Read the two court judgements that have laid to rest the controversy surrounding how Saraki and Ekweremadu can be impeached.

#CASE_ONE

Asogwa v Chukwu
(2003) 17 WRN 71

The Court of appeal ruled that section 92(2) which deals with impeachment of Speaker of a State House of Assembly which is the equivalent Section of Section 50(2) at the National level for impeachment of Senate President is 2/3 of the entire House and not 2/3 of members sitting after quorum have been formed.
This completely nullifies the gutter arguments by some lawyers, APC Nwc members and lawmakers in the Senate who are canvassing that what is required to impeach the Senate President is 2/3 of 37 Senators who forms quorum which is 24 Senators.

The landmark ruling of the Appeal Court was
Clear that 2/3 majority required by section 90 subsection 2 for impeachment of speaker of a State House of Assembly is the 2/3 of all Members of the State House of Assembly and not 2/3 of Members sitting after quorum have been formed.Note section 90 sub 2 for impeachment of Speaker of a State House of Assembly is the equivalent of section 50 sub 2 for impeachment of Senate President.

#CASE_TWO

National Assembly V President (2003) 9 NWLR (Part 824) 104 at 132.

In this case the House of Reps and Senate in 2002 overrided President Obasanjo's veto using the arguments that it was 2/3 of the members present after quorum have been formed. Reps had about 203 Members while Senate had 50 Senators who overrided Obasanjo's Veto in 2002.

The Court of Appeal in deciding the matter in year 2003 ruled that the constitutional provision of 2/3 cannot be Misinterpreted to mean 2/3 of members present after quorum have been formed.

The Appeal Court in the landmark judgement delivered by Justice Oguntade JCA( as he then was) declared that two-thirds majority of each House means two-thirds of the membership of the Senate(109) and House of Representatives(360) which is 73 Senators and 240 Reps members and nothing else.

Note, the courts have by these two judgements above and more laid to rest the issue of interpretation of the kind of 2/3 required to Impeach a Speaker/Senate President, Override the President Veto and Remove the Chairman of the code of conduct tribunal which is 2/3 of the entire composition of the relevant House and not 2/3 of members present after quorum have been formed.

Please pass this across to the noise maker called Adam's Oshimole, his boys in the Senate and their paymasters.

Noted but the PDP need to be vigilant because the Nigeria of today can change anything for you.
If they allow APC to even enter the house to vote whether quorum or no quorum the story go long for court.
If possible they should go and be sleeping in front of the gate to avoid stories that touch.
APC no send rule of law

Mcreloaded:
Noted but the PDP need to be vigilant because the Nigeria of today can change anything for you.
If they allow APC to even enter the house to vote whether quorum or no quorum the story go long for court.
If possible they should go and be sleeping in front of the gate to avoid stories that touch.
APC no send rule of law

You got this one correctly

@tomakint

Joshua Dariye of Plateau state comes to mind... He was impeached by only 6 out of 24 lawmakers in Plateau State under heavy security protection.

The problem is, when you get impeached, you go to court. Next thing you’re suspended as a senator by the same cabal that impeached you. The court case will be long because the same cabal will try to stall it, God help you if you have a compromised judiciary. By the time this process goes on and on, your influence in the senate has worn out, money changes hands, loyalty switches, deals are made and some of your colleagues will compromise with the new leadership and move on

This is Naija!

Edit: Don’t forget that EFCC and other security agencies will also be knocking at your door while all these political machinations are going on. You may be fighting for your freedom more than you’re fighting for your office. In fact, it’s Game over! The least you could do at that point is accept a deal that keeps you out of prison while shutting your lips and political career for a long time

Impeaching a senate president is a very serious task which the requirements must be fulfilled with regards to the constitution .
APC cannot meet the two third requirement except they want to thrive on illegality. The world is watching and on notice

Saraki is somehow getting his calculations right

tomakint:
Read the two court judgements that have laid to rest the controversy surrounding how Saraki and Ekweremadu can be impeached.

