Our Intention On Section 84(12) Noble, Says House Of Reps

The House of Representatives said yesterday that its motive for introducing section 84(12) which requires political appointees to resign their position before participating in party convention and congresses as delegates to vote and be voted for was noble and aimed at creating a level playing ground for all Nigerians.

It however said it would await the certified true copy of the judgement of the Federal High Court on section 84(12) before making an informed comment on the judgment.

Spokesman of the House, Rep. Benjamin Kalu said the intention of the National Assembly in including the provision in the Act was aimed at giving all those who want to take part in the electoral process a level playing ground.

He said the section complained about has nothing to do with public servants referred to in the constitution but appointees of government at all levels, pointing out that while the constitution referred to civil servants, the Electoral Act deals with politicians and political appointees.

He said: “The judgment of the Federal High Court has raised a couple of issues. Let me say that the House of Representatives is not aware of this legal matter and is still not aware whether we were necessary party to this matter or not.

“It is important to note that it is out of place to comment on a judgement we are yet to see the certified true copy. So, we will make comment on this judgment once we receive the certified true copy of the judgment to know the length and breadth of the judgment.

“We have read from the media that the judgment borders on section 84(12) of the Electoral Act amendment bill which Mr. President signed into law recently and for which Mr. President has communicated the National Assembly, i.e. the Senate and the House of Representatives.

“As you are aware, the Senate has treated the letter by voting on a motion moved on it while the House of Representatives is still waiting for legal opinion from the legal department that is currently looking at the issues raised by Mr. President in that letter before debating it. That was before we heard of this letter.

“When we get the CTC, we will like to know who represented us, who served us and all those technicalities. It is important to let Nigerians know the mindset of the legislature, the intention of the legislature while drafting section 84(12) bothers on our intention to have an excellent electoral reform.

“As you know, for electoral reform to be effective, it has to be transparent, it has to be accountable, it has to be as inclusive as possible, it has to be as competitive as possible and it has to be fair for it to be credible. If any of these ingredients is missing at any point towards achieving credible election, it will affect the whole picture.

“That is why we wanted to address the conduct of appointed officers who are appointees of political office holders, who are used as tools during conventions and congresses and being part of the body that determine who becomes a candidate in the general election or who will not be a candidate in the general election.

“It is important that how that process is conducted is considered to enable us have a credible process that will be above board.

“We wanted to give a level playing ground for those who have been in government and are not supposed to use the undue advantage of being in government while running for office, especially in political party administration so that they will be at par with those who are not occupying any office so that they will be at par to run for office.

“It has nothing to do with public servants. I say this because I heard that many have argued that it offends the provisions of the constitution with regards to section 66, and a couple of other provisions that border on how to be qualified or to be disqualified for an election, especially the section that talks about 30 days withdrawal before election.

“That is for public servants. We are talking about political appointees. Section 318 defines who a public servant is, and that does not include political appointees. The ability to distinguish between these two will help us understand what the electoral act is trying to do as against what is being roped in as trying to do at the moment and that it is offensive to the constitution.

“When we get that judgement, we will know whether that differentiation was clear or was not clear. Who is the public servant that is referred to in the various provisions that was relied on in taking this decision? Who are the political appointees referred to?

“The Electoral Act addressed political appointees while the constitution addresses public servants. We have to get the judgement to know if this was clearly demarcated or not. That will help us understand the position from where the judgement was given and the next step to take.”