29 May, 2013

EMERGENCY RULE: REPS BAR JONATHAN FROM SPENDING ADAMAWA, BORNO, YOBE FUNDS

President Goodluck Jonathan and the House of Representatives members are set to be on a collision course over the emergency rule in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, as the chamber yesterday voted against the president using the statutory allocations to the states to fund the emergency rule.
Relying on 305 of the 1999 Constitution, President Jonathan on May 9 declared a state of emergency in the three states. Both the House and the Senate last week approved the emergency rule.
Section 3(e) of the Transmitted Emergency Powers (General) Regulations 2013 provides for the “utilisation of the funds of any state of local government in the emergency area.”

The House had, during the consideration of the proclamation on Tuesday rejected the section, but a Conference Committee  that interfaced with the Senate approved it last Thursday.
At yesterday’s session, the chamber said the president lacked the constitutional power to fund the emergency rule with the allocations of local governments and states concerned. A total of 194 of the 197 members that attended yesterday’s plenary asked the president to run the emergency with funds from the Federal Government purse.
The lawmakers expressed disappointment at the manner with which their resolution of 21 May, 2013 on the utilization of the funds of the affected states and local governments were overruled at the conference committee of the two chambers.
To demonstrate its seriousness that the presidency must stay away from the allocations belonging to the three states,  the chamber  deleted Section 3 (e) of the Transmitted Emergency Powers (General) Regulations.
In addition, the lower chamber pleaded with the Senate to concur and adopt the new resolution.
The motion was moved by Ibrahim El-Sudi (PDP, Taraba). He said the matter was constitutional and that by virtue of Section 305 of the Constitution as amended, the president was empowered to do declare a state o emergency in any part of the country.
El-Sudi, who headed the ad hoc committee that investigated the near collapse of stock exchange last year stressed that in considering the details sent to the National Assembly, the House of Representatives resolved  resolved to appoint a six-member conference committee to meet with the Senate’s five-member team to harmonized differences if there was any.
He recalled that when the conference committee of both chambers met on Tuesday, May 22, 2013 to considered areas of differences, the committee adopted the Senate version on the Proclamation Order.
He said: “The committee also adopted clauses 3 © and (4) of Senate version of the Emergency Powers (General) Regulations 2013. The committee further adopted the addition of the words ‘in Public Order, Peace and Security’ and included the House version of clauses 1, 2, (3) and 5 © of the Emergency Powers along with the Explanatory Note.
“Aware of the fact that Section 3 (e) of the Transmitted Emergency Powers (General) Regulations 2013, which provides, for the utilization of any funds of any state or local government in the emergency area’ was unanimously rejected and deleted by the House but retained by the conference committee of both chambers.
“Further aware of the public outcry and outright opposition by majority of Nigerians especially indigenes of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa on the content of the above quoted regulation.
“Mindful of a near consensus of opinion of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and constitutional lawyers across the country regarding the constitutionality of the said action.
“Further mindful of the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Emergency Powers Act no. 1 of 1961 (as modified) which provides: ‘(2) Any such regulation. Order or rule may, without prejudice to the validity of anything lawful done there under, at anytime be amended or revoked by resolutions passed by both Houses…
“Concerned that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has in a plethora of decided cases interpreted the intent and purport of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution as amended on the finances of the states and local government of the federation and on whether Federal Government via National Assembly can validly make laws conferring power or imposing duties and state functionaries.
“Further concerned that chapter 1, part 1 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, Nigeria is a federation and operates federalism as a system of government with states retaining a large measure of independence and autonomy.
“Encouraged by the Supreme Court of Nigeria pet Niki Tobi in the case of A G, Abia versus A G, Federation (2004-2007) 3 LLRN pg 1360 at pg 1332 for the National Assembly to acquaint itself with the decision of the court on all matters relating to law referred to it avoid taking contrary action.
“Further encouraged by the need to ensure that our laws, orders, resolutions or regulations are not in conflict with the 1999 Constitution as amended or any court decision which we all swore to preserve and protect.
Minority Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila (ACN, Lagos), who supported El-Sudi said the constitution was clear, though the Supreme Court could reverse itself on earlier pronouncement in the light of new evidences and facts.
He said: “But in this case, it was clearly stated that under no circumstances can the Federal Government seize the funds of states or local governments.”
Gbajabiamila highlighted the frustration of the lawmakers on how their resolution of the utilization of funds was disregarded at the conference committee, saying: “I can’t understand why because, the outcome negated all the efforts put into the document by the House.”
He, however, attributed the use of language as part of the problem of the document saying: “On the use of administration, if on one hand the administrator was given powers to carry out sweeping functions, what is there for the governors of the affected areas to administer?”
The only voice against the motion, Kingsley Chanda (PDP, Rivers), who said situation in the affected areas was not normal as the constitution was suspended was shouted down by his colleagues.
In his ruling, the Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal said the adoption of the harmonized version was accompanied with several voices about the impropriety of the document.
When he called  for the voice vote, 194 lawmakers voted in favour  of the  motion.

Source: Sun

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...