By Bisi Lawrence
The lady must have been a natural southpaw the way she lashed out at her fellow  legislator, who was, fortunately a real gentleman.

The lady— we’ll continue to call her that, not for want of a more suitable description, but to retain some respect for the venue of her sustained assault —allowed no restraint on her determined attack in the “hallowed” chamber of the House of Representatives, while her victim did not raise a hand to retaliate, he absorbed two furious open-handed blows to the body while vainly trying to reason with his aggressive law-maker who was busy looking for a hay-maker.

Such incidents, regrettably, are no longer a rarity. At the drop of a pin in our House of Representatives, it is now almost the norm for tempers to rise and fists to fly. It has become the shameful habit of shameless “honourable” men – and women.

Kawu Baraje

It took the imbroglio that has now consumed the rank and file of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to bring it up once again on the floor of the Lower House.

While the internecine challenges which have fractionalized the PDP continue to fester in the open for all to see, the high officials of the organization persist in calling it a “family” dissension.

A State Governor’s aircraft is grounded, whilst permission to operate is denied another; the normal running of a State House of Assembly is suspended whilst the House of Representatives is mandated to assume its responsibilities; a State Governor is barred the usual entry to his official residence by the police on the orders of their boss who is openly at daggers drawn with his State Executive; several ministers are relieved of their positions because of their putative connections with the break-away faction of the ruling party; a full-fledged faction flaunts a rampant stance in the face of everybody— and all of that is called “family”?

To expect anyone to believe that is the apogee of naivety. But that is probably what they call “politics”. Unfortunately, it is also an example of the insincerity and levity with which the PDP is prone to treat the entire nation about issues that demand a serious approach.

It is as though the rest of us are totally ignorant about what is happening around us. But now one may wonder: how did the purely domestic matter of a political party erupt into a rumpus in the House of Representatives? It was at the instance of the splinter group which felt impelled to carry their case before the members of the House of Representatives, The other group had also shown a willingness to do the same, but backed away at the last minute from the bizarre move, probably sensing the unpleasant reception that it would face. But the Baraje-led faction, variously referred to as the New PDP, or nPDP, opted to pursue the unusual course.

The situation into which the party had thrown itself was awful enough, one might have thought, without involving the membership of the House of Representatives. While it is normal for the legislators to be involved as politicians in an issue that is politically red-hot, they should have been left to react as individuals or under the auspices of their own contrived caucuses. All along they had been holding a series of meetings which they presented as the stepping-stones to an imminent resolution of the differences which had elicited so much bitterness and victimization from the parent body – which ostensibly holds the reins of government.

But they rise from each meeting with their swords still unsheathed, yet with the fable that their difficulties would soon be eliminated. In fact, it was such a meeting that immediately preceded the move to address the House of Representatives, and the subsequent fracas.

From this distance and the view it affords at the moment, there is hardly anyone who can correctly predict what may happen to this party, the PDP that is, and to this country as a consequence. We have a tight logjam here. From the body language of the parent body, the core demands of the splinter group will definitely not be met, except in one or two instances and grudgingly at that. For instance, it would be nothing short of capitulation to accede to the removal of Tukur from the chairmanship of the party, unless a face-saving ploy of unusual magnitude could be devised. A tone of disingenuousness pervades the other areas of the disagreement where some concessions seem to have been granted, but those do not include ­and will never include —President Goodluck Jonathan’s “avowed intent” to retain the presidency. And this is really the crux of the matter.

But no matter what happens later, we have to decide to offer due respect to our legislative houses. These are the temples in which we have enshrined our belief as a nation in the rule of law. Our behaviour in any of the chambers of law-making must evince our respect for the institutions we have devised for our well-being, and by which we strive to sustain our integrity. Scuffles and affrays must cease in our parliament from today. A law should be made against such a distasteful and demeaning practice.

 Jesus is Lord

Echoes: I usually find your forays into religious matters interesting. I can see that you are a Christian. Which denomination do you belong to, and why? I am a Roman Catholic and I believe it is the first and best. Would you like to share your views?

Not particularly, as a matter of fact. Religion is a very personal item in a human being’s life, and sharing views may easily lead to offence. For instance, in no more than five sentences above, you have already attacked my denomination.

That precisely was what you did when you stated that Roman Catholicism “is the first and the best”. You implied that my own choice is worse, and that is offensive already. I shall not defend that choice actually, except to depose that no denomination is perfect. I was once a Roman Catholic myself. I married in the Holy Cross Cathedral in Lagos.

I had to seek for another way of worshipping Christ when I came up against doubts that I could not surmount about the quality of my devotions. I presented these issues to several priests but had no satisfaction. So I left and embraced Anglicanism into which I was born, in the first place. And would you believe that I ran smack dab into the issues from which I had run away in the Roman Catholic Church? It had to do with images.

It was in my old church, a cathedral too. It had now acquired a new occupant in the form of a carving installed within the sanctuary.

Anyone in robes — priests, vergers, choristers, the lot — went before it and bowed at the beginning or some specific phase of the religious service. I was aghast! For twenty-six years I made my resentment known. I had few takers– but I did have some and some of them even left the church while I was still campaigning against this thing I described as an “effigy.”

I complained to one administrator of the church who took umbrage at my protests which he said could “divide” the church. That frightened me no end. Then when he left, I raised the matter with his replacement whom I knew rather well, and with whom I had previously discussed the matter of the effigy when he was in another parish.

He had fervently supported my views at that time, so I felt I had found a kindred spirit who would offer me his full support. But when I broached the matter before him now that he was in charge, he sounded very embarrassed. So I went to the top.

I spoke to the Bishop who promised to look into the matter. But his lordship was usually busy and there was an extent beyond which one does not worry a bishop. So I let  the matter drop for a while.

But I still had one ploy left. I belonged to a very important society in the church, and I was confident that the members would see my point of view. So I got myself invited to a committee meeting where I could present my case.

I was warmly received, but not so my presentation. And it was all so clear to me. The Second Commandment states: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down before them or serve them … “ What could be more lucid?

The caveat, “of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth beneath” definitely includes God Himself and, by inference, Jesus Christ.

Thus He states that we should not make an idol of Him, because if you make an effigy of God you can only worship it since it is God. I would have liked to delve a bit deeper, but you should get what I mean.

I have nothing against Roman Catholics; I have issues with Roman Catholicism. I have issues with denominations —the very idea of it. But if you are a Christian, you would belong to one. The important thing is also to belong to Jesus. Jesus is Lord,

Time out.