By Obi Nwakanma

The Nigerian National Assembly has done great disservice to Nigerians in the nineteen years since the restoration of the Republic. It has accomplished little, and it has more or less aided and abetted executive brigandage, and reduced public governance to a criminal enterprise. Nigerians themselves are in part to blame.

Over and over, they have elected legislators, many of whom are ignorant of the real significance of their mandate. Many of the people we sent to represent us in parliament are mentally, morally, and intellectually unprepared for the task of law-making, and most have never understood the place, or significance of an elected parliament in the workings of a democratic state. The Nigerian electorate it seems have also never understood the importance of seeking out and electing its finest into the Legislative Assemblies.

The result is a terribly weak nation-state, an executive arm that has assumed more power than is healthy for the republic, and a law-making process that has generally enabled corruption, visionlessness, and the betrayal of the people. It is worse in the states where the Assemblies are mostly rubber stamp conventions, where executive governors assert enormous influence, simply by doling out bribes to corrupt legislators who have never made laws to check executive subterfuge, nor provided the necessary oversight for the good governance of the federating states.

Imo State is a case in point. It has had the worst state house of Assembly of any state since the restoration of the republic. It has never done its duty to the people who elected them. The Imo state Assembly has aided all the governors to destroy Imo state, and to bring it to her knees.

Last week, Mr. Rochas Okorocha authorized the sacking of 7000 civil servants in the State’s Service. His excuse is that Imo state is broke and can longer carry the burden of personnel overheads. Payroll is high, and the government is in the red. Imo state’s problem he said is compounded by the pay-offs it has to make to the Federal Government on the bail-out funds it recently collected. The question is actually quite simple: did the Imo state House of Assembly permit the Imo state governor to collect bailout funds on behalf of the Imo state government? Under which financial laws was the bailout secured? It is the constitutional role of the Legislature in a democracy to make laws that give authority to the executive arm to enter into any financial obligation on behalf of the state government.

Failure to secure such an act of the parliament before entering such a commitment amounts to executive recklessness, and is an impeachable offence. The Imo State people must, through their elected Assembly, summarily contest any indebtedness to the Federal Government on any bailout secured on its behalf without the authority of the state Assembly. In actual fact, the president of the Federation, just by a cursory look at the constitution, broke the laws of the nation in acting without the backing of a properly constituted National Assembly in authorizing a bailout for the states, and it seems to me made forfeit his claims to any moral or constitutional protection.

President Buhari’s action in unilaterally approving bailout funds to the states ought not to have the binding effect of law, and is in actual fact, another example of executive overreach and recklessness subject to Parliamentary investigation, and possible impeachment – but only if Nigeria had an up and doing Legislature.

The Executive Governor of Imo state seems equally guilty on many fronts of financial recklessness and by his actions has mortgaged the well-being of Imo people, and it seems appropriate to me that he ought to face a panel of the Imo State House, and his possible impeachment explored for such recklessness.

But this is a vain call, at best, because the legislature have, as I have said, aided every kind of executive recklessness, largely because Imo people have always managed to elect second rate people into such an important arm of government as the Legislature. It is sad that those who have been elected have never understood that the Legislature in any democracy is the highest power of the land. The parliament is funded by an Act of Parliament. The parliament decides which mandate of the governor must be funded through its hold on the treasury. Without its authority no money can be released to the Government by the Accountant-General.

The Executive could never pass a budget, enter into financial obligation, or even enter any contracts without the assent of the Legislature. The parliament can make laws to reform any government, investigate government’s accounts, and create any public mandate. Yet over the years, the executive has taken the initiative and subdued these Assemblies, and turned them into rubber stamp Assemblies, where no serious issues are raised. Among the most awkward, and possibly unconstitutional and contradictory means by which the Executive has grabbed power is through something called the “Executive Bill.” It is the bill which the President, or the state governor introduces to pass into legislation. This is preposterous in a Presidential system. Under the Presidential system, the President has no right or power to introduce a bill to Parliament.

The only one time the president can do this is when he sends in his budget, which is more of a “request” than a “bill.” The Bill is passed following work done at the Ways and Means Committee which pushes for the annual spending bill, after the Assembly has normally debated, sometimes shaved off or amended in some respect, the budget which it returns to the president or Governor for his assent.

At no other time in a presidential system is a president or governor able to introduce a bill to parliament. The president may of course suggest the passing of bills, but on this occasion, he works with the Leadership of his Party in Parliament if his party has the requisite majority in the Houses, or if he has a minority party in the house, through very serious series of negotiation with the various Majority and Minority Whips of the Assembly.

Only in a Parliamentary system can a Prime Minister, as head of government introduce or send a bill for debate in parliament, and there is reason for which the presidential system forbids this. It is because clear executive power resides with the President. To acquire extra legislative capacity countermands the firm balance of power under the tradition of checks and balances. This actually is quite elementary. But the Nigerian Legislators, since Obasanjo have allowed this anomaly, and it has corrupted the system. It was an executive bill, for instance, that was sent to the National Assembly, which placed enormous power to conduct the “war on terrorism” on the office of the National Security Adviser. This is a profound anomaly.

Given that this office is an advisory position, its funding ought to be from the budget of the executive office of the president. It should have no capacity to dispense funds, or procure arms, or fight terrorism. But the 7th Assembly failed in its scrutiny, and in not doing due diligence, passed an “Executive bill” to law and here we are today. The National Assembly, yes, has failed Nigeria, and every member of that Assembly since 1999 ought to wear a sackcloth of shame.

Many elected members of the Assemblies have no elementary knowledge of government or parliamentary process, and they have no expert legislative staff, nor is there any serious orientation conducted to guide legislative procedure.

A weak parliament leads to the corruption of the state. Nigerians must now begin to put pressure on their parliamentarians and seek to recall weak and complicit legislators, and form citizen interest groups to elect capable legislators. Otherwise, we shall continue to go to the well until we smash all our calabashes.