For those who are from Benue State or let me say those who follow proceedings of the two chambers of the National Assembly, the trending video showing the rejection in the House of Representatives of a petition by the Mutual Union of the Tiv in America ( MUTA) presented through Hon. Mark Terseer Gbillah came across as being controversial if not bewildering. In that particular video, Hon. Mark Gbillah ( rep. Gwer East Gwer West Federal Constituency of Benue State) after reading the name of the petitioner (MUTA) and a brief highlight of the grievances and prayers of the petition as required by the House Standing Orders is seen and heard seeking the permission of the presiding officer to lay the petition by MUTA against the Federal Government of Nigeria. He is intermittently interjected and finally rebuffed by the Deputy Speaker, Hon. Ahmed Idris Wase who was presiding over the controversial proceedings for that day. The grounds for rejecting the petition were that the petitioners were neither registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission of Nigeria nor resident in Nigeria. The silence and body language of other members present and the absence of Hon. Gbillahs colleagues from Benue State at the plenary of the House on that particular day also left him looking like a lone wounded lion stranded in the midst of a cackle of hyenas.
Since the video gained prominence on social media, a lot of commentators, mostly from Benue State have analyzed the incident with majority of them drawing attention to where Hon. Gbillah went wrong or where he had some shortcomings and what he needs to do to represent the MUTA petition for possible consideration by the House. There are also others who are of the strong opinion that Hon. Gbillah was unfairly treated by the Presiding Officer(P.O) and even bullied by his honourable colleagues to abandon a petition by his constituents regarding their displacement from their ancestral lands due to incessant attacks by armed groups and the accompanying humanitarian crises faced by IDPs who are victims of such attacks . These are issues that are important to his constituents and the entire indigenes of Benue State which MUTA articulated in their petition.
In a situation such as this where there are two opposing sides on a very controversial subject, no matter, whichever side one’s opinion tilts, one is bound to be either wrong or accused of bias. So it will only be appropriate to analyse this incident in the context of what the extant House Standing Orders provides as to the requirement and procedures for presentation of petitions so that those who have no deep knowledge of House Standing Rules or who have no immediate access to this Rules may make a better and informed decision as to who bears the blame in this controversial incident. But before then, let me say that dramatis personae in this controversy are unknown to me and I was not contacted by any of them for any damage control or image laundering. What is written here is for public enlightenment and nothing more.
So what is the requirement and procedure for presentation of petitions in the House of Representatives? On this Order 8 rules (3)(1) – 4 of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (hereinafter referred to as the “Standing Order”) provides a clear guide. It states thus-
“ 3. (1) A petition may only be presented to the House by a member, who shall affix, his
name at the beginning thereof.
( 2) A member presenting a petition shall confine himself to a brief statement of the
of the parties from who it came, the number of signatures attached to it, the
material allegations contained in it and to reading the prayer of such petition.
( 3) No debate shall be allowed on such petition, but it may be read by the clerk if
required.
( 4) All petitions shall be ordered, without question being put to be laid upon the table
such petitions shall stand referred to the Committee on Public Petitions.” ( emphasis supplied)
Three things to note as it relates to presentation of petitions in the House of Representatives is that firstly, the Honourable member presenting the petition must affix his name at the beginning of the petition. Secondly, on the day of presentation of the petition, the member presenting the petition is required to confine himself to a statement of the name of the petitioner, the allegations or grievances of the petitioner and their prayers. Thirdly, no debate shall be allowed on such petition and such petitions shall be ordered to be laid on the table and thereafter referred to House Committee on Public Petitions without question. In addition to the above requirements, the Rules provides for requirements as to the language of petition, to whom it should be addressed and the manner it should be addressed, signatures and how it should be signed including the requirement of affixing the common seal on the petition in the case petitioners that are corporations ( see Order 8 rule 3(5)(a) –(f ) of the Standing Orders. It needs to be emphasized that both under Standing Orders and the practices of the House of Reps, no petition will be scheduled for presentation if it does not meet the requirements as to form and substance. In fact, by the provisions of Order 8 rule 3(5) of the Standing Orders, every petition to be tabled before the House is presumed to have been certified by the Clerk as meeting the requirements of the House Standing Orders. The implication of this is that at the plenary during which the petition is presented, once a member states the names of the petitioners followed by a brief highlight of the grievances and prayers of the petitioners, his request for the permission of the presiding officer to lay the petition is not an invitation to the P.O to rule on the competence of the petition and it should not to be interpreted as an appeal for the presiding officer to exercise his discretion as to whether the petition should be laid . Rather , the expression “ Mr Speaker with your kind permission I will the petition” is a mere formality and part of courtesies of the parliament. This is because a question as to whether the petition is competent in form and substance is the finding the Committee on Public Petition is to make and report to the House for its collective decision regarding the fate of the petition. In this regard, Order 18 rule 5 which deals with the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Public Petitions provides that the Committee shall amongst “ consider the subject matter of all petitions referred to it, report to the House and make recommendations on actions to be taken thereon, together with such other observations on the petitions”.
