The law
and the bible share some similarities. These exist in their
interpretation. Interpreting the bible requires one to take a holistic
approach. This means that one cannot interpret one verse in the bible in
isolation. While one verse may support your action, another verse may
contradict it. The same logic applies to the law. While one section of the
law may support your action, another section may contradict it. This means that
one cannot interpret a section of the law in isolation of other sections
relevant to that section.
The
interpretation of section 50(2c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (FRN) has posed a serious challenge. It may require the interpretation
of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to put the conflicting views that have emerged
to rest. This section talks about removing the Senate President (SP), Deputy
Senate President (DSP), Speaker of the House of Representatives (SoH) and Deputy
Speaker of the House of Representatives (DSoH). This section stipulates that
2/3 majority of the members of the Legislative House is required to remove
these principal officers of the National Assembly (NASS). However, the
confusion that has emerged over this constitutional provision lies in the
wording of this section in relation to other relevant sections of the
constitution. For example, the sections that talk about removing the President
and Vice President of Nigeria, removing a Governor and Deputy Governor of a
State, forming a quorum at both the National and State Legislative House, a
candidate winning election in Nigeria, and so on.
Let’s
take a look at these relevant sections. While section 50(2c) stipulates 2/3
majority of the members of the Legislative House, section 54(1), which talks
about forming a quorum in the Legislative Houses stipulates 1/3 of all members
of the Legislative House. Also, section 58(5), which talks about overriding the
President’s refusal to assent a bill, stipulates 2/3 majority of the members of
the Legislative House. These provisions are similar to the provisions about removing
a Speaker and Deputy Speaker of a State Assembly. For instance, while
section 92(1c) stipulates that 2/3 majority of the members of a State Assembly
is needed to impeach a Speaker or Deputy of a State Assembly, section 96(1)
stipulates that 1/3 of all the members of a State Legislative House is required
to form a quorum. In addition, section 100(5) stipulates that 2/3 majority
of the members of a State Assembly is required to override a Governor’s refusal
to assent a bill.
Moreover,
in relation to the provisions about removing the President or Vice President,
while section 143(2) stipulates that at least 1/3 of the members of the NASS
must sign a written notice of allegation against the President or Vice
President, section 143(9) stipulates that 2/3 majority of all the members of
the NASS must support the resolution to adopt the Report submitted by the Panel
appointed to investigate the allegations. Also, regarding removing the President
or Vice President through a resolution initiated by the Federal Executive
Council, section 144(1a) stipulates that 2/3 of all the members of the Federal
Executive Council must pass the resolution. In addition, similar provisions
apply to removing a State Governor or Deputy Governor. For instance, while
section 188(2) stipulates that 1/3 of the members of the State Assembly must
sign a written notice of allegation against a Governor or Deputy Governor, section
188(9) stipulates that 2/3 majority of all the members of a State Assembly must
support the resolution to adopt the Report submitted by the Panel appointed to
investigate the allegations against a Governor or Deputy Governor. Also, to
remove a Governor or Deputy Governor through a resolution passed by State
Executive Council, section 189(1a) stipulates that 2/3 of all the members of
the State Executive Council must pass the resolution. In relation to winning
election, while section 133(1b) stipulates that a presidential candidate must
win in at least 2/3 of all the States in Nigeria and the Federal Capital
Territory, section 179(1b) stipulates that a gubernatorial candidate must win
in at least 2/3 of all the Local Governments in the State.
Furthermore,
a close look at these constitutional provisions reveals the differences in the
wording. One will notice that in some provisions the word all is used, while in some provisions it is absent. To some people,
the interpretation of the sections where it is used is the same as in the
sections where it is absent. For instance, the provision of 2/3 of the members of
the Senate House is the same as the provision of 2/3 of all the members of the
Senate House. This argument may be valid if interpretation of the section is
done in part, where other relevant sections are neglected. In this case, the
interpretation will be that 73 members of Senators are required to impeach the
Senate President or Deputy Senate President. This interpretation may be
narrowly construed. But, if this section is holistically interpreted in a way
that accounts for other relevant sections of the Constitution, then we will
begin to see how different these provisions are, in terms of interpretation.
Also, we will begin to see the hidden issues that require serious
constitutional interpretation unveil their faces. In this case, the
interpretation of the section where the word all is present will mean that 73 senators are required to impeach
the Senate President or Deputy Senate President, and the interpretation of the
section where the word all is absent
will mean that only the members present in a session where a quorum has been
duly constituted.
To
conclude, I think there must be strong reason(s) why the word all is used in some of the provisions
and not used in other provisions. One reason may be for emphasis purposes.
Another reason may be to allow for further interpretation by a court of law. Often
times we undermine the importance of some English words. One of the lessons
that I have learnt from the conflicting views about the quest to remove Dr
Bukola Saraki - and Dr Ike Ekweremadu - is that every English word matters,
particularly in legal provisions. Perhaps you won’t understand this until you
have problems with the law. To some people, the provision of section 50(2c) of
the Constitution of the FRN is clear, perhaps that’s why they beat their chest
that Dr Saraki cannot be impeached because that process will require 73
senators, which would appear to be a feat that APC cannot pull. However, when
you interpret this section in relation to other relevant provisions, as I have
highlighted above, you will see that removing Dr Saraki is not a mirage as it
has been portrayed. That’s if the interpretation holds true, perhaps at the
Supreme Court.
