The lingering leadership crisis in the House of Representatives has taken many ugly turns, with the end not seemingly near. JOSHUA EGBODO x-rays the crisis and the likely dimension it may take, as the House gets set to resume plenary from its ongoing break.
The ongoing leadership tussle, which began as a National Assembly issue has in recent times, narrowed down on the House of Representatives, as to many observers, Senate President Bukola Saraki has successfully beaten today’s Nigeria ruling political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) to its own game.
The party, which initially distanced itself from any interest in the leadership of the eighth National Assembly by saying it was not going to intervene on who becomes what, later made a detour, and through the now infamous mock primary elections named its blessed candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives leadership. The party, through the mock primaries endorsed Senator Ahmed Lawan for the Senate Presidency, and Femi Gbajabiamila for Speakership of the House.
The decision however sprang spontaneous reactions, as Saraki and his supporters reportedly boycotted the said election, and Yakubu Dogara as well as his followers staged a walk-out of the International Conference Centre’s venue, when it was obvious that the supposed meeting summoned by the APC was designed for a mock primary election, which they argued was not communicated to make them prepare and mobilize for. That set the stage for the running impasse between the APC’s leadership and the dissenting voices.
Alleged threats from the party’s hierarchy to the Dogara’s camp not to go against its position, or face disciplinary actions was sternly defied, as the group did not only vowed to go on with its “Dogara for Speaker” project, but confirmed its resolve on June 9, 2015, when the eighth House was inaugurated, by nominating Dogara for the Speakership contest. Dogara eventually won, but rather than resting the tussle, a new vista to it was opened.
Just after the emergence of Dogara as Speaker, and Suleiman Lasun as his Deputy, the APC reportedly met and agreed that the remaining majority party’s affiliated principal offices be given to its endorsed candidates.
To this end, the party in a letter to Speaker Dogara named Gbajabiamila (Lagos, South West) as the Majority Leader, Tahir Monguno (Borno, North East) as Deputy Majority Leader, Ado Doguwa (Kano, North West) as Majority Whip, and Pally Iriase (Edo, South South) as Deputy Majority Whip). Many observers blamed the party for the action which they said was more of imposition, and against the party’s widely touted “no intervention” philosophy, but to the loyalists, party supremacy must reign.
Soon after the party’s issuance of the letter, the North Central and South East APC Caucuses in the House separately cried foul, raising issues of unfairness, marginalization and breach of the constitutional federal character principle, as to them, the APC in its communication to the Speaker had schemed their respective zones out of the sharing arrangement.
The North Central Caucus was later, and true to its earlier threat that “all legitimate and legal means would be explored” to reverse the party’s decision, to institute a court case to that effect, with call for an injunction to restrain the Speaker from acting on the APC’s letter.
The disagreement appeared yet to be at its bud, when on June 25, 2015, a group of members of the House under the aegis of the APC loyalists took it to a greater height by disrupting the plenary sitting of the House.
Dogara may have, prior to the day’s sitting, had an inkling of the looming crisis, as he, just after saying the traditional prayer of the House, called for a closed door session, with all understanding that all grievances may be addressed during the closed door meeting
But rather than allow Orker Jev, who the Speaker called to move motion for the closed door session do so, the APC loyalists interrupted him with numerous shouts of “point of order”.
Further directive by the Speaker to Jev to complete the motion seemed to be the needed force that would trigger an uproar, created by the APC loyalists. The day’s sitting subsequently turned into a free for all between the APC loyalists who were bent on snatching the mace; the symbol of authority in parliaments, and those opposed to their move.
The action of the APC loyalists left many Nigerians bewildered, but to keen followers of the leadership tussle in the House, it was a play well designed and planned for that day, hinging their arguments on the fact that it could not just be magic that placards bearing pro-APC loyalty slogans could suddenly appear in the hands of the members, minutes after “their mission to disrupt the sitting” was accomplished. To them, the action was pre-mediated, and fully backed by the APC.
When normalcy returned, Dogara abruptly adjourned plenary of the House until July 21, 2015. Though he fell short of apportioning direct blames, he said whatever led to the “unfortunate” incident of that day would be addressed in line with all applicable rules as the House resumes, on an emphatic note that “that is what we are going to do.”
Justifying their actions however, the APC loyalists who said they were the “disciplined and loyal party members” later explained that their action was based on the fact that Dogara was not willing to read the party’s letter, and that as loyalists to the party, they cannot fold their hands and watch. Spokesman of the group, Sani Zangon who led his colleagues to a media briefing immediately after the fracas on the floor said they were “surprise that in breach of our privileges and rights as contained in the Constitution and extant House Rules, Mr. Speaker refused to read the letter from our party.”
