The “Take a Bow and Go’’ approach adopted by the Senate in the screening of the 43 ministerial nominees on July 24 had generated no little fuse among Nigerians. Taye Odewale writes on the policy and public angst.
Take a bow policy
The “Take a Bow and Go’’ method was adopted in 2003 as a courtesy and privilege for any nominees who had been elected to the Senate or House of Representatives in the past.
Although the 1999 Constitution that gives senate the power to confirm appointments in that regard does not make a provision for the “Take a Bow and Go’’ policy, the policy has been adopted and been used ever since.
It though seems though that the list of beneficiaries has been extended to all persons with previous legislative experience even at state levels. In the most recent experience, some have argued that beyond lawyers in the states, some political figures have been extended the privilege.
For instance, Malam Muhammed Bello, a nominee and a former minister of the Federal Capital Territory, also requested to be granted the same privilege extended to former lawmakers who skipped the screening, insisting that he had been a public office holder and had been close to the National Assembly members.
Even though he was not in the category accorded the privilege, Bello, begged to be granted the status.
“Distinguished senators, I have had a very good working relationship with the National Assembly and I have come with a number of National Assembly members and if people say I have been successful in my public sector career, I must sincerely say it was because of the support of the National Assembly.
“I think I will be right if I say that by association, I am a member of the National Assembly. And I do hope that distinguished senators, the Senate president, and other members of the National Assembly have agreed that by association I am a member, I would appreciate if I can enjoy it.”
As was the case with others some senators gave nod to the request thereby ensuring that the class of the legitimate beneficiaries was breached. In fact, Senators Adamu Aliero (APC, Kebbi Central), Aisha Dahiru, his Adamawa Central counterpart, Binos Yaroe from Adamawa South, and Elisha Abbo (Adamawa North) also spoke in support of Bello who was subsequently granted his wish.
Fears and intrigues
Irrespective of the Senate interpretation of the constitutional provisions in that regard, analysts insist that the policy can prevent nominees from answering some important questions bordering on national concerns, competence and accountability.
They note that Nigerians have witnessed a lot of screening of ministerial and other executive nominees who were asked to recite the National Anthem, or explain their master plan or agenda for their offices.
In the last exercise, the nominees that enjoy “Take a Bow and Go’’ privilege are Chris Ngige, Hadi Sirika, Muhammad Bello, Gbemisola Saraki, Pauline Tallen, Sharon Ikeazor, Lai Mohammed, Rotimi Amaechi, Timipre Sylva, Zainab Ahmed, Godswill Akpabio, Sa’adiya Umar Farouk and Otunba Adeniyi Adebayo.
Similarly, Ramatu Aliyu, George Akume, Olorunnimbe Mamora, Tayo Alasoadura, Maryam Katagum, Abubakar Aliyu, Mustapha Shehuri, Zubairu Dada, Emeka Nwajiuba and Maigari Dingyadi, enjoy the method.
The opposition, others kick
But some lawmakers have expressed concerns on the method, including Senate Minority Leader Eyinnaya Abaribe, who raised a constitutional point of order that the screening had turned out to be a mere endorsement of some nominees.
He stated that in global parliamentary practices, confirmation hearings are conducted for nominees to access their competence and qualification for their appointments as ministers, explaining that confirmation hearings ought to be different from endorsement.
In the same vein, Senator Dino Melaye said, “I will tell you categorically that Nigerians are not happy, especially with the way the proceedings of the screening have been conducted and I can tell you that it is more of adoption than a screening.
“I am not a presiding officer of the National Assembly, I cannot speak for either of them but as long as some of us remain there, our voices will be heard and we will always insist on doing the right thing.’’
The opposition, others kick
But some lawmakers have expressed concerns on the method, including Senate Minority Leader Eyinnaya Abaribe, who raised a constitutional point of order that the screening had turned out to be a mere endorsement of some nominees.
He stated that in global parliamentary practices, confirmation hearings are conducted for nominees to access their competence and qualification for their appointments as ministers, explaining that confirmation hearings ought to be different from endorsement.
In the same vein, Senator Dino Melaye said, “I will tell you categorically that Nigerians are not happy, especially with the way the proceedings of the screening have been conducted and I can tell you that it is more of adoption than a screening.
“I am not a presiding officer of the National Assembly, I cannot speak for either of them but as long as some of us remain there, our voices will be heard and we will always insist on doing the right thing.’’
CSOs react
Questioning the policy in a statement the Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic (CASER) said that checks and balances which would have improved the performance of government would suffer when legislative scrutiny appeared to be lax. The statement signed by its Executive Director Frank Tietie condemned the policy and called on the Senate to show a sense of seriousness and change of approach toward subsequent screening.
Also, the Center for Democracy and Development (CDD) through its Director, Austin Aigbe, said since the senate is charged with the duty to engage the nominees on topical issues that would liberate the country from the myriad of challenges being faced, it ought to have been more proactive in screening the then nominees by not just being thorough but ensure all were examined carefully through questioning and extracting vital responses. Such responses he said could have been used to gauge the likely competence or otherwise of the nominee.
“What we see now is that you are former senator, former House member so you bow and go. The funny one is that your brother used to be a member of the National Assembly and you come from the area where the Senate President is from and because of that, you take a bow? What does that add to the Nigerian state?”
