In a recent interview with ThisDay, Femi Gbajabiamila, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives has aired his view on the recent controversy surrounding the suspension of whistle-blower, Hon. Abdulmumin Jibrin.
Gbajabiamila said Jibrin’s suspension is a breach of his constituency’s right to be represented at the National Assembly, despite their personal differences.
When asked if the House was right to have suspended Jibrin for 180 legislative days, he's quoted as saying:
"Personally, I would have preferred that the matter be dealt with, in a more transparent manner, or for that matter, not even dealt with at all. I made this clear when we had our last principal officer’s meeting, and gave my reasons for this. Sometimes silence is golden, and you can take the moral high ground and just leave this alone. This however, contended with the need, on principle, that a clear message needed to be sent to other members, that there are laid down procedures to follow, when a member is aggrieved. The fear of other principal officers, was that, if this message was not sent, a bad precedent would have been set, and there would be no basis for disciplining any member, in the future. So my argument was less superior.
"I was not on the floor, when the decision was taken, as I was in the back room in the Clerk’s office with the Speaker, trying to see if we could rethink the issue and suspend consideration, for the moment. My concern on the suspension, is the same that I always had, even when Dino Melaye and others, were suspended in the 6th Assembly. More so, as this was a one year suspension. Now what is this concern? I find it difficult as a Constitutional Lawyer, to accept that our rules can actually pass constitutional muster, if put to test. If you suspend a member for a year, you are effectively suspending his constituency and the people he represents, from participation in participatory democracy. This, in my own personal opinion, violates the constitution which delineates the country into Federal Constituencies for effective representation, at the centre.
"For every constituency, it is a right to be represented in the national assembly, not a privilege that can be taken away. The constitution says clearly that, all Federal Constituencies must be represented for 4 years, and lists, I believe, only 1 or 2 circumstances under which such a constituency can be unrepresented. e.g. by process of recall etc. Even at that, the vacancy is to be filled immediately. Our constitution does not envisage a situation where a Federal Constituency is unrepresented or underrepresented. If, for instance, an issue comes up in a member’s constituency, that requires federal attention or legislative address, who do they go to? We cannot take away a mandate, given by the people or short change a constituency.
"In law, the seat of a representative is held in trust for the constituency. It is an in rem matter, not a personam matter. This is why when a member gets up to speak, he goes through the formality of announcing his name and the constituency he represents. In fact, in other democracies and Legislatures, when a Speaker wants to recognise a Representative to speak, he addresses him or her not even by name, but as for instance, “the gentleman from so so constituency”. That is the pre-eminence given to a constituency in a democratic setting. So it is not about Honourable Jibrin, it is about Beweji Constituency. I do not stand in the gap for Jibrin, or is this in any way a defence on his behalf. You may not know this, but Jibrin and I stopped relating as friends and colleagues, since March or thereabout. However, I am not one to shy away from the truth and the rule of law.
"I believe that there are other ways that would be constitutional, if the House wants to discipline any member. On whether this was contempt of court, I believe that you are speaking about the Federal High Court decision in the Melaye case, when the Court said that the House lacked the powers to suspend the members. I do not remember the basis upon which the Court made its decision, but I will definitely look at it again. I suspect it was on the basis of fair hearing, as provided in the Constitution." RECEIVE NEWS UPDATE ON: WHATSAPP +234 701 056 0394, AND TWITTER: @247NGNEWSUPDATE, EMAIL: INFO@247NIGERIANEWSUPDATE.CO FOR INSTANT UPDATES ON INSTAGRAM CLICK HERE Share your story with us: email@example.com PLACE YOUR TEXT ADVERT BELOW:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>