislative session of the Senate that ended on June 3, this year?
I will say that the session was quite exciting, interesting, and somewhat exerting. It is on record that a total of 119 executive and private members’ bills were presented to the Senate. 114 bills were read for the first time; 40 of those read for the first time passed the second reading while 13 of the bills were considered and passed by the Senate. Only one of the bills was negatived.
The records are there with the Rules and Business Committee under the chair of Senator Aloysius Etok. The Senate passed 27 resolutions in the period under review and you would recall the historic resolution, based on the Doctrine of Necessity, which empowered Goodluck Jonathan, who was then Vice President, to step in the saddle as Acting President.
The Senate met its constitutional 181 minimum sitting days. Considerations of bills and motions by senators in plenary sessions were robust. As many senators that were given the opportunity and/or recognized by the presiding officer to contribute during debates tried his or her best possible to articulate his or her positions to add perspectives to the issues under focus.
It is worthy of note that it was in the last session that the first private member bill on the critical Local Content in the oil sector (sponsored by Lee Ledogo Maeba) was passed and signed into law by President Jonathan. Significantly, the Senate was also able to pass the first amendment(s) to the 1999 Constitution in the session under review and has set out to deal with the Bill to amend the Electoral Act. All these efforts are intended to bolster the electoral reform, make future elections credible and deepen the democratic process. If you ask me, I will say that the National Assembly is committed to this agenda and has so far remained steadfast.
What should be the expectation of Nigerians now and do you, as an individual, still harbor some fears at this point in the constitution amendment process?
Let me put this way: Nigerians should expect a new Constitution. That has been the desire of the majority of the people: to have a document that will guarantee the well being of the people and on whose basis the social contract between the governments and the governed can be negotiated and renegotiated in a democratic milieu.
There is need for a constitution that will ensure that those in government are accountable to the people since they hold offices in trust for the people.  As the custodians of the sacred mandate of the people and/or the electorate, I believe that the provisions of the constitution should not be worded in such a way as to strengthen the hands of those in government against the people.
These are the things that the first amendment that has been undertaken by the National Assembly seeks to achieve in the area of election and processes leading to it. The process of removing the imperfections and impurities in the document has moved far and it is expected that it will be a continuous one. The exercise should not stop with this sixth session of the National Assembly. Now, the first amendment to the constitution, as approved by the National Assembly, has been passed on to the State Houses of Assembly for their approval. I expect that the State Legislatures should look at the document dispassionately and through the prism of national interest. If that is done, all these movements or actions should crystallize in a new Constitution. But as to whether there are fears being harboured, I think there are.
The fears have to do with the forthcoming general elections, whether or not the reviewed Constitution and the Electoral Act on which work is yet to be concluded, would become operational well ahead of the second proposal by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to hold the general elections in April 2011.
As it were, the first proposal of January 2011 appears impossible because of a number of factors. For instance, the administrative machinery of INEC at the topmost leadership level has just been emplaced. Some time has been wasted already to the detriment of the January 2011 proposed date for election, which is the first option by INEC then under Professor Maurice Iwu. Indeed, feelers from INEC have continued to indicate that it would take between seven and eight months to adequately prepare for the next general elections in terms of updating the voters’ register, printing the sensitive (ballot papers) and non-sensitive materials and going through the entire gamut of preparations for the polls. For a new leadership that has just come in, more time would be needed to acclimatize and stabilize. So, I think the April 2011 proposal should be more feasible. Indeed, the nation and the INEC will need Godspeed to painstakingly put everything in place; otherwise elections may turn out to be largely the same with the previous polls.
We must avert shoddy arrangements for the elections on account of shortness of time. I pray we get it right. Getting it right requires the cooperation of all.
Your assessment of the Senate despite the March 17 (2010) screening and confirmation of a nominee from your state for appointment as a part-time representative on the Board of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) despite your opposition, appeared generous. Why?
You certainly are referring to the confirmation of Omorodion by the Senate. That was the decision of the Senate and since it was the decision of the Senate to confirm him despite opposition by me and another of my colleagues from the State, Senator Odion Ugbesia, I accepted it and I will not denigrate both the decision and the Senate. I am bound to respect the resolution of the Senate.
Even if the Executive arm of government is not always disposed to respecting the resolutions of the Senate, the Senate and its members are bound to do so. That was why I felt sad when another of my colleagues from Edo South, Senator Ehigie Uzamere went out of his way in a recent press interview published in Vanguard newspapers to appropriate the resolution of the Senate as his own. It was not. He said he defeated Ugbesia and myself because Omorodion, whose nomination he supported, was confirmed by the Senate. With all due respect, what he has demonstrated is lack of understanding of the workings of the Parliament.
A senator does not defeat another senator on the floor. Every senator is free to canvass positions and opinions on the floor; but the ultimate decision resides in the entire Senate which will vote on questions put by the presiding officer. Uzamere did not defeat us. He could not have defeated us if the voting were to be restricted to the three of us from Edo State. We would have carried the day by a vote of two to one. But the entire Senate voted and the decision to confirm Omorodion became Senate resolution. In fact, the records are there. The positions I took are in the official report of the Senate and I have no regrets taking those positions.
But then, the Senate Committee on Niger Delta screened the nominee and presented a report that was considered by the Senate. Looking back, would you say your positions were justifiable and that the Senate was wrong in its decision to confirm him?
If you want to set me on a collision course with the Senate, you will not succeed. I am knowledgeable to know that the Senate took a decision, which is binding on me and others. It will be out of place for me to now turn around to castigate the Senate. But if you ask me if I would still canvass the positions and observations I made, if the same scenario presents itself in the future, despite the resolution by the Senate, I will tell you that I gladly will to the extent that I believe my positions were justifiable even though they were not acceptable to the Senate. As I said the Senate took a resolution and it is binding.
Now, the positions I canvassed are on record. I drew the attention of the Upper House to a number of issues on which I based my argument that Omorodion was not a fit and proper person to represent my state on the Board of the NDDC.
Ugbesia and I addressed a memorandum to the James Manager-led Committee and the thrust of the memo was the deficiencies and inadequacies in the CVs of Omorodion. In the first CV he presented, there were details, including date of birth, place of origin, place of birth, certificates obtained, where, et cetera, that were missing and we believed these were concealed to mislead, perhaps, the Committee.
In fact, you would recall that I raised the question of certificates that were claimed to have been obtained by Omorodion; and one of those certificates was very critical to participation in the NYSC which is condition precedent for employment in this country. There was nowhere in the report of the James Manager Committee that it was stated that the original copy of the certificate which he claimed to have obtained in 1982 was sighted and/or verified.
The report did not also indicate that the Committee sighted and/or verified the Certificate of College of Education which was a condition precedent to have done the NYSC in 1982.  I also raised the issue of the identity of the person being considered for confirmation. What was reflected in the report was one Mr. Donald Igiede Omorodion.
This same person, after our memorandum to the Senate Committee, after he was screened, proceeded to obtain what was referred to as a letter from NYSC. The name on the letter from NYSC was one Mr. Igiede Donald Osapolor Aaron. I remember asking if he was the same person we wanted to confirm. I drew the attention of the Senate to the fact that we might be confirming the wrong person, who I believe did not participate in the NYSC. But my observations and positions were discountenanced. The Senate, and not Uzamere, had its way and I respect the decision of the Senate, which I would not say was wrong. It was right to the extent that the question as to whether or not to confirm Omorodion was put and the majority of senators voted in favour.
