The fracas in the House of Representatives in Abuja, on Thursday, September 20, at the sitting of the panel that was set up to investigate the N628 million House renovation scandal involving the Speaker, Mrs Patricia Etteh and the Deputy Speaker Alhaji Babangida Nguroje, provided much drama and excitement and has appropriately raised profound concerns about the national political process.
But it is a realistic illustration of the highly underdeveloped nature of our political system. Since independence in 1960, Nigeria's experience of democratic rule has been largely improvisational. The Executive arm of government has had its fair share of showing up the limitations of the political elite; the Legislature at both national and local levels has been at best a theatre of uncivilized conduct. Over the years, having experienced the politics of the First Republic, the Second Republic and the Third Republic, Nigerians have come to accept the fact that the legislature is populated by mannerless persons and that occasional recourse to riotous behaviour, uncouth language, physical combat and raw violence is part of parliamentary ethos.
In the Fourth Republic, starting from May 1999, the latest crop of legislators has shown greater determination to behave like wrestlers, boxers and thugs. A disturbing development is the increased use of bombs, guns, machetes, assassination of opponents, and the kidnapping of persons as passwords of political communication. In the past eight years we have witnessed various sides of the problem: one Senate President removed the Mace and took it to his village, an aggrieved Senator once slapped a female Senator; in the state Houses of Assembly, members occasionally bring juju to parliament to threaten other members… Nigerians rationalize this lack of decorum by asking the rhetorical question: what level of civility should anyone expect from persons who rigged elections and stole the people's mandate?
And so on Thursday, September 20, members of the House of Representatives re-enacted an old and familiar drama. The Speaker of the House of Representatives appeared before the panel investigating the alleged N628 house renovation scam, and just as she was asked to take the witness stand, her supporters began to clap for her in solidarity. But another member, obviously not impressed, started shouting loudly and assertively: "Ole, ole ole" (thief, thief, thief).
A pro-Etteh lawmaker immediately made a move for this nay-sayer and in a matter of minutes the House of Representatives had been turned into a House of Gladiators. Emmanuel Jime (PDP Benue) who had shouted "Ole" found himself exchanging blows with Dino Melaye (PDP Kogi). Saudatu Sanni, Melaye and Mercy Amonai-Isei (PDP Delta) exchanged hot words and charged at each other. Kayode Idowu (PDP Oyo) and Samuel Sijero (PDP Lagos) also got pummeled. The former was dragged on the floor with his flowing agbada. Other members tore at each other's throats, some jumped on tables, others threw chairs. The Speaker had to be spirited away by security men. It was a show of shame and an assault on the idea of parliament as a forum for free and responsible discourse.
Parliamentary fracas is an old, international phenomenon. In the last six months alone, there has been serious fracas in the Afghanistan parliament where a female lawmaker, Malai Joya was pelted with bottles and threatened with rape and knife-attack for daring to refer to the Mujaheedin as criminals, and in the Indian parliament where disagreements over the siting of a maritime university resulted in an exchange of blows. In October 2005, there was also a free-for-all fight in Taiwan's parliament. In the United Kingdom, and France, rabble-rousing is also more or less an established parliamentary practice.
In the United States, it is not uncommon for legislators to shout at each other and exchange expletives. The fight in Etteh's House of Representatives last Thursday did not even go far enough. I am surprised that there were no casualties who had to be rushed to the National Hospital, nobody lost a tooth, there was no bloodshed, not even one person was beaten so badly and confined to the wheel-chair for life. In the Taiwan example cited earlier, Chang Shou-wen, one of the members, left the parliament with a bloodied face.
Parliamentary fracas is often a result of disagreements over matters that are in the public interest: the establishment of a Media Commission as in Taiwan, the location of a university or the sharing of water as in India where there have been two blow-outs in the Lok Sabha between March and now, public policy as in the United States and France, or budget debates as in Afghanistan. In these parliaments, the opposition often insists on its right to present an alternative viewpoint, and it is the partisanship of members that leads to the outflow of emotions.
But the sad news in contemporary Nigeria is that parliamentary fracas is not necessarily of an inter-party or inter-class character, but usually the expression of divisions within the ruling party. The emergent political culture in Nigeria does not encourage the existence or the flowering of the opposition. To question an authority figure may be an invitation to a slap or a punch in the face. This much has been the case in the Fourth Republic with members of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) finding it difficult to build consensus on issues. What has happened in the House of Representatives therefore is an indication of a political party crisis, and in particular, the failure of the PDP.
Another likely cause of fracas in parliaments is personality differences. There have been such instances in Nigeria: notably the blow-out in the Western Region House of Assembly in 1964 between Awolowo and Akintola supporters, and two years ago, when Senator Iyabo Anisulowo received a dirty slap from Senator Isa Mohammed. But a more dramatic example occurred in the United States House of Representatives in 1798 when Federalist Representative Roger Grisworld of Connecticut walked across to where Republican Matthew Lyon was sitting and after calling him a "scoundrel" proceeded to hit him with a thick, hickory walking stick on all parts of his body.
Two weeks earlier Lyon had spat in Grisworld's face in the course of a disagreement. But in many societies, even when personal ego is involved, the ideological basis of the conflict is easily discernible. In Nigeria, our politicians are carrying on as if the Constitution endorses violence. Their fights are ordinarily without any ideological content, but ego and self-interest. It is this shallowness that has turned their misconduct into a shame upon the nation.
