Southeast APC seeks equitable sharing of House’s principal offices

THE Southeast caucus of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the House of Representatives has backed the position of the Speaker of the House Yakubu Dogara that principal offices in the lower chamber of the National Assembly must be equitably distributed among the country’s six geo-political zones.

The Southeast caucus was reacting to Dogara’s correspondence to the APC national chairman, Chief John Odigie –Oyegun where he had argued that there was need to consider lawmakers from the Southeast geo-political zone in line with the principle of Federal Character which stipulates that all parts of the country should be reckoned with in the sharing of appointive positions.

The caucus in a correspondence to President Muhammadu Buhari, signed by Augustine Chukwukere warned against any attempt to marginalise the zone.

Faulting claim by the APC Loyalists Group that the Southeast members in the House are not qualified to occupy principal offices on the basis of the provision of standing rules of the House, Order 7 Rule 37, they insisted that first termers of the APC from amongst them are qualified to hold any of the four positions of the principal officers of the House.

They argued thus: “We are making this response because the statement referred to above has singled out the Southeast zone for special treatment and marginalization. That is why we consider it necessary, once again to restate the relevant facts and correct obvious and intentional distortion of facts and truth.”

“For the avoidance of doubt, we make the following submissions and clarifications – The APC Southeast Caucus aligns itself completely to the position of the Speaker Dogara Yakubu’s letter to the national chairman of the APC on the issue of election of the principal officers of the House.

“The July 20 statement by the Loyalist Group is full of distortions, misstatements, deliberate mischief, exhibition of ignorance of the law, practices and precedents of the House, and in some instances outright falsehood.

“The claim that Southeast APC members are not qualified to hold principal officer positions in the House on the basis of the provision of standing rules of the House, Order 7 Rule 37 which states that ‘only members with cognate legislative experience as members of the National Assembly shall be eligible for appointment as principal officers.” has been comprehensively debunked elsewhere but bears repeating thus:

“The argument that the zone produced only two “new” members, who do not have cognate legislative experience and therefore not entitled to be represented in the principal officer’s cadre of the House is most inaccurate and unfortunate. In the first place, any person acquainted with the Rules and practice of the House knows that a new member is regarded as having “cognate legislative experience” immediately he is sworn in as a member as it is only new members – elect that are affected by the Rule. Secondly, established precedents in the Senate and House of Representatives show consistent respect for zonal representation in the election of principal officers, even when there are only a few from a zone.

“It is as a result of this, that the 7th Senate, elected Senator Ayoola Hosea Agboola, Deputy Chief Whip, even though he was ‘new’ and the only Member from his party from the Southwest. Furthermore, in the 7th House of Representatives, Hon Mulikat Akande, was made House Leader even though she was one of only five members from her party from her zone. Even only recently, in the 8th Senate, Senator Francis Alimikhena, from the South South has been made Deputy Chief Whip of the Senate, a principal officer, even though he is a “new” member and the only member of APC from the South South.”

“We wish to add that this interpretation is merely accepted as a legislative terminology as the actual dictionary meaning of ‘cognate legislative experience’ is way off the mark and cannot support the contention of the so called ‘Loyalist Group’.

“Furthermore, it has become necessary to emphasize that we are concerned with the equitable distribution of offices in the House of Representatives and established precedents have been comprehensively laid out in the Speaker’s letter under reference. The practices and precedents of the House on the issue under discussion, recognizes Six zonal structures and not North or South divide, which is being introduced only for the purposes of diverting attention.

“They had earlier claimed in their earlier statement on July 8 that Federal Character is un-enforceable. They said that “Interestingly the six geopolitical zones in the country are not recognised by the Constitution ….. (And that) a fresh Law School graduate knows that the issue of Federal Character as enshrined in S.14 of the constitution is non justiciable and of no legal consequence.”

“It appears however, that when the Speaker in his well researched and highly acclaimed letter, educated them on the mandatory issue of Federal Character, they turned 360 degrees, and new claims that it applies only to positions in the executive arm and not to the legislature, claiming that the National Assembly is not an agency of the Federal Government. The law is however clear on this point as stated in the highly publicized case of Lawan v. Zenon Petroleum & Gas Ltd, where the Court of Appeal held that the National Assembly is not just an agency of the Federal Government but that even the Speaker and in some instances a Committee Chairman (Member) can be so classified.

It says that; ‘There is no doubt that the legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are vested in the National Assembly which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It has powers to make laws for peace, order and good governance of the federation or any part thereof with respect to matters within the exclusive and the concurrent Legislative Lists as prescribed. . . The Speaker of the House of Representatives is elected under Section 50 (1) (b) of the Constitution, while the House may appoint a Committee of its members for a special or general purpose under Section 62 (1) of the Constitution. It follows therefore that the Speaker of the House as the 3rd respondent and the head of such a committee as the appellant are agents of the Government of the Federation provided they act in their official capacity.’

“We had earlier doubted that the letter sent to the Speaker on the issue of Principal Officers had the authority of the Working Committee, National Caucus, and National Executive Committee of our Party, APC. This has now been confirmed by the July 20 Statement in focus, which claimed that: , “ the Speaker did not inform that the APC Loyalist Group had already conceded one of the leadership positions to the North Central and that the only zone left was the South East .”

“What this means is that the APC Loyalist Group has now effectively replaced the APC National Working Committee and other organs of the party and decides which zone gets what. Or has another letter been issued again to the Loyalist Group altering the earlier arrangement contained in the original letter to the Speaker? If the argument is that they are sticking to the party’s position, when did the party change its position? This exposes the entire hypocrisy behind its position as merely self-serving and an inordinate and unlawful power grab!

“It is only a fair and equitable resolution of this matter in the manner suggested by the Speaker Yakubu in his letter to APC national chairman that would compel us to withdraw our pending case on this matter in Court.