.png) |
| (Image: Punch Newspaper) |
A recent proposal from the Nigerian House of Representatives to change the Constitution and remove immunity for the Vice President, governors, and their deputies has sparked a lively debate among political analysts, civil rights activists, and politicians. Critics are questioning why the President is left out of this amendment, pointing out possible inconsistencies in how the law would be applied.
Dr. Aminu Hayatu, a senior lecturer in Political Science at Bayero University in Kano, voiced his concerns about the selective nature of this proposed change. He pointed out that both the President and Vice President are elected together and should be held to the same legal standards. "By targeting the Vice President while letting the President off the hook, we undermine the unity of their election and create a legal inconsistency," Dr. Hayatu remarked.
In a similar vein, Shehu Sani, a dedicated human rights activist and former senator from Kaduna, expressed his concerns about the proposal. He recognized the importance of ensuring that no one is above the law but cautioned against possible misuse. "Abolishing immunity for the Vice President and governors means that everyone is accountable; however, it could lead to the targeting of these officials," Sani pointed out. He also emphasized that if the Vice President is to lose immunity, then the President shouldn't keep it either. Sani encouraged Nigerians to actively participate in this discussion before it moves forward.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Solomon Bob (PDP-Rivers), aims to amend Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution. Its goal is to restrict immunity to the President and only extend it to the Vice President when they are acting as President under Section 145. This proposed change would eliminate immunity for officials when they are acting in an unofficial capacity or if their actions are considered criminal.
This development has ignited a wider discussion about accountability and transparency in Nigeria's governance. Critics point out that the existing immunity laws protect officials from prosecution, which could lead to misconduct. On the flip side, those in favor of immunity argue that it helps avoid baseless lawsuits that might divert officials from their responsibilities.
As the debate continues, various stakeholders stress the importance of finding a balanced approach that guarantees accountability while also protecting officials from unnecessary harassment. The journey of the proposed amendment through the legislative process will be watched closely, considering its significant impact on Nigeria's political scene.
Post a Comment