#CASE_ONE

Asogwa v Chukwu
(2003) 17 WRN 71

The Court of appeal ruled that section 92(2) which deals with impeachment of Speaker of a State House of Assembly which is the equivalent Section of Section 50(2) at the National level for impeachment of Senate President is 2/3 of the entire House and not 2/3 of members sitting after quorum have been formed.
This completely nullifies the gutter arguments by some lawyers, APC Nwc members and lawmakers in the Senate who are canvassing that what is required to impeach the Senate President is 2/3 of 37 Senators who forms quorum which is 24 Senators.

The landmark ruling of the Appeal Court was
Clear that 2/3 majority required by section 90 subsection 2 for impeachment of speaker of a State House of Assembly is the 2/3 of all Members of the State House of Assembly and not 2/3 of Members sitting after quorum have been formed.Note section 90 sub 2 for impeachment of Speaker of a State House of Assembly is the equivalent of section 50 sub 2 for impeachment of Senate President.

#CASE_TWO

National Assembly V President (2003) 9 NWLR (Part 824) 104 at 132.

In this case the House of Reps and Senate in 2002 overrided President Obasanjo's veto using the arguments that it was 2/3 of the members present after quorum have been formed. Reps had about 203 Members while Senate had 50 Senators who overrided Obasanjo's Veto in 2002.

The Court of Appeal in deciding the matter in year 2003 ruled that the constitutional provision of 2/3 cannot be Misinterpreted to mean 2/3 of members present after quorum have been formed.

The Appeal Court in the landmark judgement delivered by Justice Oguntade JCA( as he then was) declared that two-thirds majority of each House means two-thirds of the membership of the Senate(109) and House of Representatives(360) which is 73 Senators and 240 Reps members and nothing else.

Note, the courts have by these two judgements above and more laid to rest the issue of interpretation of the kind of 2/3 required to Impeach a Speaker/Senate President, Override the President Veto and Remove the Chairman of the code of conduct tribunal which is 2/3 of the entire composition of the relevant House and not 2/3 of members present after quorum have been formed.

Please pass this across to the noise maker called Adam's Oshimole, his boys in the Senate and their paymasters.

Adams!! Over to You

socialmediaman:
@tomakint

Joshua Dariye of Plateau state comes to mind... He was impeached by only 6 out of 24 lawmakers in Plateau State under heavy security protection.

The problem is, when you get impeached, you go to court. Next thing you’re suspended as a senator by the same cabal that impeached you. The court case will be long because the same cabal will try to stall it, God help you if you have a compromised judiciary. By the time this process goes on and on, your influence in the senate has worn out, money changes hands, loyalty switches, deals are made and some of your colleagues will compromise with the new leadership and move on

This is Naija!

Nice evaluation. The only way is stop the process by any means necessary too

bedspread:
Adams!! Over to You

Adams will become blind and then have amnesia again after reading this.

Ventilating like an Edo tout that he is.

Do they obey the law,anything can happen in Nigeria and it is a pity we are used to it.

Bizibi:
Do they obey the law,anything can happen in Nigeria and it is a pity we are used to it.

Too late to thrive on illegality now, Obasanjo got away with many bullshiits but with the power of social media now and the fear of not discrediting already messed up Buhari's government I don't see any illegality or forceful ejection of Saraki being possible. Saraki is the winner here head or tail.

tomakint:


Too late to thrive on illegality now, Obasanjo got away with many bullshiits but with the power of social media now and the fear of not discrediting already messed up Buhari's government I don't see any illegality or forceful ejection of Saraki being possible. Saraki is the winner here head or tail.

its already gameover, its checkmate Oshiomole knows it. If Saraki gets a court injunction served personally to key lawmakers that will serve as a deterent, nobody will risk jail terms just to massage Oshiomole big ego

Lara Oshiomole dey wahala I tell you

impeaching saraki and ekwe unconstitionaly is a declearation of war! pls take note.

socialmediaman:
@tomakint

Joshua Dariye of Plateau state comes to mind... He was impeached by only 6 out of 24 lawmakers in Plateau State under heavy security protection.