According to the group, “The action that occurred inside the chamber of the House of Representatives was in reaction to the illegal and unconstitutional action taken by Speaker Yakubu Dogara of the House of Representatives, an action in his usual tradition of total disregard to the wishes of the majority members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Caucus, the party itself and the spirit of the party,” arguing further that they were aware of a letter sent by APC, dated 23rd June 2015, conveying the approval of the party’s Principal Officers.
They also claimed that the said letter by APC was “in compliance with the expressed wish and mandate of the majority members of the All Progressives Congress APC Caucus in the House of Representatives, and that the “action of the Party and the APC House Caucus is in compliance with the Nigerian Constitution, the House Rules and Parliamentary tradition, practices and precedents in Nigeria and all over the World,” submitting that Speaker Yakubu Dogara cannot under extant laws and the House rules appoint, choose, select, dictate or even provide guidance on how party principal officers emerge, or are elected or selected.
Days later, Dogara while receiving former principal officers of the House of Representatives explained that he was constrained from reading the APC’s letter by the court case instituted by APC caucus of an aggrieved zone, which said it was marginalized by the selection made by the party.
“Even before I saw the letter, there was a court process served the leadership of the House. What they are asking is very simple; whether it is in accordance with the constitution of Nigeria and the House rules that a political party has the right to choose the principal officers of the House? The second question is; assuming the political party has the right, whether it is in tandem with the constitution to exclude their zone, i.e North Central.
“When we got the letter, we raised this issue with the party we said the best thing is in order to avoid this, let’s circulate the six positions among the six zones in the House. There has never been a time in the House where a zone got more than two leadership positions and we all know the provision of the constitution which did say that all positions must be guided by the standing orders. That is where we are and that is what we are discussion.
It was an ongoing discussion relating to this when certain section of our members felt; ‘well whatever it is let the House know, that the party is supreme’ and that was what led to the near fracas which we witnessed on the floor of the House,” Dogara stated.
There had been allegations that Gbajabiamila may not really be the problem to the Speaker’s camp, but the forces behind him, and key these, pundits say is Ahmed Bola Tinubu factor.
In what appeared more of a protest mission, which some analysts said was disguised as a peace meeting, the Gbajabiamila-led APC loyalists sought President Mohammadu Buhari’s intervention with a call that Dogara and his supporters be called to order. The APC loyalists who said they have a numerical strength of 174 members reportedly accused the Speaker and some other 38 members of the APC in the House of underhand dealings with members of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), with the intent to factionalize the party, and defect to the opposition.
Dogara who did not only denied ever being invited to the purported peace meeting with the President, also described the alleged connivance by him and his supporters with the opposition so they can defect as “laughable.” “I want to discountenance this very ludicrous and laughable discussions that some of us in the House are even conniving with some people so that we can defect.
Only a fool will believe that. We have toiled day and night, we control the government at the centre, and in our states then we park and move to a house that we deserted before, it is even unthinkable and unimaginable that someone will even make such assertions,” Dogara had stated.
The centre appeared yet not holding, as even an APC peace team under the leadership of immediate former Speaker of the House, and Governor of Sokoto State, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal doesn’t seem to be making a positive headway. After meeting with the opposing camps, the gulf has rather widened, as public statements by the groups have suggested.
In a very curious offer of concession as announced by spokesman of the the Dogara’s camp, Abdulmumin Jibril, the Femi Gbajabiamila’s group was given the opportunity to produce the Majority Leader, but with a condition that nomination for the position must not come from the North East or the South West which has produced the Speaker and Deputy Speaker respectively.
The group said if its offer is not accepted, the only option would be that the position be determined through an electoral process in which all members on the platform of the APC would vote to elect their leader. But the Gbajabiamila’s camp in an immediate reaction said it was not bowing to any offer, unless that as stipulated by the APC in its letter to the Speaker.
While the Dogara’s group also made it clear that it would not recognize the APC’s letter, since it did not receive the endorsement of the relevant organs of the party, but a product of a meeting between two unnamed governors and the party Chairman, John Oyegun, the Gbajabiamila’s supporters said it is standing by the position of the party, and nothing else. There were also allegations that Gbajabiamila had threatened to cause a greater violence on the floor, if he is not made Majority Leader as the House resumes plenary onJuly 21.
Public opinion have been divided over the lingering impasse, as to many, the Dogara group should have respected party supremacy, and follow its directive. But to others, the action of the party was akin to imposition, and may set a wrong precedence which would erode the independence of the parliament if allowed. To the later analysts, the House should be left to act in line with its rules and procedures. On the whole, what is clear is that the crisis is far from over, and unless wise counsel prevail on both both camps, another clash is imminent as the House resumes.
