A bill seeking to strip the vice president, governors, and deputy governors of immunity has passed its second reading at the House of Representatives.
The proposed amendment to Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, sponsored by Rivers lawmaker Solomon Bob, aims to curb corruption, eradicate impunity, and enhance accountability in public office.
The bill was one of 42 considered and passed through the second reading stage during Wednesday’s plenary session, presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu.
The long title of the proposed legislation reads: “A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to qualify the immunity conferred on the President, remove the immunity conferred on the Vice President, the Governors, and their deputies, to curb corruption, eradicate impunity, and enhance accountability in public office and for Related Matters.”
Potential Benefits of the Bill
If passed into law, the removal of immunity for these top political officeholders could have several positive implications:
- Enhanced Accountability: Public officials will be held accountable for their actions while in office, reducing instances of abuse of power. The ability to prosecute leaders while they are still serving could deter misconduct and reinforce ethical governance.
- Reduction in Corruption: The possibility of facing prosecution while in office may deter corrupt practices and encourage transparency. Many public officials have taken advantage of immunity to engage in corrupt practices without fear of immediate consequences.
- Judicial Oversight: Courts will have the power to try cases against sitting officials, ensuring that governance remains within legal frameworks. This change could strengthen the independence of the judiciary and reinforce the rule of law.
- Public Confidence in Leadership: Citizens may develop greater trust in government institutions if leaders can be held accountable in real time, rather than waiting for their tenure to end. Trust in governance has been a major issue in Nigeria, and this move could help restore faith in leadership.
- Strengthening of Democratic Institutions: It aligns Nigeria with other democratic nations where leaders are not above the law. Countries with strong democratic institutions hold public officials accountable regardless of their position, and this bill could move Nigeria in a similar direction.
- Deterrence of Electoral Misconduct: Politicians may be more cautious about engaging in electoral malpractices, knowing that they could face immediate legal consequences. This could lead to a cleaner and more credible electoral process in Nigeria.
Potential Downsides of the Bill
Despite its potential advantages, the bill also raises several concerns:
- Distraction from Governance: Without immunity, public officials may face frivolous lawsuits, which could consume time and resources, distracting them from governance. The sheer volume of legal battles may hinder their ability to focus on delivering policies and projects.
- Political Witch-Hunting: Opponents and political rivals may exploit the legal system to harass and destabilize incumbents through continuous court cases. This could lead to an abuse of the judiciary for political purposes, as seen in other countries where legal battles are used to weaken opponents.
- Risk of Policy Paralysis: Fear of litigation may discourage decision-making and bold policy moves by leaders trying to avoid legal trouble. Leaders may become overly cautious, leading to stagnation in governance and slow implementation of necessary reforms.
- Selective Prosecution: The law could be weaponized against specific political figures while shielding others, leading to biased implementation. If the judiciary is not independent, the law could be used to target opposition figures while those aligned with the ruling party remain protected.
- Instability in Governance: Continuous legal battles involving sitting governors and the Vice President may create administrative instability and governance inefficiencies. Constant court appearances and legal battles could disrupt the smooth functioning of government at both state and federal levels.
- Judicial Overload: Nigeria’s judiciary is already overburdened with cases. Allowing legal actions against top officials while they are still in office could overwhelm the courts, slowing down the legal process and affecting justice delivery in other cases.
Historical Context and Comparisons
Nigeria’s current immunity clause in the 1999 Constitution was established to allow governors and other top officials to focus on governance without the distractions of legal battles. While it has been criticized for shielding corrupt politicians, it has also provided stability in governance.
In many advanced democracies, such as the United States, sitting presidents and vice presidents enjoy a level of immunity from prosecution while in office.
However, they can be investigated, and once they leave office, they can face legal actions. Some countries, like South Korea and France, have seen sitting presidents face legal troubles while still in office, though the processes are often complex and require strong judicial independence.
While the bill aims to foster transparency and accountability, its practical implications must be carefully considered. Striking a balance between ensuring accountability and preventing unnecessary political and legal distractions will be crucial.
If well-implemented with safeguards against abuse, this reform could mark a significant step toward good governance in Nigeria.
However, without proper checks, it might open the floodgates to political instability and misuse of the judiciary for partisan purposes.
The bill’s fate will depend on further legislative debates and public discourse on its long-term impact on governance in Nigeria. As lawmakers continue deliberations, the need for a balanced approach that prevents corruption while ensuring effective governance remains a critical concern.