The problem is, when you get impeached, you go to court. Next thing you’re suspended as a senator by the same cabal that impeached you. The court case will be long because the same cabal will try to stall it, God help you if you have a compromised judiciary. By the time this process goes on and on, your influence in the senate has worn out, money changes hands, loyalty switches, deals are made and some of your colleagues will compromise with the new leadership and move on

This is Naija!

Edit: Don’t forget that EFCC and other security agencies will also be knocking at your door while all these political machinations are going on. You may be fighting for your freedom more than you’re fighting for your office. In fact, it’s Game over! The least you could do at that point is accept a deal that keeps you out of prison while shutting your lips and political career for a long time

This guy get phd for naija politics.

The only thing saving Saraki is not that he's too smart like being speculated.

It's just that for the first time in Nigeria's political history there is the presence of a very strong and formidable opposition party which loves to hate and checkmate the APC and cause division within their ranks as much as possible.

During OBJ and the early time of GEJ it was never like that.
Then it was a very mighty PDP and a few weak opposition parties here and there.

All the PDP needed to do then to get the senate president impeached was share some 20 or 30 mil around and get the SP impeached.

But now it is never easy to bribe members of a PDP who hate the APC to their guts and desire to return to power like a man has conji.

Saraki penetrated the PDP right from day one and traded away juicy commitee positions.

The polity isn't the same as it used to be during OBJ.

The APC should just exercise patience and learn form the mistakes they made with the 2015 SP elections.

Buhari should ensure he doesn't go into slumber when the senate presidency is being debated come 2019.

That's if they win anyway.

socialmediaman:
@tomakint

Joshua Dariye of Plateau state comes to mind... He was impeached by only 6 out of 24 lawmakers in Plateau State under heavy security protection.

The problem is, when you get impeached, you go to court. Next thing you’re suspended as a senator by the same cabal that impeached you. The court case will be long because the same cabal will try to stall it, God help you if you have a compromised judiciary. By the time this process goes on and on, your influence in the senate has worn out, money changes hands, loyalty switches, deals are made and some of your colleagues will compromise with the new leadership and move on

This is Naija!

Edit: Don’t forget that EFCC and other security agencies will also be knocking at your door while all these political machinations are going on. You may be fighting for your freedom more than you’re fighting for your office. In fact, it’s Game over! The least you could do at that point is accept a deal that keeps you out of prison while shutting your lips and political career for a long time

this is just the plain truth about Nigeria politics which begs the question why we even bother with democracy

a system of democracy that allows you to game the system like this is pointless

socialmediaman:
@tomakint

Joshua Dariye of Plateau state comes to mind... He was impeached by only 6 out of 24 lawmakers in Plateau State under heavy security protection.

The problem is, when you get impeached, you go to court. Next thing you’re suspended as a senator by the same cabal that impeached you. The court case will be long because the same cabal will try to stall it, God help you if you have a compromised judiciary. By the time this process goes on and on, your influence in the senate has worn out, money changes hands, loyalty switches, deals are mao/de and some of your colleagues will compromise with the new leadership and move on

This is Naija!

Edit: Don’t forget that EFCC and other security agencies will also be knocking at your door while all these political machinations are going on. You may be fighting for your freedom more than you’re fighting for your office. In fact, it’s Game over! The least you could do at that point is accept a deal that keeps you out of prison while shutting your lips and political career for a long time

Even if you eventually win your case after many years the court will not reinstate you, like fayose and that adamawa gov. We should keep praying, the silly country will outlive her curses

Check that your constitution very well,
My constitution concluded that section 50(c) says 2/3 in the house, nothing like 2/3 of the whole.
Nobody will remove thief saraki illegally,
But if you think is illegal, you can go to court, let court decide and interpret that section in plain language.

The jobless aggressive lazy idiotic pigs of Biafra always referred to tambuwal case in 2014.
APC was the majority with 181 and PDP with 163.

Saraki must go.
Nigerians are wiser now.