Why policy wrong
But Mr Femi Akinwumu, a public affairs analyst, also insists that it is wrong for the Senate to allow ministerial nominees facing corruption charges to take a bow and leave without asking any question.
He expressed concern about the screening of some nominees, citing the case of Mr Rotimi Ameachi, former minister of transportation, who had never a member of the Senate but was asked to “take a bow and go.”
Affront on checks and balances
In response to this, Senate President Ahmad Lawan, noted that Amaechi was screened in that manner because he was a former member of Rivers State House of Assembly and a speaker for eight years.
Some civil society organisations have similarly expressed dissatisfaction with the Senate for the method, suspecting that the Senate could become a rubber stamp and stooge of the executive.
Check and balance suffers
In a statement by Executive Director Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic Frank Tietie, the organisation said that checks and balances which would have improved the performance of government would suffer when legislative scrutiny appeared to be lax.
He called on the Senate to show a sense of seriousness and change of approach towards the future screening.
Similarly, Director of Centre for Democracy and Development Austin Aigbe, said that senate “is charged with the duty to engage the nominees on topical issues that will liberate the country from challenges.
“What we see now is that you are former senator, former house member so you bow and go; the funny one is that your brother used to be a member of the National Assembly and you come from the area where the senate president is from and because of that, you take a bow. What does that add to the Nigerian state?’’ he asked.
Irrespective of arguments for or against, analysts describe the “Take a Bow and Go’’ approach to screening as a farce and charade, observing that the trend won’t help the country.
Dwell on performance not screening method
However, rather than worry over the take a bow policy, some are of the view that the performance of the ministers designate should be the focus not the manner of their screening. They say instead of debating the method and form the senate adopted to screen and approve the nominees, emphasizes should be on their performance in view of the seemingly unattractive performances of some of the ministers in the first term of the Buhari administration.
Accordingly, they think people should persuade the president to attach portfolios to the nominees which could have given the senators ample insight and therefore allowed them to truly probe the capacity of each minister-designate based on attached portfolio. They therefore appealed to the president to assign portfolio based on their areas of competence as against the usual practice of allowing political consideration to be the basis for assigning what to a nominee.
For instance, the Dean Faculty of Social Sciences, Ebonyi State University, Prof Eugene Nweke, while commending the president for the calibre of personalities he had chosen to work with, appealed to Buhari to assign portfolios based on areas of comparative advantage to enable the incoming ministers to perform well.
In the same vein, the Secretary of Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, Ebonyi chapter, Mr Jeremiah Onyibe, urged Buhari not to hesitate to remove from office any minister found not to have performed to expectation.
A lawyer and chieftain of the Alliance for New Nigeria (ANN), Mr Lawrence Onwe, called on the incoming ministers to see their appointments as divine call to serve the people and not opportunity to loot public treasury.
“The president, in his wisdom, has chosen the appointees as those who will assist him to achieve his development goals and we have to support and pray for them to succeed.
“My appeal is that they divest themselves of corrupt tendencies and not to divert public funds at their disposal to their personal accounts.
“One of the cardinal agenda of the present administration is war against corruption, hence Nigerians will not hesitate to call for the head of any minister discovered to have corruptly enriched himself from the public fund’’, Onwe said.
Part of democracy globally – Enang
The Special Assistant to President Muhammadu Buhari on National Assembly matters, Dr Ita Enang saw nothing wrong with the “take a bow and go policy” the Senate adopted during the ministerial screening.
Enang said that the “take a bow policy” of the nominees was not unusual, but has been a practice permitted in several parliaments around the world.
“I appreciate the Senate for their dexterity and intellectual questions they asked the nominees during the exercise. This has indeed raised the bar of the Senate before Nigerians.”
Senate did its best-Gaya
Senator Kabiru Gaya (APC-Kano South) dismissed verbal attacks on the 9th Senate thriving more on the take a bow policy than subjecting the ministers designate thoroughly screened.
Instead, he said the senate did its best in the just concluded screening of 43 ministerial nominees sent to it by President Muhammadu Buhari.
The lawmaker, who was asked on his view about the perception by some Nigerians that the just concluded screening was more of “bow and go’’, said that most of the nominees were former lawmakers and former ministers, who were qualified for the positions.
Gaya, the chairman, Senate Committee on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), however, said that the exercise would have been better if portfolios were attached to the list of the nominees.
“Those are the views of Nigerians and I agree with them, but you remember that most of them were former minister and former house of representative members and former senators who are legible to be ministers.
“Anybody who is a senator or a member house of representative is qualified to be a minister. We did the best we could have done in term of the screening but the exercise would have been done better if we have the portfolios attached to the list of the nominees.
“For instance, if a nominee is to be minister of works or education, then we will drill him on educational sector.
“If a nominee is to be minister of justice, we will drill him in the area of laws of Nigeria, but the nominees were sent to us without portfolios.
“We believe that in the future, the president will add their portfolios,’’ he said.
Nonetheless, some were of the view that there were political intrigues on the application of “Take a Bow and Go’’ policy during the screening. “Take a Bow and Go’’ approach as a method in the screening of the then ministerial nominees was of particular interest to the Senate leadership which knows if some nominees were subjected to serious screening, they may not sail through.
Therefore supporting the screening in that method would pay back for the lawmakers in the appointment of the committees, especially those that crave for “juicy committees’’.
They observe further that this explains why the appointment of committee chairmen and their deputies had to be delayed until shortly after the screening.
