By Joshua Egbodo
Abuja
The House of Representatives has described the alleged manipulation of outcome of last week’s motion seeking investigation into the $9.3 million cash for arms smuggled into South Africa, by spokesman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr Lai Mohammed, as flowing from his ignorance of its rules.
Reacting to a statement credited to Mohammed to the effect that members of the House were reportedly bribed to cover up the controversial deal over the weekend, Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Business, Albert Sam-Tsokwa, said the APC spokesman or any other person should not make comments on issues they had limited knowledge on, especially when such was capable of heating up the polity.
Lai Mohammed had, while commending the walk-out staged by members of his party from the floor of the House last Tuesday, also condemned the action of the House, especially in the face of the $50,000 bribe alleged to have been given to PDP members to block the motion, which was seeking an investigation into the controversial deal.
“It is shocking that those who were elected by the people will fail to act in the interest of the people,” he had said. “But then, we in the APC are not really surprised at this development, going by the antecedence of the Jonathan administration and his party, the PDP.”
Sam-Tsokwa, however, expressed surprise that the APC spokesman bought into such allegation, when the motion in question was neither on notice nor listed on the order paper of day, but yet allowed by the Deputy Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha, out of magnanimity to be moved against the rules under matters of urgent public importance.
He denied the allegation by Mohammed that Ihedioha manipulated the outcome.
Speaking at a media briefing, Sam-Tsokwa said: “Members of seventh assembly House have always acted together irrespective of our political leanings, where it is in the interest of the nation to take a particular decision.
“Every proceeding is guided by the standing orders of the House of Representatives, and by the standing orders the House is precluded from debating any issue that is pending in the court.
“In the same vein, the House rules provides that motions that border on infrastructure, security and investigative motions, once taken, the question shall be put, and if it is carried, it is referred to the appropriate committee.
“The motion on the $9.3 million seeks the House to constitute a committee to investigate the truthfulness or otherwise of that allegation.
“It is an investigative motion, and by the rules needed not, and cannot, and must not be debated because, by the time you do that, you already show clearly where the House is going, and by the time the report comes, they would say the House has already given judgement before the evidence. And that was exactly what happened.”
