Water Bill Hearing: SANs, Others Warn Reps Against Illegality
Senior lawyers, socio-political organisations and civil rights groups on Thursday described as unconstitutional, attempts by the House of Representatives to adopt the public hearing it conducted in the eighth assembly for the Water Resources Bill.
The legal practitioners and groups such as the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, the Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, and the Middle Belt Forum, in separate interviews with The PUNCH, said the National Assembly should jettison the plan.
Recall that the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd), had in 2017 presented the controversial bill to both chambers of the National Assembly. The bill seeks to transfer the control of water resources from states to the Federal Government.
The bill was not only rejected by the public in 2018, but it was also not passed by the eighth National Assembly, whose members were divided over it.
But on July 23, 2020, the current Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Rules and Business, Abubakar Fulata, reintroduced the bill.
Despite the public outcry, he said a public hearing was held in the eighth Assembly on the bill, adding that no fresh one would be conducted.
He also lashed out at individuals and organisations that were opposed to the bill, saying inputs of civil rights groups were taken in the eighth assembly.
But two Senior Advocates of Nigeria said any attempt to reintroduce the bill, which was shut down by the eighth National Assembly without subjecting it to a public hearing, would be illegal.
In separate interviews with The PUNCH, the SANs, Mr Tayo Oyetibo, Dr Alex Izinyon, and Chief Sebastine Hon, argued that the eighth National Assembly not being constituted by the same set of members of the current National Assembly, the bill must pass through all the stages of legislative process afresh.
Oyetibo said, “If the bill is being reintroduced afresh, they have to follow the normal procedure. They cannot continue with the old bill because it is not the same members that constituted the former National Assembly and the new National Assembly.
So, if the bill is being reintroduced, then they have to go through the normal channel of law making.”
Izinyon said procedurally the end of a session of the National Assembly marked the end of the bills considered by that session that had yet to become laws.
He added, “That means, if a bill considered by the previous National Assembly must be reintroduced, it has to go through the same process.
“Even if it passed all the stages at the previous assembly and not assented to, it is not a law and it remains a bill. Not all the lawmakers in the previous session are in the current session. If the bill is re-presented, people have to express their views on it. It has to pass through the process. Without that process, it will be illegal.”
Water bill violates federalism –Senior lawyer
On his part, Hon said aside the procedural breach in the manner of its reintroduction, the bill was also “fundamentally wrong” on the grounds that it sought to infringe on the provisions of the Land Use Act.
He said, “Some members of the House of Representatives are saying that the bill was shut down by the last National Assembly and it cannot be reintroduced.
“This is a completely different National Assembly, although some members retained their seats.
So it must come as a fresh bill. And if it is a fresh bill, given its importance, it must undergo a public hearing.
It is not something that can be smuggled in.” He argued that the bill constituted “a deep infringement on the federal super-structure established in the constitution.
“There is no way they can tacitly amend the Land Use Act without amending the constitution. By virtue of Section 315(5) of the Constitution and several decisions of the Supreme Court, the Land Use Act has constitutional flavour. So, for you to amend the Land Use Act, you must amend the Constitution
“Again, those Supreme Court decisions also say that any law that is contrary to the Land Use Act is null and void. In so far as the bill seeks to take state land and give it to the Federal Government, it is contrary to the spirit and tenor of the Land Use Act.”
On his part, a former Vice-President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr Monday Ubani, said the bill should be treated as a new bill by the ninth Assembly.
Ubani said, “It is a new bill, regardless that it first came before the eighth Assembly. It is a new bill entirely and it has to follow all the processes before being passed. The previous proceedings by the eighth Assembly will not be countenanced because it was introduced as a new bill. I don’t think the House is properly guided.”
Also, the immediate past President of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, Mr Malachy Ugwummadu, said the National Assembly had a duty to conduct a fresh public hearing, given the public outcry against the bill.
He stressed that the essence of a public hearing is to give validity to bills passed by the legislature.
PUNCH
The legal practitioners and groups such as the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, the Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, and the Middle Belt Forum, in separate interviews with The PUNCH, said the National Assembly should jettison the plan.
Recall that the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd), had in 2017 presented the controversial bill to both chambers of the National Assembly. The bill seeks to transfer the control of water resources from states to the Federal Government.
The bill was not only rejected by the public in 2018, but it was also not passed by the eighth National Assembly, whose members were divided over it.
But on July 23, 2020, the current Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Rules and Business, Abubakar Fulata, reintroduced the bill.
Despite the public outcry, he said a public hearing was held in the eighth Assembly on the bill, adding that no fresh one would be conducted.
He also lashed out at individuals and organisations that were opposed to the bill, saying inputs of civil rights groups were taken in the eighth assembly.
But two Senior Advocates of Nigeria said any attempt to reintroduce the bill, which was shut down by the eighth National Assembly without subjecting it to a public hearing, would be illegal.
In separate interviews with The PUNCH, the SANs, Mr Tayo Oyetibo, Dr Alex Izinyon, and Chief Sebastine Hon, argued that the eighth National Assembly not being constituted by the same set of members of the current National Assembly, the bill must pass through all the stages of legislative process afresh.
Oyetibo said, “If the bill is being reintroduced afresh, they have to follow the normal procedure. They cannot continue with the old bill because it is not the same members that constituted the former National Assembly and the new National Assembly.
So, if the bill is being reintroduced, then they have to go through the normal channel of law making.”
Izinyon said procedurally the end of a session of the National Assembly marked the end of the bills considered by that session that had yet to become laws.
He added, “That means, if a bill considered by the previous National Assembly must be reintroduced, it has to go through the same process.
“Even if it passed all the stages at the previous assembly and not assented to, it is not a law and it remains a bill. Not all the lawmakers in the previous session are in the current session. If the bill is re-presented, people have to express their views on it. It has to pass through the process. Without that process, it will be illegal.”
Water bill violates federalism –Senior lawyer
On his part, Hon said aside the procedural breach in the manner of its reintroduction, the bill was also “fundamentally wrong” on the grounds that it sought to infringe on the provisions of the Land Use Act.
He said, “Some members of the House of Representatives are saying that the bill was shut down by the last National Assembly and it cannot be reintroduced.
“This is a completely different National Assembly, although some members retained their seats.
So it must come as a fresh bill. And if it is a fresh bill, given its importance, it must undergo a public hearing.
It is not something that can be smuggled in.” He argued that the bill constituted “a deep infringement on the federal super-structure established in the constitution.
“There is no way they can tacitly amend the Land Use Act without amending the constitution. By virtue of Section 315(5) of the Constitution and several decisions of the Supreme Court, the Land Use Act has constitutional flavour. So, for you to amend the Land Use Act, you must amend the Constitution
“Again, those Supreme Court decisions also say that any law that is contrary to the Land Use Act is null and void. In so far as the bill seeks to take state land and give it to the Federal Government, it is contrary to the spirit and tenor of the Land Use Act.”
On his part, a former Vice-President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr Monday Ubani, said the bill should be treated as a new bill by the ninth Assembly.
Ubani said, “It is a new bill, regardless that it first came before the eighth Assembly. It is a new bill entirely and it has to follow all the processes before being passed. The previous proceedings by the eighth Assembly will not be countenanced because it was introduced as a new bill. I don’t think the House is properly guided.”
Also, the immediate past President of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, Mr Malachy Ugwummadu, said the National Assembly had a duty to conduct a fresh public hearing, given the public outcry against the bill.
He stressed that the essence of a public hearing is to give validity to bills passed by the legislature.
PUNCH
Comments
Post a Comment
Disclaimer: The comments on the blog are the views and opinions of the readers and does not represent that of Confluence Reporters.