About 10 members of the Senate have staged a walk-out in protest against the adoption of the report by the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Committee on the Amendment to the Electoral Act.

The protesters say despite the adoption of the report by the Senate, they would insist on its reversal.

They alleged that the amendment was targeted at President Muhammadu Buhari.

Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Independent National Electoral Commission, Senator Suleiman Nazif, had presented the report at the plenary on Wednesday.

After the presentation, President of the Senate put the adoption of the report to voice vote, saying there was no need for debate on it as it was from a conference committee which had harmonised the versions of the two chambers.

After the vote, the ‘ayes’ had it and Saraki ruled on it — a development that generated an uproar in the chamber.

Saraki also ruled against three senators who raised points of order to protest against the adoption.

Story for the god.supreme court will show them pepper.this legislature are purely selfish.

Good development. Let every politician seeking office contest on the basis of their popularity/acceptance not on some bandwagon effect.

Let those alleging that the amendment was targeted at President Muhammadu Buhari give us a cogent argument? Dis the senate barred him from contesting?

He has no reason to be jittery except he and his goons have got some things up their sleeves.

The constitution is greater than the electoral act

welcome development

Source plsss

When the case gets to the supreme court they will say its because of bangwagon effect?.inec will win again as they did before.

Section 76(1) of the Constitution provides that “elections to each House of the National Assembly shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission”.

Section 132(1) of the Constitution further states: “An election to the office of the president shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission,” while Section 178(1) provides that “an election to the office of governor of a state shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission”.The constitution is greater than the electoral Act,Same way wike got supreme court judgement when they rule that cardreader was alien to the constitution that the voters register superceed the cardreader.


These lawmakers are clowns,why not put the national Assembly election last?.National Assembly cannot do inec job.where is the independence of inec

Look here

kcmichael:
Section 76(1) of the Constitution provides that “elections to each House of the National Assembly shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission”.

Section 132(1) of the Constitution further states: “An election to the office of the president shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission,” while Section 178(1) provides that “an election to the office of governor of a state shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission”.The constitution is greater than the electoral Act,Same way wike got supreme court judgement when they rule that cardreader was alien to the constitution that the voters register superceed the cardreader.


These lawmakers are clowns,why not put the national Assembly election last?.National Assembly cannot do inec job.where is the independence of inec

the lawmakers have the right to change the electoral order

Issorit so when am I voting out that daura cow?

kcmichael:
Section 76(1) of the Constitution provides that “elections to each House of the National Assembly shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission”.

Section 132(1) of the Constitution further states: “An election to the office of the president shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission,” while Section 178(1) provides that “an election to the office of governor of a state shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission”.The constitution is greater than the electoral Act,Same way wike got supreme court judgement when they rule that cardreader was alien to the constitution that the voters register superceed the cardreader.


These lawmakers are clowns,why not put the national Assembly election last?.National Assembly cannot do inec job.where is the independence of inec

The Nass have not fix a date. They only fix the election sequence which they have power to do that

Thank God, it will require president accent before it will become a law. President should return the nonsense law by May ending.

Comprehension is a problem to many. I can see someone quoting sections of the Constitution on whose right it is to fix election date. Funny set of people.
There is a difference between election sequence and election date.
Did the amendment by the House include fixing a date for an election?

What it entails is the sequence. Simple English (Sequence)

On the otherhand, for those who feels it is targeted against the President. How if i may ask? Because the previous sequence was both the President and the Federal Legislative House election same day.

How does separating both now an issue of, for or against someone's genuine ability to contest and win in an election?

I believe with time, even same will be the sequence in the State level.

muykem:
Thank God, it will require president accent before it will become a law. President should return the nonsense law by May ending.

They will veto it into law, if the president refuse to sign

muykem:
Thank God, it will require president accent before it will become a law. President should return the nonsense law by May ending.

if the president refuse to accent to it, the Senators will form quorum and veto it. http://saharareporters.com/2010/11/12/presidential-assent-constitutional-amendment-bills-must

U can't get a quorom.its difficult

Inec has already set out time for election.so it will have no effect until 2023 election.

comos:


the lawmakers have the right to change the electoral order

The poster you responded to quoted relevant sections of the constitution to back up his position.

Can you please avail us the same so we can learn from you?

.

I intend to make this as simple as possible, S.58 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the mode of exercising legislative power in general as follows:

(1) The power of the National Assembly to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and, except as otherwise provided by subsection (5) of this section, assented to by the President.

(2) A bill may originate in either the Senate or the House of Representatives and shall not become law unless it has been passed and, except as otherwise provided by this section and section 59 of this Constitution, assented to in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(3) Where a bill has been passed by the House in which it originated, it shall be sent to the other House, and it shall be presented to the President for assent when it has been passed by that other House and agreement has been reached between the two Houses on any amendment made on it.

(4) Where a bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall within thirty days thereof signify that he assents or that he withholds assent.

(5) Where the President withholds his assent and the bill is again passed by each House by two-thirds majority, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required.