Nonetheless, parliamentary fracas anywhere in the world is condemnable. The resort to violence cannot become a substitute for civilized discourse. Our lawmakers are called "Honourable" and "Distinguished". There is nothing honourable or distinguished in the kind of beer parlour fracas that was staged in the House of Representatives.
It merely served the purpose of preventing Madam Speaker, Patricia Etteh from presenting her case before the panel and one can only hope that the conflict was not contrived to portray her as a victim and thereby gain public sympathy for her cause. With the collapse of the panel's sitting on Thursday, the Speaker cleverly rushed her defence to the court of public opinion. Her 21-page defence reads like a tissue of afterthoughts. It is coming thirty days late: a bad comment on her communication skills.
If she really wanted to say all of what she is now saying, she should have started speaking the moment the scandal broke. The only good news is that one, "only" N59 million has been spent on the renovation so far; two, no vehicles have been bought yet. And three, further renovation work has been stopped and the contractors have had to withdraw from the site. At least one thing has been achieved: the House of Representatives has been stopped from further wasting and diverting public funds!
Patricia Etteh says only N238 million was meant for the renovation/furnishing of her own residence and for the Deputy Speaker, N140 million. She insists that she had nothing to do with the award of contracts, this was handled by the Tenders Board and the Clerk of the House. She argues that she would have spent over N244 million of public funds if she had chosen to live in a hotel for 107 days as her predecessor did. And are Nigerians not supposed to be grateful? Oh, thank you, Patricia Etteh for enduring so much hardship on our behalf! She adds that the residence of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is not one building but a set of buildings. And so on…
On Friday, Madam Etteh returned to the investigating panel to present these positions properly. She was treated with something softer than kid gloves. Which is unfortunate because on no account should that panel be dragged into what looks like an orchestrated attempt to cover up the scandal. Already, Chief Lamidi Adedibu has said that it is not Patricia Etteh that is in the dock but the Yoruba nation "What they are saying about Etteh, he points out, "does not concern us. If you try Etteh, you are trying us. We will not submit. This is the only one we have in the West. The Yoruba people are now speaking with one voice by appealing to the members. The entire Yoruba race are (sic) speaking with one voice…Tell Yar'Adua that he should tell his men to stop probing Etteh."
This blackmail cannot help Etteh in the long run. Adedibu does not speak for the Yoruba race. It is not the Yoruba that are on trial, it is Etteh's integrity that is being questioned. If she is a disciple of Adedibu's "amala politics", good for her, but the House of Representatives should not become a place for "amala politics".
In the light of the representations made before the investigating panel so far, including Etteh's own defence, there are questions that should be asked:
(1) Etteh's submission that the award of contracts is the responsibility of the Clerk of the House contradicts the Acting Clerk's earlier submission that the memo for the renovation was prepared in the Speaker's office, but his name was merely appended to it and he was asked to sign. "This is the practice, it is the norm," he says. And although he attended the meeting of the "Board of Principal Officers" , he did so only as an observer. What does the Speaker have to say about this?
(2) The Acting Clerk, Niyi Ajiboye further alleged that he has serious problems getting the lawmakers to follow procedures and focus on legislative responsibilities. They are forever preparing proposals and asking that private trips abroad should be funded by the House. And when he refuses as he did in the case of the request for the purchase of a N98million body massager, the lawmakers attack him. Is the Speaker aware of this? And how do we place this against the Speaker's insistence that she was misled by her staff?
(3) The Speaker has admitted that she is the Chairperson of the Tenders Board. Why us she claiming ignorance of the fact that all the companies that bidded for the contracts for the renovation of the houses belong to the same owners using the same addresses, same telephone numbers and the same Board of Directors and that the companies belong to one of her aides? She is passing the buck to the Tenders Board and the Clerk, but the Executive Secretary of the Tenders Board is insisting too that the Speaker is guilty.
(4) The Corporate Affairs Commission has given evidence to the effect that only one of the companies with which the House is doing business is registered as required by law. As Chairman of the Tenders Board, did the Speaker make any effort to establish the bona fide of the bidding companies? What kind of leader is she, trying so hard to pass responsibility to her subordinates. She says she was misled: didn't she claim in her defence that he is a very experienced parliamentarian and manager?
(5) The Federal Capital Development Authority has disclosed that the Speaker's residence was renovated in 1999 and in 2003 respectively for N5.28 and N2.5 million respectively, and in 2006 for N16 million and that there was no request for any further renovation of the Speaker's house. What is the Speaker's comment on this?
(6) There was a report that the Speaker's House was stripped bare of furnishings and vandalized by the previous occupant. Etteh's predecessor as Speaker is still alive. Will it not be advisable to invite Alhaji Masari to respond to this allegation?
(7) There is so much talk about due process in the Speaker's statement. Is she aware that so-called due process is the best cover for corrupt practices in Nigeria? And that in this matter, due process has been exploited? What sort of due process made it possible for her assistant to get all the contracts?
(8) The Speaker insists that she is a victim of political vendetta orchestrated by those who did not get positions in the distribution of House Committees. Is this not enough evidence that she has lost the support and confidence of her colleagues?
The long and short of it is that Patricia Etteh's leadership of the House of Representatives is already compromised and damaged. She and her spin-doctors may continue to force the argument, but the House of Representatives under her watch is no longer functioning effectively. She has lost control. And after her spirited attempts to sacrifice her staff and the civil servants, would anybody still want to work with her? It is now up to Patricia Etteh and the lawmakers to determine what is more important: her continued occupation of the office at everybody's expense or the interest of the Nigerian people? She has already chosen the former, but she may not have the last laugh.
By Reuben Abati