The provisions of Order 8 rule 3(1) –(5) regarding petitions are so clear that they have applied and observed over several decades by the House without any rancour or controversy. In the instant case, however, the Presiding Officer, Hon. Idris Wase appears to have made such heavy weather of the incorporation and residency status of the petitioner (s). He proceeded under the belief ( whether genuine or mistaken) that he is vested with the powers to “ permit” the laying of a petition and as such he was in position to decline the request of Hon Gbillah to lay the MUTA petition hence his assertion that he was not convinced. No such discretion is recognized under the Standing Orders, at least as it relates to presentation of petitions. It should be noted that the parliament is a deliberative body and decision making is based on majority votes following debates on the issues tabled for consideration and where the rules clearly exclude a petition from being subjected to debate or where the rules says a question as to those in support or against the petition should not be put( see Order 8 rule 3(4), what will be the basis of his decision to reject the petition?. Certainly it cannot be his personal opinion that a CAC registration status of the petitioner must be proved or his insistence that such a petitioner must be resident in Nigeria because both requirements are superfluous and alien to the Standing Orders. It needs to be clarified that while section 40 of the Constituttion of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended guarantees Nigerian citizens the right to freedom of association, registration of such associations with the Corporate Affairs Commission is to acquire juristic personality for that association so that such an association can be able to function as distinct personality from its members . The law is that even associations that are unregistered with the CAC can protect their interests and sue through their representatives as given judicial recognition in the case of Yellow &Anor. v. Yunus ( 2018) LPELR -4510(CA). Furthermore, Nigeran citizens whose economic and social rights and whose ancestral lands and other immovable and movable properties are guaranteed under the Nigerian Constitution need not be present in Nigeria or resident in Nigeria before seeking justice or protection such ancestral lands from his government.
Perhaps one may still need to interrogate the discretion of the Presiding Officer further , that is, assuming without necessarily conceding that the Presiding Officer has such powers under the House Standing Orders , practices, precedents and traditions of the House to reject the petition under the circumstances as analysed above , the next question to answer is whether such discretion was exercise fairly and to ensure that the privileges of Hon. Gbillah were protected ?. A P.O is required to be impartial and must at all times show impartiality and be seen to be impartial in his conduct of proceedings. The major role of presiding officers is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are protected during sittings and the business of the House is conducted without intimidation and interference following established rules. Even If Hon. Idris Wase genuinely and honestly believes that he was fair and impartial in the way he presided over the House proceedings of Wednesday, 10th March, 2021, the controversies trailing this incident should serve as a teachable moment for him. It is not that Hon Wase acted wrongly but maybe the uproar this incident has generated is due to the fact that tabling of petitions in the two chambers of the National Assembly has become such a routine and mundane exercise that his overt determination to block the MUTA petition in particular left room for suspicion and speculation as to his motive. Such backlash is not good for the public image of the House.
