Constitution Amendment: Nigerians Must Watch Out For Legislative Dictatorship

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ahamba has asked Nigerians to be mindful of the on-going National Assembly’s Constitution amendment.

The lawyer warned of  a ‘legislative dictatorship’ tendency by the lawmakers in a bid to control the President.

Speaking on Sunrise Daily, he supported President Goodluck Jonathan’s refusal to sign the State of the Nation address bill which was passed by the body of lawmakers.

“I can see a bid by the National Assembly to empower itself beyond what the constitution allows them do,” Mr Ahamba warned.

He described as ‘improper’ the National Assembly’s move, adding that “any legislation that makes the President subservient to the National Assembly except on matters that are brought constitutionally before that body is not proper”.

The executive must be allowed to rule this country in accordance with the laws made by the National Assembly.

According to him, the bill proposed by the National Assembly is a device to “dictate to the President how to implement the laws of the country.”

He said amendment can obliterate laws that are already made.

“The constitution is not an act” that can be changed anytime and if care isn’t taken, “we would all pay for it in the future”.

The Senior Advocate of Nigeria advised the Presidency to seek a ruling from the court on whether the Parliament has the right to enact such laws if the National Assembly vetoes the bill President Jonathan has refused to sign into law.

£3000 Visa Bond: Nigerian’s Selfish Attitude Led To Unfair Policy

A legal practitioner and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ahamba, has blamed Nigerians’ belief in ‘individual development’ and not ‘societal development’ for the recent United Kingdom immigration policy which proposes a £3, 0000 visa bond deposit for Nigerian visitors.

Speaking on Channels Television’s breakfast programme, Sunrise Daily, Mr Ahamba said the British government is doing what they think they should do but added that the policy is “not proper and is most unfair.”

“If they don’t want Nigerians in Britain, they should say so openly,” he said.

He explained Nigeria has been exposed to such treatment because “we don’t believe in ourselves, we don’t believe in what we have and we don’t want to improve on ourselves,” which is why many citizens travel to the UK.

Mr Ahamba said Nigerians have messed up our country and that is why we want to go to other people’s country. “That’s why they are treating us like rags”.

He noted that “in the 70’s and 80’s, they were begging us to come there”, as he advised Nigerians and the government to stand against the policy.

The Senior Advocate of Nigeria also warned the federal government not to do nothing to escalate the situation as the policy is only just a proposal.

“What will make them stop is to make our country better, for us to stay in it” he said.

Otedola appeals to court to hear his N250billion suit against Tambuwal and Farouk Lawan

Oil mogul, Mr Femi Otedola has asked an Abuja High Court to allow and sustain the N250 billion suit he filed against the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal and former chairman of the Fuel Subsidy probe committee, Representative Farouk Lawan.

Mr Otedola in the suit alleged that he suffered harassment, intimidation and some business losses from the defendants.

Counsel to the oil mogul, Mr Babajide Kokusan told the presiding judge, Justice Peter Kekemeke, that the law makers should not be allowed to hide under any legislative immunity to escape the action they committed outside their legislative powers.

Reacting to the lawmaker’s plea that suit action be dismissed because they cannot be sued on any action carried out on behalf of the house, Otedola’s counsel argued that the defendants were sued in their personal capacities for the intimidation he (Femi Otedola) suffered from phone calls before he parted with $620,000 out of $3million bribe demanded and collected by Mr Lawan.

He insisted that legislative immunity cannot be used to defend the allegation of request and receipt of bribe and asked the judge to make the two defendants defend themselves as allowed by law.

Mr Kokusan also objected to the prayer of Tambuwal and Farouk that the Federal High Court and not Abuja Court can adjudicate over the matter because the House of Representatives was an agency of the federal government.

His counsel argued that the case of Otedola and Zenon Oil Ltd was on the demand for bribe with the use of harassment and intimidation and not an attack against the fuel subsidy or the report of the subsidy committee.

He further adds that the issue of jurisdiction of a court in any matter could be determined by the nature of reliefs, facts and statement of claims and that since the suit did not challenge the revenue of the federal government or the administrative decision of the national assembly, an Abuja High Court has the power and jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Speaker of the House of Representative and Mr Lawan had through their counsels, Kehinde Ogunwumiju and Mike Ahamba opposed the suit filed by Otedola.

They claimed that the two lawmakers enjoy absolute legislative immunity for words spoken on the floor of the house.

Justice Kekemeke will however rule on January 30 on whether to maintain or strike out the case.