Director General National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies Prof. Abubakar Sulaiman recently featured on TVC where HE speaks on issues bordering on the functions of the legislature and the misconceptions. The former minister also believes focus on corruption fight should be more on the executive than the lawmakers. BENJAMIN UMUTIEME monitored the session.
What does the character of the Nigerian parliament say about its democratic culture?
The character of the Nigerian parliament, just like any other parliament across the globe, is largely an institution responsible for lawmaking. It is an institution responsible for representation, for budget making, and performing the function of oversight, oversight largely as a way of checkmating the other two organs of government, especially the executive. At the national level, you talk about the Senate and the House of Representatives. At the state level, you talk about the legislature. In theory, you talk about bicameral at the federal level and unicameral at the state level. We’ve been operating this kind of system since 1960 but unlike the other two organs of government, they have not been faring well: in terms of maturity, in terms of experience, in terms of the gestation period due to incessant military interventions in our politics. Don’t forget in 1966, 1976 we had coups, 1984, we had another coup. That has been a recurring decimal in Nigerian politics. The kind of experience, knowledge, skill and maturity needed by the parliament to perform their function like other organs of government are doing is not there over the years in terms of matching other organs of governments. You’ll observe that the executive and the judiciary are far ahead of the legislature.
But since 1999, we’ve had an uninterrupted democratic experience. No political instability, no military interventions. And kudos to politicians, the Nigerian people and the military that allowed the system to be. As such, we now have a parliament that has come to hold firm grip with its constitutional role: that of oversight, that of lawmaking, and that of representation. We have seen a parliament come to grip with its function even though it’s been up and down.
Would you say the military intervention over the years is responsible for the conduct of the legislature-rowdy sessions, fisticuff-a feature of the Nigerian parliament?
The military interregnum is a factor. And again, when you talk about rowdy session or fisticuff-all these are natural features of democracy because democracy is all about contestation…?
But in certain democracies, rowdiness is hardly a feature?
Mature democracy because of the years of gestation. We are talking of a democracy that has spent over 200 years.
If you are talking about rowdiness, there are many more civilians now in the parliament?
It’s about culture, it’s about an orientation we are used to. Orientation that even a child that was born in 1985, the only thing he knows was a military government. It’s about mentality, it’s about our culture of doing things. We are more under the regulation and guardian of the military than civilians. That cycle has permeated our norms and habits. So, you cannot separate our culture of chaos or rancour from a system we have been into for years. The point I am making is that the military culture, the use of force we are used to has accounted largely for the kind of display observed in our legislature. But beyond that, it is not just to start comparing our legislature with the advanced legislature. Yes, they have long years of legislative procedures and processes, but even at that, in the so-called advanced democracy like the US, what happened during the Capitol Hill invasion?
The point I am making is that competing interest, competing agendas, debates or discourse on issues that tend to have dependency of attack within chamber, to me, is part of democracy anywhere in the world.
The Capitol Hill was attacked by the people and not the lawmakers. It’s your institute that trains them to deliver on their task, so why are the results far and few?
Our institution came on board in 2012. Nigeria’s democracy is almost 61-year-old with interferences in between. If you want to assess the impact of our legislature, you look at it from 2012. The institute was set up as a research hub, an intellectual institute for the Nigeria’s legislature. As we said earlier, the kind of maturity, skills, capacity needed for cordial relationship between the executive and the legislature was not there. The question was how do we enhance their skill, how do we bridge the gap? Anybody could be elected as a legislator. So, it’s a specialised area that requires skill, experience, you need knowledge. That is why the institute was set up to impact that knowledge. It is to scrutinise policy for the legislature, to assist them in policy formulation, legal drafting, come up with researches for them, and conducting public hearing for them. The institute also ensures they are well schooled in legislative duties. We have done this very well. When you look at the quality of bills that have been drafted, mooted in the last 20 years, you cannot compare it to bills in the past, so also is the relative stability in the National Assembly in the last 8-10 years.
Even in the 8th assembly that had a tumultuous relationship with the executive, you call that stability?
I am not talking about relationship between the executive and the legislature.
Can you divorce the ability of government from how the legislature relates with the executive?
It’s normal for the legislature and the executive to disagree on issues but the good news is that they are able to reconcile without recourse to violence. We should applaud Nigerian parliamentarians for that, and perhaps the Nigerians people and perhaps the military. Stability or instability does not suggest there shouldn’t be any friction or disagreement. Conflicts or disagreements between both organs are allowed in a democracy, even in the advanced democracies.
And riotous situations where there is shouting, stealing of mace, breaking into the assembly?
That is the point I am making. If they shout, shouting is part of the norm.
Is stealing of mace part of the norm also?
I wouldn’t want to go into that. It will be prejudicial for me to talk on that anyway. The fact still remains that even when that obtains behind the veil, they are able to resolve that issue. To me, we are evolving as a democracy, we are evolving as a nation. If that had happened during the 79s or 80s, it would have been recourse to the barracks, the soldiers would have taken power at that time. The Senate/APC government power tussle in the National Assembly was amicably resolved and today, we have a peaceful transition. To me, it is beautiful enough and we must appreciate that. We are evolving as a democracy.
