Just finished scanning through the 320 sections of the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of nigeria(as amended in 2010) looking for -MACE .I didn't see it anywhere in the constitution, meaning that prima facie it cannot be validly relied upon as a legal weapon to canvass for the legitimacy or otherwise of the sitting of our legislators in any part of nigeria-since the legislature ought to be guided by the constitution as the supreme law or grundnorm.What I saw in the constitution is that the lawmakers shall form quorum to sit upon the presence of 1/3 of members,without more.(in crucial decisions like impeachment 2 /3 quorum is required)Then why must our lawmakers fight and scramble for the possesion of the MACE each time they have misunderstanding , to legitimize the sitting of any of the divide?The late Chuba Okadigbo had to bring down the MACE of the senate from Abuja to Ogbunike (I think in 2000 or so) to prevent his impeachment as the senate president; relying fully on the fact that without the MACE the senate "can do nothing".Chuba in all his wisdom did not reason that another MACE could be procured in a nearby market and used for same purpose.And I think that was what really happened and the giant Chuba lost the battle to Anyim Pius Anyim.Then why attach importance to the MACE if it has no constitutional backing? Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the facts or old fashion or stereotype? This made me to further research via the google on the history ,origin and significance of the MACE to the parliament. I gathered that the MACE was introduced in the parliamentary business at about 1653 as a symbol of authority representing the sovereign .According to my findings,the parliament cannot sit or take decision,especially in Australia ,without the MACE.Confusion? But in the event of any logjam on the legitimacy of the sitting of any of our legislative houses in nigeria with or without the MACE will the judiciary centre its decision on the constitutionality or history of the MACE ? That is my headache because this situation will one day play out in Nigeria the way things are going and MESS up the entire system . Granted that legislative houses have their rules and order where the MACE may have been given a mention,can these rules and order(s) of the legislatures override the constitution where the MACE is not expressly mentioned as a symbol of any authority? To be continued.
Tuesday, 14 July 2015
THE MACE By Tony Okafor.
Just finished scanning through the 320 sections of the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of nigeria(as amended in 2010) looking for -MACE .I didn't see it anywhere in the constitution, meaning that prima facie it cannot be validly relied upon as a legal weapon to canvass for the legitimacy or otherwise of the sitting of our legislators in any part of nigeria-since the legislature ought to be guided by the constitution as the supreme law or grundnorm.What I saw in the constitution is that the lawmakers shall form quorum to sit upon the presence of 1/3 of members,without more.(in crucial decisions like impeachment 2 /3 quorum is required)Then why must our lawmakers fight and scramble for the possesion of the MACE each time they have misunderstanding , to legitimize the sitting of any of the divide?The late Chuba Okadigbo had to bring down the MACE of the senate from Abuja to Ogbunike (I think in 2000 or so) to prevent his impeachment as the senate president; relying fully on the fact that without the MACE the senate "can do nothing".Chuba in all his wisdom did not reason that another MACE could be procured in a nearby market and used for same purpose.And I think that was what really happened and the giant Chuba lost the battle to Anyim Pius Anyim.Then why attach importance to the MACE if it has no constitutional backing? Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the facts or old fashion or stereotype? This made me to further research via the google on the history ,origin and significance of the MACE to the parliament. I gathered that the MACE was introduced in the parliamentary business at about 1653 as a symbol of authority representing the sovereign .According to my findings,the parliament cannot sit or take decision,especially in Australia ,without the MACE.Confusion? But in the event of any logjam on the legitimacy of the sitting of any of our legislative houses in nigeria with or without the MACE will the judiciary centre its decision on the constitutionality or history of the MACE ? That is my headache because this situation will one day play out in Nigeria the way things are going and MESS up the entire system . Granted that legislative houses have their rules and order where the MACE may have been given a mention,can these rules and order(s) of the legislatures override the constitution where the MACE is not expressly mentioned as a symbol of any authority? To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment