House of Representatives has said the Independent National Electoral Commission ( INEC) has said it will consider it’s request for extension of the ongoing Continuous Voter Registration (CVR), exercise.
The chairman, House Committee on Electoral Matters, Aisha Dukku, disclosed this, yesterday, while briefing journalists, on the outcome of a meeting between the committee and the electoral body.
Dukku explained that following the resolution of the House requesting INEC to extend the CVR by 60 days, the committee met with the commission on Tuesday, to brainstorm on challenges encountered by Nigerians seeking to participate in the exercise.
She noted that after the meeting, the electoral body promised to look at the resolution and come up with a position. However, the lawmaker pointed that the extension, according to INEC, might not be up to 60 days, as requested by the House.
Earlier, the minority leader, Ndudi Elumelu, had at yesterday’s plenary, expressed concerns that government agencies are in the habit of flouting House resolutions. He noted that there indications that INEC is not willing to comply with the resolution of the House.
Elumelu said :“We passed a resolution on INEC by way of consideration extend the tenure of continuous voter’s registration, which they had wanted to stop. And I’m also aware that the court of competent jurisdiction also gave a judgement to the effect that they are also urging INEC not to stop or end the continuous registration.
“But from the feelers that I am getting, it’s like INEC is even threatening to appeal against that judgement, jettisoning the resolution that was passed on this floor. So Mr. Speaker, I will like the chairman of the House Committee on Electoral Matters to educate us on the efforts that they have made. The second leg of the motion is for them to follow up and ensure compliance, that is the point of my order.”
In his response the speaker said, Femi Gbajabiamila, said the chairman, House Committee on Electoral Matters had briefed on the outcome of the committee parley with INEC. Consequently, Gbajabiamila requested her to brief the House on the issue.
Dukku, in her presentation, told lawmakers that INEC was willing to comply with the resolutions of the House.
She said “Mr. Speaker, as I earlier told you we met with INEC chairman yesterday (Tuesday) based on the referral to our committee we thought it was urgent so we invited INEC and Professor Yakubu Mahmood was with us throughout yesterday afternoon and part of what we agreed to was that he has already agreed to extend but for the court injunction he is to appear on the 29th of June. That notwithstanding, he said it has been guaranteed that it has to be extended, and not just extending but also add additionally done during weekends.
“He has agreed to that and that he is going to make a statement very soon to that effect. That extension also involves additional machines, additional ad-hoc staff and of course he’s going to collaborate with the security agencies to make sure that that is also done. So all the prayers of the motion were approved and all members of the committee were there including the mover of the motion.”
Meanwhile, Gbajabiamila, at yesterday’s plenary, explained that the House would have to adopt a substantive motion, on the override the President Muhammadu Buhari veto on the Electoral Act Amendment Bill.
The deputy speaker, Idris Wase, had stepped down a motion by Ben Igbakpa, praying the House to override Buhari’s veto of the amendment to Section 84(8) of the Electoral Act, which sought to provide for statutory delegates in nomination of political parties primaries. Wase had explained that it was procedurally wrong to seek to override the President’s veto through a motion.
Nevertheless, the speaker, at Wednesday’s plenary noted :”There is no contradiction or difference between what the Deputy Speaker said yesterday and what I pronounced on Wednesday( last week). They are one and the same.
“There have to be a combined reading of the Constitution and our rules. Honourable Igbakpa, I indeed said that you should come with a substantive motion. Can you read order 12 rule 20. This is a matter that has not been touched upon except for one of two instances, so it is important to give it clarity. I noticed that it was a subject of debate on Channels TV this morning…
” You have to bring the bill back for consideration, but how do you bring the bill back? You have to bring the bill back by way of substantive motion. And you now recommitting it to perhaps the committee of the whole or in the alternative you go through the whole process again, first, second readings or you commit to committee of the whole for consideration. You still have to bring a substantive motion to bring the Bill back, not just by saying let us override. The Bill has to be brought back to the House. There is judicial interpretation in the National Assembly vs Attorney General.”
Be the first to comment