That rétarded, semi intelligent monkey @MrAyeDee is the one who floated the idea of a quorum for the APC leadership buffoons to swallow and they gobbled it up because it came from an Americana since then, they've been trying to force it down our throats like bitterleaf water mixed with stout but e no gree balance APC and their supporters are a bunch of idíots walahi talahi

RZArecta2:
That rétarded, semi intelligent monkey @MrAyeDee is the one who floated the idea of a quorum for the APC leadership buffoons to swallow and they gobbled it up because it came from an Americana since then, they've been trying to force it down our throats like bitterleaf water mixed with stout but e no gree balance APC and their supporters are a bunch of idíots walahi talahi

My dear a lot of APC lawmakers are not even playing ball

Oshiomonkey is hoping he can heat up the polity and Saraki will resign, but Saraki's steel and composure under pressure is legendary

Ndonu101:


its already gameover, its checkmate Oshiomole knows it. If Saraki gets a court injunction served personally to key lawmakers that will serve as a deterent, nobody will risk jail terms just to massage Oshiomole big ego

Lara Oshiomole dey wahala I tell you

You are one of the gods on earth

nonsense, how did Saraki become the senate President? Anyhow....and he would be removed willynilly anyhow and there is nothing any of you can do about it.

buhariguy:
Check that your constitution very well,
My constitution concluded that section 50(c) says 2/3 in the house, nothing like 2/3 of the whole.
Nobody will remove thief saraki illegally,
But if you think is illegal, you can go to court, let court decide and interpret that section in plain language.

The jobless aggressive lazy idiotic pigs of Biafra always referred to tambuwal case in 2014.
APC was the majority with 181 and PDP with 163.

On this one you go wail tire Saraki is still the Don in the game. Look at the picture below and tell me if you know that man

tomakint:


On this one you go wail tire Saraki is still the Don in the game. Look at the picture below and tell me if you know that man

the third most powerful man in Nigeria that is powerless.
Can he order a police officer to arrest me? No
Thief Saraki is like a vagabond, anywhere you see him, slap him and beat him, even kill him, nothing will happen.
If the state is against you, you will be nothing and powerless.
As i told your fellow terrorist pachukwudi44, that if thief saraki is not afraid, he should reconvene and I will personally bring him down from that seat.

buhariguy:
the third most powerful man in Nigeria that is powerless.
Can he order a police officer to arrest me? No
Thief Saraki is like a vagabond, anywhere you see him, slap him and beat him, even kill him, nothing will happen.
If the state is against you, you will be nothing and powerless.
As i told your fellow terrorist pachukwudi44, that if thief saraki is not afraid, he should reconvene and I will personally bring him down from that seat.

You definitely don't know the man called Bukola Saraki

Please read another opinion

CAN SARAKI BE IMPEACHED BY 2/3 OF 1/3 SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT IN A SENATE SITTING? - A LEGAL OPINION

By. Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq.

(TAKE NOTICE, this is a constitutional position and not the political view of the writer)

Following with keen interest the arguments for and against the rumored attempts to impeach Bukola Saraki the Senate President of Nigeria. I must reiterate at this point that I don't believe that there is any need for the impeachment of the Senate President save the distinguished Senators think and feel otherwise.

However, it is imperative and apposite to appraise the required legal and constitutional procedure or process in respect to numbers required to impeach the Senate President and the Deputy Senate President.

In the course of this write-up/article, I shall attempt to espouse the fact that 2/3 of only 37 which is the 1/3 of the entire Senate members can legally impeach the Senate President if present only in a Senate meeting and I shall lace-up my position with constitutional provisions and case-law authorities.

By the express provision of Section 54(1) Of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), it provides thus:

"The quorum of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall be one-third of all the members of the Legislative house concerned"

The Black' s Law Dictionary 9th Edition defines a quorum to mean the minimum number of members(usually a majority of all the members) who must be present for a deliberative assembly to legally transact business.