However Section 9 (1) (2) of the Constitution provided an additional process where it involves Constitutional amendment thus:

(1) The National Assembly may, subject to the provision of this section, alter any of the provisions of this Constitution.

(2) An Act of the National Assembly for the alteration of this Constitution, not being an Act to which section 8 of this Constitution applies, shall not be passed in either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of that House and approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the States.

The contention here is whether S. 9 (1)and (2) represents a total picture of what is required to pass an amendment to the Constitution or that the power of the President to assent a bill as stipulated under S.58 (1) and (3) is required.

S.9 (2) started with the phrase “ An Act of the National Assembly for the Alteration of this Constitution…shall not be passed…” I am going to stop right there, before looking 6000 miles away to the United States for an interpretation, let us examine the provisions of our laws, the Constitution itself and other relevant laws. What constitute an “Act of the National Assembly?” How does an Act “passed” It will appear that S. 9 (2) is merely an additional requirement for passing an amendment.

In solving this puzzle we will first of all have to look for the definition of “Act of National Assembly and what it take to pass it. That is, the process for “passing”. The process for passing is stipulated by S. 58, this is what must be supported by the States Houses of Assembly along the line.
Chapter VIII of the Constitution at Part IV, that deals with interpretation states at S. 318 (1):

“In this constitution, unless it is otherwise expressly provided or the context otherwise requires-

"Act" or "Act of the National Assembly" means any law made by the National Assembly and includes any law which takes effect under the provisions of this constitution as an Act of the National Assembly;”

I will like to underscore the phrase “any law which takes effect under the provisions of this Constitution” an amendment would appear to me to take effect under the provisions of S.9 (2) as an Act of the National Assembly. That this section is applicable is therefore settled.
Section 318 (4) states as follows:

“The Interpretation Act shall apply for the purpose of interpreting the provision of this Constitution”

Then let us look at the provision of the Interpretation Act Cap 123 of 2004 :

The Act at its preamble described it as : “An Act to provide for the construction and interpretation of Acts of the National Assembly and certain other instruments; and for purposes connected therewith”
There is only one recurrent phrase that undeniably binds these provisions together including S. 9 (2) that deals with amendment to the Constitution and that is “Acts of the National Assembly…”

The Interpretation Act went further at S. 2 (1) to state that “An Act is PASSED when the President assents to the Bill for the Act whether or not the Act then comes into force”

Meaning no Act of National Assembly is PASSED until assented by the President.
So far our law is clear, nothing known or described as an Act of National Assembly in Nigeria is passed without the President’s assent, simple.

Therefore other requirements of S.9 (2) as explained under the Interpretation Act is not met until the President assent’s the Bill.

Now let us consider some matters arising, some people have asked me, what if the President vetoes the bill, since the 2/3 majority required to override veto was the majority required to pass an amendment in the first place.

The question is being asked because of the misconception of the purpose a veto is meant to serve. A veto is a balancing power given to the President to act as a check in the legislative process. A President does not just veto a bill, but will send it back to the House where it originated with his objection. This objection may trigger a rethink by some members who might want to consider the objection when the bill is sent back. Therefore there is no absolute guarantee that the bill will still pass by the same majority after the President must have raised his objection, since a change of mind by some National Assembly members is possible. Getting less than 2/3 vote required to over ride a veto is a possibility.

Then if the 2/3 majority is still inclined to passing the bill, then it becomes a law despite Presidential objection which will now become a part of the records. The 2/3 provision at section 9 (2) therefore neither substitute Presidential assent or veto, nor negate the 2/3 over riding power of the National Assembly, it is rather a process, compared to S. 58 (5) which is an automatic process.


Buhari is gone already

kcmichael:
Section 76(1) of the Constitution provides that “elections to each House of the National Assembly shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission”.

Section 132(1) of the Constitution further states: “An election to the office of the president shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission,” while Section 178(1) provides that “an election to the office of governor of a state shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission”.The constitution is greater than the electoral Act,Same way wike got supreme court judgement when they rule that cardreader was alien to the constitution that the voters register superceed the cardreader.


These lawmakers are clowns,why not put the national Assembly election last?.National Assembly cannot do inec job.where is the independence of inec

I thought you Zombies said Buhari is popular? So what are you scared of

Supreme court will rule on it.Inec won before they will win again

Saraki will soon undo himself with all these selfish motives!

comos:
About 10 members of the Senate have staged a walk-out in protest against the adoption of the report by the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Committee on the Amendment to the Electoral Act.

The protesters say despite the adoption of the report by the Senate, they would insist on its reversal.

They alleged that the amendment was targeted at President Muhammadu Buhari.

Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Independent National Electoral Commission, Senator Suleiman Nazif, had presented the report at the plenary on Wednesday.

After the presentation, President of the Senate put the adoption of the report to voice vote, saying there was no need for debate on it as it was from a conference committee which had harmonised the versions of the two chambers.

After the vote, the ‘ayes’ had it and Saraki ruled on it — a development that generated an uproar in the chamber.

Saraki also ruled against three senators who raised points of order to protest against the adoption.

those senators that staged a walkout are the real enemies of this country