The Erroneous Basis Of Call For Saraki's Removal
Just as was envisaged how unsettling the defection of Bukola Saraki would be, it was similarly expected to come with many jumping political calculi. To wit is the very strong questions of morality and legality of his continuous clinging as the Nigerian senate president.
Recently, in a press conference, the national chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomhole had called for the honourable resignation against which an outright impeachment would be recommended. A visibly irked Oshiomhole had said Bukola Saraki had lost every ground to lay hold of the position he occupies, accusing him of being antithetical to both his former party nay national interest.
Very well, then. But as for the issue of morality or legality for Mr Saraki to remain as the senate president even after switching alliance to the 'minority' People's Democratic party, it is neither here nor there.
Truly there's no place in the world that a minority party will produce the leadership of parliament. It is an aberration and a disconcerting abnormality in politics.
This is true and this, supposedly, is the basis for the national leadership of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC asking the Senate President, Bukola Saraki-in the wake of his defection to the opposition People's Democratic Party, PDP- to 'honourably' resign and alternatively, calling for his impeachment.
Even in the face of the aberration of political universality, which this scenario speaks forth, it is not an issue of contention that would warrant such an audacious demand for the man in question to resign or for him to be threatened with impeachment if he cajoles the former demand.
The reason being that, in the legal context, there's no clause or article in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that stipulates that the leader of parliament must come from the majority party. I have not been privy to the content of the Senate standing rules as to know its stance on this issue. But whether or not it upholds it, the truth is that any other rules are subordinated to the Nigerian constitution in operation.
It's nowhere quoted therein and the legality of the Senate presidency being reserved for the highest party becomes questionable.
The political universality which seeks to indicate that the leadership of parliament is reserved for the party with majority members is premised upon the ordinariness of sympathy and of the fact that in a democratic setting, it could only come out that the contender with the highest votes wins.
If for instance, a parliamentarian from the minority party seeks to contest for say senate presidency, how possible would such a person win the other from the majority party when ordinarily the other members in the majority would be sympathetic to one of their own?
It's this unlikelihood of a member of the minority winning a member of the majority that seems to give rise to the erroneous view that the position of leadership in parliament is reserved for the majority party.
But it seemed the case of Saraki followed an unusual trend. His emergence as senate president, in 2015, though premised on the democratic provision of the highest votes, spoilt the requirement of ordinary sympathy from fellow majority party members.The sympathy he couldn't garner from his fellow party members in the majority for whatsoever reason (which of course, are obvious), he had compensated by members of the minority PDP, whose support gave him the needed conventional majority to be elected senate president.
Therefore, the call for Saraki to resign on the moral ground that he has lost legitimacy simply because he jumped ship from the majority APC party to the minority PDP, does not hold water, as it's a misconception of the intricacies of the mechanism of universal politics.
However, if it so be that the members of the 8th Nigerian Senate feel that the man has lost their confidence and that he needs to be removed, they know what to do and how to go by it. Or alternatively, if the APC feels that he has insulted their psyche as the majority party and that his removal has become sacrosanct, it could galvanise its members and use its strength as majority party to effect the democratic needful, to wit that a two-third of the senators would be enough to send him out.
Until that is done, the call by the national leadership for Saraki's resignation as Senate President on the basis of his defection remains a goose chase.
Recently, in a press conference, the national chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomhole had called for the honourable resignation against which an outright impeachment would be recommended. A visibly irked Oshiomhole had said Bukola Saraki had lost every ground to lay hold of the position he occupies, accusing him of being antithetical to both his former party nay national interest.
Very well, then. But as for the issue of morality or legality for Mr Saraki to remain as the senate president even after switching alliance to the 'minority' People's Democratic party, it is neither here nor there.
Truly there's no place in the world that a minority party will produce the leadership of parliament. It is an aberration and a disconcerting abnormality in politics.
This is true and this, supposedly, is the basis for the national leadership of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC asking the Senate President, Bukola Saraki-in the wake of his defection to the opposition People's Democratic Party, PDP- to 'honourably' resign and alternatively, calling for his impeachment.
Even in the face of the aberration of political universality, which this scenario speaks forth, it is not an issue of contention that would warrant such an audacious demand for the man in question to resign or for him to be threatened with impeachment if he cajoles the former demand.
The reason being that, in the legal context, there's no clause or article in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that stipulates that the leader of parliament must come from the majority party. I have not been privy to the content of the Senate standing rules as to know its stance on this issue. But whether or not it upholds it, the truth is that any other rules are subordinated to the Nigerian constitution in operation.
It's nowhere quoted therein and the legality of the Senate presidency being reserved for the highest party becomes questionable.
The political universality which seeks to indicate that the leadership of parliament is reserved for the party with majority members is premised upon the ordinariness of sympathy and of the fact that in a democratic setting, it could only come out that the contender with the highest votes wins.
If for instance, a parliamentarian from the minority party seeks to contest for say senate presidency, how possible would such a person win the other from the majority party when ordinarily the other members in the majority would be sympathetic to one of their own?
It's this unlikelihood of a member of the minority winning a member of the majority that seems to give rise to the erroneous view that the position of leadership in parliament is reserved for the majority party.
But it seemed the case of Saraki followed an unusual trend. His emergence as senate president, in 2015, though premised on the democratic provision of the highest votes, spoilt the requirement of ordinary sympathy from fellow majority party members.The sympathy he couldn't garner from his fellow party members in the majority for whatsoever reason (which of course, are obvious), he had compensated by members of the minority PDP, whose support gave him the needed conventional majority to be elected senate president.
Therefore, the call for Saraki to resign on the moral ground that he has lost legitimacy simply because he jumped ship from the majority APC party to the minority PDP, does not hold water, as it's a misconception of the intricacies of the mechanism of universal politics.
However, if it so be that the members of the 8th Nigerian Senate feel that the man has lost their confidence and that he needs to be removed, they know what to do and how to go by it. Or alternatively, if the APC feels that he has insulted their psyche as the majority party and that his removal has become sacrosanct, it could galvanise its members and use its strength as majority party to effect the democratic needful, to wit that a two-third of the senators would be enough to send him out.
Until that is done, the call by the national leadership for Saraki's resignation as Senate President on the basis of his defection remains a goose chase.
Comments
Post a Comment