In the same vein, the Apex Court of our land have in the case of Saraki v. F.R.N (2016) 3 NWLR Pt. 1500 531 at 622 paras A-B posited thus "Quorum means the smallest number of people who must be at a meeting before it can begin or decisions can be taken".

Furthermore, the Court in the same case interpreted quorum to mean a majority of the entire body, the number of members who must be present in a deliberative body before business may be transacted, or such a number of the members of a body as is competent to transact business in the absence of the other members (Pp. 573-574, paras. H-A).

By deductive reasoning the question before everyone is if the house can seat when constituted by a quorum and transact its official business and make decisions binding itself and in fact the country, can we now say that a decision to impeach the Senate President and the Deputy-Senate President does not qualify to be a decision capable of been taken by a quorum of the Senate? Our humble opinion is that from a painstaking cumulative reading of the constitution there is no provision suggesting so, which therefore implies that a quorum of the Senate can seat and make any decision including but not limited to the impeachment of the President of the Senate and his Deputy.

This is further buttressed by the provision of Section 56(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as it provides that: "Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, any question proposed for decision, in the Senate or the House of Representatives shall be determined by the required majority of the members present and voting, and the person presiding shall cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case."

The salient provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) are unambiguous, clear and explicit as it relates to the election and removal/impeachment of a Senate President, Deputy Senate President, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Senate and House of Representatives as the case maybe. Section 50(1) of the 1999 Constitution(as amended) provides thus with respect to election:

"They shall be

A. A President and Deputy President of the Senate , who shall be elected by members of that House from among themselves." (Underlining ours for emphasis)

While Section (2) (c) Of the same section quoted above provides thus:

"The President or Deputy President of the Senate or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives shall vacate his office

C. If he is removed from office by a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives as the case maybe, by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House"(underlining ours for emphasis).

From the foregoing provisions of Section 50 (1) And (2) (c) of the Constitution it is obvious that the intent of the Constitution is that members present can elect their Senate President and his Deputy in as much as they constitute a quorum by a simple majority (See: Section 56 (1) and (2) of the Constitution) as was well exemplified and applied during the election of Bukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu as Senate President and Deputy Senate President respectively.

So also can the Senate remove the Senate President and his Deputy by a two-third majority of the members present in as much as they constitute a quorum. This is consequent upon the unassailable fact the constitution did not in any of the provisions mention that the required two-third majority should be of all the members of the house.

It is imperative and trite to state that in interpretation of statutes especially the Constitution which is the grundnorm of the land, words are not allowed to be inserted other than the primary and exact words used by the statute and in this case the constitution. Hence inserting the word ‘all’ by any person in anyway whatsoever would be mischievous to say the least.

The Courts have in a plethora of authorities and cases enunciated the status of provisions of the constitution as it relates to interpretation. In F.R.N v. Nwodo (2016) 17 NWLR Pt. 1541 226 at 294 para D posited thus:

"Indeed the Constitution is our supreme law and where it is clear and unambiguous on an issue, it must be the only provision to resort to...". See also: Nafiu Rabiu v. Kano State (1980) LPELR-2936(SC).

In the same vein the Supreme Court in Saraki v. F.R.N (supra) held this

"The construction of the constitution should be undertaken as a holistic endeavor".

The case of Onashile v. Idowu (1961) 2 SCNLR 53 expanciated further thus “by the literal rule or principle of interpretation of statutes, the words used, employed in the Sections of the Constitution and Electoral Act are to be given their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning unless to do so will result in absurdity with the provisions of the statute as a whole". See also Lokpobiri v. Ogoala (2016) 3 NWLR Pt. 1499 328 at 363 paras. E-F.

We must reiterate at this juncture that when it relates to the interpretation or meaning of words contained in the Constitution a closer look is usually advised.

From the above appraisal of various constitutional provisions it is abundantly clear that the intention of the draftsmen is that the leadership of either the Senate or House of Representatives can be removed or impeached by a two-third majority of a quorum of members present who must not be less than the required quorum as provided by the Constitution.