Your optimism is infectious! Oversight is critical to the work of the legislature. Now when you look at the 8th Assembly and maybe some states’ assemblies, would you say they have been effective in their oversight duties?
Looking at it from hindsight as a former minister, nobody, even a student in the class would want to be policed or examined.
As a minister, you didn’t want to be policed?
I didn’t want to be policed. I wanted things to be done my own way. When they tell you these people are coming, it’s like ‘you try to clean your excreta, there will still be some odour’, that is just the reality. Oversight is a critical function of the legislature and the National Assembly from what I have seen so far, has oversighted the executive effectively. There are problems, there have been problems. The presidential system tends to give more powers to the executive than the legislature. The parliament doesn’t control the police, they don’t control the security agencies, they don’t control the account general of the federation. When it comes to power of coercion, the Executive determines it. So, everything the parliament requests to carry out proper oversight in terms of enforcement is not there. If you are to look at it literally, conceptually, our parliamentarians have done very well, but there have been obstacles here and there.
What are these obstacles?
The resistance from the executive, especially some heads of MDAs, even when the parliament says we want to do these things.
But the laws are there?
On several occasions, they summon but MDAs chief executives don’t even respect their summon and nothing happened. On several occasions, when the National Assembly summons the executive they respond at will. I am saying this authoritatively! The executive is not at the mercy of the legislature in the true sense of it.
What about field oversight?
They do field oversight and after doing it you have to vet you report, you have to make sure actions are taken. When these actions are being taken, we see how ministers, CEOs of MDAs try to resist it or ignore the directive of the legislature. We saw what happened in the case of NDDC, Customs. We saw what happened with some ministers. I wouldn’t want to mention names. They resisted, they refused, what happened?
Is this why Nigeria ranks low in the corruption perception index?
The perception index has nothing to do with corruption.
It has everything to do with corruption. You just cited the NDDC. Members of the National Assembly were said to be complicit in accusations flying round…
You are saying that. When you ask me question on that I will answer it. When I made reference to the issue of their resistance to summon, I am not saying they are corrupt. I can’t draw that conclusion for now. But the point I am making is that there were attempts to probe and what happened?
I want you to clarify your position on why you will not draw conclusion on the legislature’s complicity in the allegations of corruption.
I have to maintain that position for now because there were references, innuendos. Nigerian legislature is one of the most misunderstood. There are a lot of misperception, misinformation, misrepresentation about them. They’ve been stigmatised with this notion that they are corrupt, they connive with some MDAs to do certain shady deals. Why I can’t draw that conclusion is one, I need to have certain proof of that corruption against them. Then secondly, as I said earlier, coming from the background of an executive member, the question I normally ask myself is this: we have an annual budget of N13trillion and there are allocations to MDAs, and in this kind of situation, the National Assembly that is being fingered to have taken the whole money has an allocation in the budget of N120-N130billion. Then the question is, if out of N13 trillion, one organ of government is taking less than N300 billion, then we need to ask ourselves: ‘where does the remaining N12 trillion plus go to’? If those that control the N12billion are not been fingered or found wanting, then why must we just focus on the organ that controls less than N300 billion?
Secondly, perhaps, Nigerians have forgotten that we are not just talking about the Senate or House of Representatives. The National Assembly has the support staff that run into about 6000, we have about four other agencies under the National Assembly. The House, the Senate and the other agencies and its support staff, they are the one that this N130 billion is meant for. Nigerians wouldn’t know this. The point I am making is that you have N120 billion for the National Assembly and a minister, one ministry having about N400 billion in a year to control. Nigerians do not look at those ministers that control billions.
I am glad you are a former minister. Can the word of a minister be taken lightly when he said it is the National Assembly members who profit from the contract of the NDDC in the first place?
If a minister says that and till now there was no proof to that effect, I cannot sit down here and say what you are saying is right. I keep on saying this, when you say a minister is corrupt, a parliamentarian is corrupt, it takes two to tango. So, you cannot just take the parliamentarian out of it. If the minister is allegingthat they are the one that collected the contract and they are corrupt, what was the role of that minister? You should be bold enough to mention the names of that Senator or House member.
He did mention names..
I wouldn’t know, I didn’t hear, maybe..
Would your allegiance rather lay with the National Assembly because you are the director general of the institute for legislative and Democratic Studies?
You need to know my antecedent. I don’t hide my feelings. When the National Assembly is found wanting, I say it, I don’t care. But the point I am making is that the searchlight is on the parliament whereas it should be on the ministers. When I was a minister and the searchlight was on ministers, I said ‘I am not the accounting officer.’ The accounting officers are the permanent secretaries. Nigerian bureaucrats are richer than Nigerian politicians, quote me anywhere. Nobody wants to talk about the permanent secretary or directors. All eyes are on the politicians.
You said it takes two to tango. If Nigeria ranks low on the corruption perception index, does it mean that both arms of government are in cohort because the report fingers many ministries as being responsible for much of the corruption?
I am happy you said some ministries were fingered. When it comes to implementation of projects, the executive does it. If the parliament comes to me as a minister asking for certain things I believe it is illegal, it’s up to me to say no. That’s number one. Number two: a parliamentarian has the privilege to ask what it takes to fast track a project to his constituents-if fast tracking project to his constituents means corruption, then we can now start debating that.
Does it end there? Do you deny that in some or most instances, these contracts are directed to their own companies?
If the contracts are directed to their own companies, it’s left for the various anti-graft agencies to do their work. We have to sanitise this country, we have to clean up the mess. If you claim senators are found wanting, you mention names. Where you can’t mention names, leave the anti-graft agencies to handle it. We can’t just rely on speculation, we can’t just rely on character assassination. I am not trying to excuse the parliamentarians in its entirety from the mess in the country. Rather, I am saying that if you are to go by proportion or percentage, the executive members are found more wanting than the parliamentarians because they control the chunk of Nigerian resources.
In the face of your firm conviction, would you like to provide some evidence to back up this your position that the executive is guiltier for much of the corruption?
The executive is guiltier because they control the resources
Give us some evidence?
Let’s go common sense here?
Let’s go factual? Can we work with fact?
If we are to go with fact, it has to go beyond this place. Let’s go common sense. In the last 21 years of Nigerian democracy, if you are to do a survey of 50 richest Nigerians in this country, hardly can you get any Senator or House of Reps member. If you see any NASS member that is ranked a billionaire maybe he was a former governor or a former minister. Poverty is more domiciled in the parliament, and it is because the parliament is the only organ of government that epitomises democracy, the only one that was elected by Nigerians. They are the only ones that go home, that people see. Ministers don’t go home. They are not elected, not answerable to the people. When they(lawmakers) go home and because of the level of poverty in the country you must give and when you give, they now begin to shout, ‘Mr. KYC is now rich, he came with one car. Recently, I told some people in my state that I can’t contest for Senate in this country. I told them because of my benevolence and the money they earn as salaries. There is no how the N8million they earn can go round my constituents.
So it’s N8 million per month?
Whatever it is, there is no way it can go down. That’s the reality!
Docile legislative assembly at the State level is attributed to lack of financial independence or if you like, financial dependence on the executive. Is the institute advocating for their financial independence?
The most victimised and unfortunate organ of government in the country is the legislature at the state level. Give it to the NASS, they’ve achieved remarkably well. They’ve done so much to achieve their independence. But, the same thing cannot be said of the legislature at the state level. Most legislature at the state level are just an appendage of the executive. The governor determines the recruitment, and in most cases determines who goes into the state assembly. The governor determines the composition of the principal officers. The governor even determines the debate. When you have that kind of structure at the state level, checks and balances are not obtainable. The good governance, relatively, that we see at the national level is not even obtainable at the state level.
In the last two years for instance, I conveyed a roundtable of all stakeholders of state assemblies and we raised most of these issues. If you want stability, if you want good governance, you parliamentarians must be ready to perform your function. Whereas, the National Assembly is doing its best to warrant the sanctity of the parliament, you people are not doing anything. We raised a lot of issues, and in the course of our discussion and resolution we discovered that they were helpless, they were handicap, they cannot look up to the governor, and say ‘I saw the governor.’
We took up the matter with the support of the leadership of the National Assembly to advocate for them. And one of the issues was on financial autonomy. Financial autonomy which was signed into an Executive Order May 20th 2020 by Mr. President, talks about giving to the judiciary and the state legislature financial autonomy so that from the first line charge they can get their funding, and perhaps operate without recourse to the executive.
But in the last one year, the governors have been trying to frustrate this thing. Only two states, perhaps three-Delta, Lagos and Rivers-are trying to implement. Maybe, they are up to 60% implementation, others don’t want it at all. What we did again, this year, through our partner- KAS- was to convey another meeting of some speakers. Let us look at it, they can only delay it they cannot deny it because we cannot continue this way pretending to be practicing democracy without deepening democracy at the grassroots. And to deepen democracy we need this kind of autonomy for the legislature. We are at the forefront of engaging the executive, we are at the forefront from this institute at speaking for the parliamentarians because we discovered the legislature at the state level, almost all of them-no exception-don’t have the wherewithal to stand shoulder to shoulder with the governor and ask for their rights, and even ask for good things for the people.
Democracy in Nigeria is not all about the National Assembly, it goes beyond that. So, when you talk about the issue of insecurity, bad governance, poverty, joblessness, it does not start and stop at the centre. If state governments perform their roles as a sub-national government with the kind of resources they have, if they allow the parliament at the state level to perform their function, the kind of power and resources they have, we’ll not be in this kind of mess we are today. We are serious minded about it. In fact, one of our major agenda this year, as a fallback from last year, is to get the state assemblies’ capacity enhanced especially in the area of financial autonomy, budgeting and other aspects because of good governance.
We are at the forefront of speaking for them and we won’t relent because the leadership of the National Assembly; the Speaker, the Senate President, they have given us right to do that. As an agency that is why we are here, we are not just about bill drafting, bill scrutiny or conducting post graduate programme or advocacy, but critical engagement of stakeholders. By the time we do that, we are deepening democracy.