Following the backlash against the rejection of the MUTA petition, Hon. Idris Wase released a press statement in the Vanguard Newspaper of March 15, 2021 through his Chief Press Secretary , Umar Mohammed Puma , to “ clear the air on the matter in order to educate the ignorant and reassure the enlightened”. Part of the statement avers that “the crux of the encounter between the Deputy Speaker, presiding as speaker, and Honourable Mark Gbillah was on the LEGAL IDENTITY ( and flowing from that, the LOCUS) of the Petitioners and not on whether Nigerians in the diaspora have a right to petition the House or not. The House of Representatives belongs to all Nigerians and can be accessed by all Nigerians wherever they reside. However, like other arms of Government ( such as Courts of Law) Petitioners must follow laid down rules and procedures in presenting their petitions to the House, otherwise there would be lawlessness, disorder and chaos”. To my mind the above sentiments now echoed by Hon. Wase appears to be an afterthought as he was seen live on television questioning Hon. Gbillah repeatedly whether the petitioners are resident in Nigeria. On the issue of the legal identity of the petitioners, I have already made the point earlier that Order 8 rule 3(1) – (5) of the House Standing Orders does not provide as a condition precedent that petitioners must exhibit their certificate of incorporation and the member seeking to tabling the petition must “ convince the P.O that the petitioner is an incorporated association before the petition can be tabled. Going through the Press Statement one observes the Chief Press Secretary does not even know the correct name of the petitioner. He wrote “ASSOCIATION OF TIVS RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES instead of the “ MUTUAL UNION OF TIV IN AMERICA ( MUTA) as read out by Hon Gbillah. This smacks of insensitivity and total disregard to what other people may consider important to them which the bone of contention here. If the identity of the petitioner is the crux of matter as stated by the Chief of Press Secretary to the Deputy Speaker, courtesy demands that he should at least taken careful note of the correct name of the petitioner.
Another issue which appears to played a role in this incident which many commentators ignored is the Gbillah baggage! Don’t get me wrong, Hon. Gbillah is a fine legislator. I have come to observe that to be an effective legislator one must possess good oratorical and advocacy skills. He must have charisma and command of presence. Hon. Gbillah is endowed with these fine attributes in full measure but on the flip side of his eloquence and charisma is that he has courted many controversies and ruffled the feathers of many of his colleagues since his emergence as a member of the House of representatives. Indeed, while his colleagues believed they rallied round him and shielded him from allegations of sexual impropriety that took place in the U.S they accused him of always sparring no one in the pursuit of his personal political interests. Recall that the Hon. Speaker , Femi Gbajambiamila was reported to have tongue- lashed Hon Mark Gbillah during House plenary over unsavoury comments made against him and several other members. Also considering the fact that most of the principal officers of the House are still carrying the scars of battle for leadership positions , Hon. Gbillah’s legislative interventions are bound to look like an appeal for favour by cockroaches with the chickens presiding. In that kind of scenario, he will never come out victorious even when he is entitled to such a favour by merit.
In the final analysis , this incident raises a question of privilege and not question regarding the legal status of the petitioners as so many of Hon. Gbillah’s constituents seem to be saying. I do not subscribe to the idea that Hon. Gbillah should provide evidence of registration of MUTA with the Corporate Affairs Commission as part of the strategies to represent the petition for consideration by the House. The requirement of certificate of incorporation or proof of registration with the Corporate Affairs Commission is not a requirement under Order 8 rule 3(1) –(5) of the House Standing Rules for presentation or tabling of petitions for consideration by the House. As stated earlier the courts have recognized the fact that even unincorporated associations can protect their interest through their representatives. On how to protect his rights and privileges, Hon, Gbillah knows what to do. Perhaps this should serve as a wake-up call for all members representing the various Federal constituencies of Benue State to work together. Proceedings of the legislature are guided by the Constitution, Standing Orders, Precedents, Practices and Traditions of the House so one cannot reject a legislative proposal without drawing the attention of the whole House to the particular provision of these instruments that have been violated by the legislative proposal under consideration. The petition should be represented without further demands for extraneous information not contemplated under the Standing orders. There is no precedence for this type of discretion exercised by the Deputy Speaker on that particular day.
Barr Emma Ukera
Nasarawa Reporters 