This position is further justified by the fact that the provision of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended) particularly Section 143 as it relates to impeachment process against the President and Vice-President provides expressly that the President or the Vice-President can only be impeached by two-third majority of all the members of each House.

It could therefore be deciphered that the fact that a Senate President and Speaker are considered as primus inter pares, that is first amongst equal, may have been the reason for the provision as it relates to their removal. It may have been the intention of the draftsmen to make the removal of the Senate President and Speaker as liberal as practicable in as much as a reasonable majority no longer repose confidence or trust in their leadership. As opposed to the procedure for impeachment of the President and his Vice which requires two-third majority of all members, maybe the fact that the President and his Vice derive their legitimacy to the people prompted the more rigorous procedure.

Consequent upon the above adumbration, it is therefore without doubt that the Senate President can be impeached by a two-third majority of the House constituted in a quorum or more rather than the two-third majority as suggested by some legislators.

The only way for Saraki to forestall any impeachment is to remain vigilant as equity they say aids the vigilant not the indolent, that is by ensuring that at all material times his loyalist are present to ensure that the required two-third majority of members qualified as quorum are composed by loyalist.

Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq., is the Principal Partner at Pelumi Olajengbesi & Co. Law Corridor. Abuja.CAN SARAKI BE IMPEACHED BY 2/3 OF 1/3 SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT IN A SENATE SITTING? - A LEGAL OPINION

By. Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq.

(TAKE NOTICE, this is a constitutional position and not the political view of the writer)

Following with keen interest the arguments for and against the rumored attempts to impeach Bukola Saraki the Senate President of Nigeria. I must reiterate at this point that I don't believe that there is any need for the impeachment of the Senate President save the distinguished Senators think and feel otherwise.

However, it is imperative and apposite to appraise the required legal and constitutional procedure or process in respect to numbers required to impeach the Senate President and the Deputy Senate President.

In the course of this write-up/article, I shall attempt to espouse the fact that 2/3 of only 37 which is the 1/3 of the entire Senate members can legally impeach the Senate President if present only in a Senate meeting and I shall lace-up my position with constitutional provisions and case-law authorities.

By the express provision of Section 54(1) Of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), it provides thus:

"The quorum of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall be one-third of all the members of the Legislative house concerned"

The Black' s Law Dictionary 9th Edition defines a quorum to mean the minimum number of members(usually a majority of all the members) who must be present for a deliberative assembly to legally transact business.

In the same vein, the Apex Court of our land have in the case of Saraki v. F.R.N (2016) 3 NWLR Pt. 1500 531 at 622 paras A-B posited thus "Quorum means the smallest number of people who must be at a meeting before it can begin or decisions can be taken".

Furthermore, the Court in the same case interpreted quorum to mean a majority of the entire body, the number of members who must be present in a deliberative body before business may be transacted, or such a number of the members of a body as is competent to transact business in the absence of the other members (Pp. 573-574, paras. H-A).

By deductive reasoning the question before everyone is if the house can seat when constituted by a quorum and transact its official business and make decisions binding itself and in fact the country, can we now say that a decision to impeach the Senate President and the Deputy-Senate President does not qualify to be a decision capable of been taken by a quorum of the Senate? Our humble opinion is that from a painstaking cumulative reading of the constitution there is no provision suggesting so, which therefore implies that a quorum of the Senate can seat and make any decision including but not limited to the impeachment of the President of the Senate and his Deputy.

This is further buttressed by the provision of Section 56(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as it provides that: "Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, any question proposed for decision, in the Senate or the House of Representatives shall be determined by the required majority of the members present and voting, and the person presiding shall cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case."

The salient provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) are unambiguous, clear and explicit as it relates to the election and removal/impeachment of a Senate President, Deputy Senate President, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Senate and House of Representatives as the case maybe. Section 50(1) of the 1999 Constitution(as amended) provides thus with respect to election:

"They shall be

A. A President and Deputy President of the Senate , who shall be elected by members of that House from among themselves." (Underlining ours for emphasis)

While Section (2) (c) Of the same section quoted above provides thus:

"The President or Deputy President of the Senate or the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives shall vacate his office

C. If he is removed from office by a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives as the case maybe, by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of that House"(underlining ours for emphasis).

