Lawmakers need not be subjected to 'turnover', says Ekweremadu

Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu in an interaction with newsmen in Enugu responded to various national issues including the demand by PDP senators for automatic ticket in 2011. LAWRENCE NJOKU was there.

You must be elated by recent ruling by the Appeal Court affirming you as Representative of Enugu West Senatorial District, aren't you?

I thank God for bringing that battle to an end. Uzo Onyeama is a part of my constituency; I don't have issues with her. She has exhausted her constitutional rights; she didn't resort to violence but took the legal option. We should be able to respect the decision of the courts and this will help us to have order in the society. I thank my lawyers and appreciate the steadfastness of our courts and tribunals, not just in election matters but also in legal issues that come their way. I am proud of our courts; they are one of the best in the world. I once visited the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Hague and the President of that court was singing praises for Nigerian lawyers. He told me that I should inform Nigerian lawyers who are ready to work with the Court to apply and they are willing to take as many as possible because they possess sufficient skills and they are simply wonderful. So, I have absolute faith in our judicial system.

The case certainly dragged while you attended your duties in the Senate. Did it convince you to include the provision for a limited time for election petitions in the electoral reforms?

Yes, we are going to look at it. I was part of the team that worked on the 2000 Electoral Act and when we came to the time frame to conclude electoral matters, we were confronted by Supreme Court position that you cannot deter the court in terms of timing for delivering judgment. They believe that for purposes of fair hearing, there should be unlimited time for courts to conclude cases. But I am also aware that in 1979 Constitution, there was a provision in the Electoral Act for limiting the time frame for the conclusion of electoral matters. We intend to explore that option. But I must say also that Nigeria is not the only country with a fluid system. In Minnesota U.S.A., there was a senatorial case that just ended last week in an election that was held last year. Because of the peculiar nature of Nigeria, I am sure we are going to look at the legal possibility of creating a time frame for courts to conclude election matters, making sure in the process that we do not jeopardise justice.

What is your position on the demand by senators elected on PDP platform demanding automatic tickets to the Senate in the next election?

It is not automatic ticket. In America, from where we drew the bulk of the provisions of our constitution, you don't just change parliamentarians that easily. You don't just change parliamentarians at every election all the time because a lot is spent on training them. Nigeria has the highest turnover of parliamentarians in the world. And when you send people to seminars, trainings, workshops and they sit in parliament from year to year and at the end of the day, they don't return, those monies are wasted. We are thinking that as much as possible, as much as our system can accommodate, we are going to ensure that we reverse this trend. A situation where about 80 per cent of our senators don't return is not healthy for our system. If we can turn the other way and say, let 20 not return, let 80 per cent return, I think that is path of growth. When in the making of 1999 Constitution, our leaders at that time thought it wise to say, 'in parliament there is not term limit,' you can contest and win and then come back to the parliament as many times as you can, I think they were not stupid because they knew the implication. They knew the need to have parliamentarians stay much longer in parliament because it creates what is called institutional memory. In being a senator for 20 years or 30 years, you would have seen successive presidents and if issues arise in the country that requires institutional memory, you have to fall back on some people. That is what our mates have thought. We are trying to ensure that our system runs like every other system, especially those we have borrowed from. And in most places, senators are even appointed. Like in Canada, senators are for life.

What is informing such agitation now bearing in mind that in the last 10 years, people have been coming and going to the National Assembly?

[b]Nobody is praying for what happened in the last two or three elections when a whole parliament was swept out only for us to start all over again because of the impact that this might have on the parliament. We felt this is time to start addressing this issue. If for instance, you are a parliamentarian, you have not been representing your people well, what will make you want to come back; nobody will encourage you to come back. Nobody will say that you should come back. But when you have done well and the only problem that you have is the issue of zoning and then you are somebody who has been quite competent and then you say he won't come back and then, you will go and put somebody who will come and start learning the ropes. Sometimes, he is less competent than the person who is going. It is not good for the system. It is not good even for that constituency. And you know that in parliament, people are considered based on experience in appointment of committees. So, if you send a brand new parliamentarian, it will be unlikely that he will be chairman of a committee, talk less of being presiding officer. So, it has so many advantages in keeping parliamentarians.[/b]

Why is the National Assembly still foot-dragging in Constitutional review?

We want to proceed with our brothers in the House of Representatives. We wanted a way that all of us will work together. It's going to be cheaper for us; it is going to be cheaper for the parliament. It is going to be cheaper for the country. The time management will be enhanced. A situation where you go your separate ways and then come back at a point for conferences, I mean, it could have wasted everybody's time. And some of the things that we are going to address are things that are time related because we are looking forward to 2011 elections where some of the amendments will be tested. So, if we say, let us go our separate ways, by the time that we finish our process of harmonisation, 2011 would have come and gone. But the Senate feels that it is better we work with the House of Representatives. But unfortunately, it has not been easy to get them to work with us. But we have kept trying. We want to exhaust every possible avenue. If that fails, then we go ahead.

How did you see the amnesty granted Niger Delta militants by the President?

The Niger Delta question is hydra-headed. It is a major problem. It is a very complex problem for us as a country. And it is just like any person with a major health issue. When somebody comes to you and suggests a particular native doctor, you are bound to go there; another person suggests an orthodox doctor, you go there. Once they suggest a prayer house, you go there. If they suggest a prophet, you go there. That is the position that we find ourselves on the Niger Delta issue. If they tell you some of the panacea and you do not try it, they will say, 'oh, if you had tried it, it would have worked.' I just hope that the issue of amnesty will work. But it is just an option. We are only hoping and praying that it will work. We are all concerned about what is going on in the Niger Delta. You can see what is happening in our oil production and marketing. So, it is affecting the economy. The resources of our country are going downwards. So, every possible thing that needs to be done is going to be done.

On the issue of constituency funds, is it right to assume that the Senators are making good use of it?

We have answered this question over and over again. I am surprised that you are still asking this question. We made it clear severally. For the last time, nobody receives 10 kobo for constituency project, no parliamentarian. I am not talking about senators, even the House of Representatives, even the Houses of Assembly. Nobody gives any parliamentarian 10 kobo for constituency project. When the concept of constituency project came up as a result of the need to ensure equitable distribution of infrastructure and that every part has a representative in the House of Assembly, in the House of Representatives and they have in the Senate, and so if you allow a governor and a senator to decide where to cite a project for instance, there is no way he can come up with a project that will cover every part of the country. There is no way you can draw a policy to ensure that water and electricity is in every part of the country. And then you ask yourself, why will you go and put electricity project in my constituency and you don't put one for somebody from Kano State. In order to address the issue, we said, okay, let every parliamentarian come with something be believes in, which his constituency requires. So, if it is water, it is N6 million. If we all come with this project and the Federal Government includes it into the annual budget and then awards contracts at their own time and their own manner and everything is done, it means that constituency projects have been done this year. That is just the concept of constituency project. It is just for you to initiate a project and think out what your people want because you are representing them. You are expected to go and find out what they need. You present is to government. They capture it in the budget, then they award the contract. That is what constituency project is all about.

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/policy_politics/article01//indexn2_html?pdate=230709&ptitle=Lawmakers%20need%20not%20be%20subjected%20to%20%27turnover%27,%20says%20Ekweremadu