Senate in near fisticuffs over sitting arrangements

…APC, PDP senators in rowdy session over Akpabio’s seat
…Electoral Act amendment: Use of card readers divides Reps
Wednesday’s plenary session of the Senate nearly came to an abrupt end as senators almost came to fisticuffs over sitting arrangements of senators especially on party border.

Senators of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and All Progressives Congress (APC) engaged in a verbal war but later sheath their swords in the interest of peace and national development.

An attempt by former Minority Leader, Senator Godswill Akpabio, to react to an allegation raised by Senator Bassey Akpan (PDP, Akwa Ibom North-East) in a point of order on how the 2019 elections might be threatened in Akwa Ibom State by the violence that engulfed the state after the recent APC primaries later led to rowdy session.

Akpabio later went ahead to threaten not to speak until the Senate is reconstituted but was cautioned by Senate President, Bukola Saraki, who pointed out that Akpabio could only speak on the seat allocated to him.

Trouble started when Senator Akpan said the PDP, in an advert on Wednesday signed by the state Publicity Secretary, Comrade Ini Ememobong, alleged that APC, in an attempt to fulfil its threat of ‘Warsaw Saw War’ had released its murderous goons, who unleashed violence in the capital city of Akwa Ibom State.

Raising Order 43, Senator Emmanuel Paulker noted that self explanation does not require contribution from any Senator, adding that Senator Apkabio cannot talk on the submission of Senator Akpan as “we cannot allow that to happen.”

He also faulted Akpabio’s sitting position, having gone to Senator Ali Ndume (APC, Borno’s) side to make his submission.

Angered by this development, the Majority Leader, Senator Ahmad Lawan (APC, Borno), protested, insisting that Akpabio could speak from any seat within the chamber.

Lawan said: “As it stands today, there is no sitting arrangement here”.

Other APC senators also raised their voices in support of Lawan’s position that Akpabio, who recently defected from the PDP to the APC, could speak from anywhere.

Insisting that the sitting arrangements should be organised as lawmakers have been sitting indiscriminately, the Senate Leader said even though the present National Assembly only has seven months to go, “we should do what is right.”

When Saraki asked the Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu to comment on the matter, the leader of the Senator Lawan wanted to prevent Ekweremadu from speaking by saying, “this is unfair, you can’t discriminate against us”.

Saraki made spirited efforts to calm the lawmakers as the atmosphere in the chamber was already charged with Senator Dino Melaye (PDP, Kogi) and Akpabio already in a shouting match while other lawmakers, who had taken positions, according to their political affiliation, joined in the shouting bout.

Saraki, who insisted that Akpabio cannot speak from the seat he was sitting, added that the Clerk has been directed to provide a seat for the former Minority Leader.

Responding to Sen. Lawan allegation of discrimination, Saraki explained that he told Akpabio to go to a place where there is a microphone as the seat he was occupying had no microphone.

Saraki said: “Leader you are not been fair, all I said is that Akpabio should go to a place where there is a microphone.

“What we agreed is that Senator Akpabio should go to a seat where there is a microphone and not that he should not speak simple! That is what I said, he should go to a place where there is a microphone”.

Explaining further, Saraki said: “I asked the Clerk if he has allocated a seat to you (Akpabio), the Clerk is here, let him respond.”

Clarifying the development, the Clerk of the Senate, Nelson Ayewoh, said “he (Akpabio) said he will sit here and I told him there is no microphone there, but he still said he wants to sit there.”

Akpabio, who eventually relocated to the seat beside Senator Ndume, demanded an apology from Saraki for allegedly being embarrassed by him while the presiding officer denied.

Akpabio said: “All I expected here today is an apology to me. All I am asking for is for every Senator to be given equal right.”

But Akpabio later apologised to his colleagues for raising his voice while the rowdy session lasted, threatening that he would not say anything until the Senate is reconstituted.

A search by our correspondent revealed that the only way the Senate can be reconstituted is when new leadership takes over.

However, during the disruption that lasted several minutes, Senator Melaye was seen going about, engaging APC senators in a war-of-words. Senator Kabiru Marafa and some APC senators also rose to engage Melaye.

Efforts by the Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu, to intervene in the matter failed as the chamber became noisy.

Citing Order 11 (1 and 2), Ekweremadu defended Saraki, insisting that he was right for not allowing Akpabio not speak from another seat.

He said: “I want to put it on record that Order 11 (1&2) in our rules said the president of the Senate shall allocate a seat to each Senator. A Senator may only speak from the seat allocated to him provided that the President of the Senate may change the allocation from time to time.

“Again, it noted that the job of the presiding officer is to ensure that every Senator has opportunity to speak while every senator is recognized”, adding that “it is not that the Senate President is refusing you to speak but there is an Order that governs where we should speak from…..”

Clarifying what he meant by reconstituting the Senate while speaking with newsmen after the plenary session, Akpabio said that minority cannot rule over majority, adding that 10 cannot rule over 80.

Akpabio, who said that he defected for national interest, added that those who also defected should emulate him by resigning their seats.

The Daily Times recalls that Saraki and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon Yakubu Dogara, had defected to the PDP recently and still remain the leaders of the National Assembly.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives on Wednesday commenced the consideration of the Electoral Act amendment bill 2010 even as lawmakers expressed opposing views on the possible use of the card reader or any other technological device in the event a card reader fails or malfunctions during the accreditation of voters.

The National Assembly’s joint committee on electoral matters had in its recommendation, which the House began considering on Wednesday, in clause 16(2) given a proviso that where the electronic smart card reader repeatedly fails, or malfunctions, an alternative technological device as may be prescribed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) be deployed for the purpose of voter accreditation.

But in opposing the recommendation, the Chairman, House Committee on Ethics and Privileges, Rep. Nicholas Osai, said that the proviso as proposed may be open to manipulation and as such should be deleted to prevent the use of an unknown technological device.

But his submission was countered by the Majority Leader, Hon Femi Gbajabiamila, who argued that laws have to be made with some level of flexibility, adding that the card reader of today may be phased out for another technological device tomorrow.

Several other House members also expressed discomfort with the provision, citing inconsistency with Clause 16(1), which recommended the use of card reader, with a condition that election in any polling unit shall be cancelled where the card reader fails up to three hours to the end of an election while a repeat election must be held within 24 hours.

The session became rowdy when Gbajabiamila insisted that the provision should be retained, declaring that “if it is there or not, INEC has been given the constitutional power to organise elections and so there is nothing we can do, even if it introduces another device”.

This submission was greeted with a thunderous shout of “no” by some members.

Deputy Speaker, Hon Yussuff Lasun, who presided over the report consideration at the committee of the whole, following the resultant uproar was in a fix when after subjecting the matter to a voice vote could not determine whether it was the “ayes” or the “nays” that had the majority.

Lasun, after more contributions from mostly House members who are lawyers, appealed for calm, adding that “this is a serious matter that will shape our lives”.

He subsequently put the question again when calm had returned and thereafter, ruled in favour of the “ayes”, a development that momentarily put proceeding on hold following the protest by some members.

The consideration of the other recommendations contained in the report continues today.