From the foregoing provisions of Section 50 (1) And (2) (c) of the Constitution it is obvious that the intent of the Constitution is that members present can elect their Senate President and his Deputy in as much as they constitute a quorum by a simple majority (See: Section 56 (1) and (2) of the Constitution) as was well exemplified and applied during the election of Bukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu as Senate President and Deputy Senate President respectively.

So also can the Senate remove the Senate President and his Deputy by a two-third majority of the members present in as much as they constitute a quorum. This is consequent upon the unassailable fact the constitution did not in any of the provisions mention that the required two-third majority should be of all the members of the house.

It is imperative and trite to state that in interpretation of statutes especially the Constitution which is the grundnorm of the land, words are not allowed to be inserted other than the primary and exact words used by the statute and in this case the constitution. Hence inserting the word ‘all’ by any person in anyway whatsoever would be mischievous to say the least.

The Courts have in a plethora of authorities and cases enunciated the status of provisions of the constitution as it relates to interpretation. In F.R.N v. Nwodo (2016) 17 NWLR Pt. 1541 226 at 294 para D posited thus:

"Indeed the Constitution is our supreme law and where it is clear and unambiguous on an issue, it must be the only provision to resort to...". See also: Nafiu Rabiu v. Kano State (1980) LPELR-2936(SC).

In the same vein the Supreme Court in Saraki v. F.R.N (supra) held this

"The construction of the constitution should be undertaken as a holistic endeavor".

The case of Onashile v. Idowu (1961) 2 SCNLR 53 expanciated further thus “by the literal rule or principle of interpretation of statutes, the words used, employed in the Sections of the Constitution and Electoral Act are to be given their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning unless to do so will result in absurdity with the provisions of the statute as a whole". See also Lokpobiri v. Ogoala (2016) 3 NWLR Pt. 1499 328 at 363 paras. E-F.

We must reiterate at this juncture that when it relates to the interpretation or meaning of words contained in the Constitution a closer look is usually advised.

From the above appraisal of various constitutional provisions it is abundantly clear that the intention of the draftsmen is that the leadership of either the Senate or House of Representatives can be removed or impeached by a two-third majority of a quorum of members present who must not be less than the required quorum as provided by the Constitution.

This position is further justified by the fact that the provision of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended) particularly Section 143 as it relates to impeachment process against the President and Vice-President provides expressly that the President or the Vice-President can only be impeached by two-third majority of all the members of each House.

It could therefore be deciphered that the fact that a Senate President and Speaker are considered as primus inter pares, that is first amongst equal, may have been the reason for the provision as it relates to their removal. It may have been the intention of the draftsmen to make the removal of the Senate President and Speaker as liberal as practicable in as much as a reasonable majority no longer repose confidence or trust in their leadership. As opposed to the procedure for impeachment of the President and his Vice which requires two-third majority of all members, maybe the fact that the President and his Vice derive their legitimacy to the people prompted the more rigorous procedure.

Consequent upon the above adumbration, it is therefore without doubt that the Senate President can be impeached by a two-third majority of the House constituted in a quorum or more rather than the two-third majority as suggested by some legislators.

The only way for Saraki to forestall any impeachment is to remain vigilant as equity they say aids the vigilant not the indolent, that is by ensuring that at all material times his loyalist are present to ensure that the required two-third majority of members qualified as quorum are composed by loyalist.

Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq., is the Principal Partner at Pelumi Olajengbesi & Co. Law Corridor. Abuja.

tomakint:


On this one you go wail tire Saraki is still the Don in the game. Look at the picture below and tell me if you know that man

DON my foot. If he is so assured advise him to summon the NASS, his domain.

If impeaching Saraki will make Nigeria great, I am with Adams.

ozento:
impeaching saraki and ekwe unconstitionaly is a declearation of war! pls take note.

Chest beating as usual, you can't even withstand a knockout during exams you are talking about war.