OLUWOLE JOSIAH examines the implication of Order 111, which dwells on the handling of pending bills at the end of a legislative session. On Thursday, the Sixth Senate rounded off its activities and a direct consequence, all its unfinished businesses had expired. Contrary to expectations and misinterpretations of the Standing Orders of the Senate as amended, legislative business will only continue from session to session. This is the content of Order 111 as hurriedly amended two weeks ago last week by senators. Superficially and without proper legislative analysis, this could suggest that the unfinished businesses of the Senate would flow into the Seventh Senate as if the life of the legislature was uninterrupted. This interpretation is erroneous.<\/span><\/p>\n Recently, there was a controversy in the National Assembly as to whether a pending business of the legislature could survive beyond the lifespan of a particular legislative cycle, which is a period of four years. The rule is that once the National Assembly stands dissolved as spelt out in Section 64(1) of the 1999 Constitution, all its businesses left unfinished would be returned to the legislature afresh as if it was never presented.<\/span><\/p>\n As it stands now, there are bills in the Senate which have passed through second reading, public hearings have been conducted on them with the participation of relevant stakeholders and report prepared for a clause-by-clause consideration at plenary. But the Senate was not able to take the bills or pass them. Even if the bills were passed by the Senate, the House of Representatives would not be able to concur before its dissolution. Besides, should both houses succeed in passing and harmonising the bills, the same fate would have befallen them if the President withheld his assent.<\/span><\/p>\n The Freedom of Information Bill which was passed by the Fifth National Assembly is a clear example. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo withheld his assent until the lifespan of the legislature expired and the bill had to be represented before the legislature afresh. Some senators had argued that this posture of legislative practice amounted to a waste of precious time and resources.<\/span><\/p>\n The popular notion is that once work has begun on a bill or any business of the Senate, the bill should proceed through the stages of progression irrespective of adjournments and in that respect, save cost and time and allow for continuity.<\/span><\/p>\n The contending view is that such practice would deny new senators the opportunity of participating in the making of a law for which they would take ultimate responsibility. This is argued against the backdrop of the very high turn over of legislators at the general elections. In 2007, only 27 out of the 109 senators returned to the red chambers. The situation is not too different at the conclusion of the 2011 general elections. Only 37 of the old senators will be back to take their seats in June. If businesses are allowed to survive from one life of a Senate to another, then in this case, 72 new senators will be forced to accept the work done before they came into office.<\/span><\/p>\n But the Senate in 2007 stirred a controversy when it tampered with Rule 111, to ensure that pending bills could continue in the Sixth Senate. This decision stemmed from the desperation of the Ken Nnamani-led Senate to keep alive some of its \u201cgood\u201d work which were yet to become law at the twilight of its tenure. The idea of an amendment was fired by an investigation into the expenditures of the Independent National Electoral Commission at the conclusion of the 2007 general elections. There were allegations of misappropriation of funds and actual diversion of budgeted funds judging from the poor conduct of the elections. Lawmakers were alarmed that some of the projects proposed in the INEC budget that would have aided the conduct of the elections were not executed and equipment listed and ought to have been purchased was not deployed for the elections.<\/span><\/p>\n For example, senators were troubled that the electronic transmission of election results from the various centres as proposed in the INEC budget was not activated during the elections, while the elections ranked as one of the worst polls conducted in Nigeria as adjudged by both local and international observers.<\/span><\/p>\n It also took a cue from the overwhelming powers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and sought to clip its wings by amending its enabling law. Lawmakers had accused the EFCC of hunting down the political enemies of the Obasanjo administration.<\/span><\/p>\n The Senate mandated its committee on Drugs, Narcotics and Financial Crimes, led by Lawan Shuaibu to consider a possible amendment to the EFCC Act and followed with the setting up of an Ad hoc Committee headed by Senator Cordelia Agboti with the mandate to investigate INEC and the elections with a view to determining the manner the huge budget for the electoral body was expended in the discharge of the election assignment.<\/span><\/p>\n These investigations began, but were never concluded. In an attempt to give them life when the new Senate returned, Rule 111 had to be amended. The amendment reads, \u201cThe legislative business of the Senate which remains undetermined at the close of session or the life of the Senate shall be resumed and proceeded with in the same manner as if the session or life of the Senate has not ended; and all business referred to committees and not yet laid on the table at the close of the session or life of the Senate shall be returned to the office of the Clerk of the Senate and retained until the next session or Senate when they shall be returned to the respective committees to which they had previously been referred.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Although the investigations into the expenditures of INEC and the amendment to the EFCC Act were never continued, a number of bills, such as the Hydroelectric Power Producing Communities Development and National Health Reform Bills, rode on this amendment at the resumption of the Sixth Senate. Although there were several objections by new senators to the implementation of the rule, the rule was applied when it served the purposes of the Senate and its committees.<\/span><\/p>\n Senate Deputy Minority Leader, Olorunibe Mamora, had taken a stand against Rule 111 since its inception. He said the rule was an attempt to \u201cdisenfranchise new members who were not part of the proceedings in the previous Senate. It was an amendment done in error.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Mamora held that the practice of continuation of legislative business from a session or life of the Senate to another was not in line with international legislative best practices and was alien and in conflict with Section 64 of the 1999 Constitution. Citing legislative practices in different countries, he argued that the legislatures of Canada, Australia, United Kingdom and India have practices which ensure that businesses terminate at the end of the life of a parliament.<\/span><\/p>\n In the same vein, Deputy Senate Leader, Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN), had argued that, \u201cOnce the Senate is dissolved, no business of the Senate can survive. We have to find a cost effective way of resuming unfinished business of the Senate.\u201d Senator Ibrahim Ida, in his comments on the amendment, said although section 60 of the constitution gives power to the Senate to regulate its proceedings and make amendments to its standing rules, the committees should have the liberty to either continue or review the bills that they might inherit. The Senate\u2019s new amendment to Rule 111 as unanimously passed last week, carefully removed the words \u201clife of the Senate\u201d from the section to render it ineffective. The implication, although not known to even some of the senators, as evident in their contributions, is that bills can only survive from session to session. A legislative session is equal to one year and a bill or business of the Senate will be continued from session to session and no more from a \u201clife\u201d of the Senate to another \u201clife\u201d of the Senate. A \u201clife\u201d of the Senate is equal to four years.<\/span><\/p>\n Hence Rule 111 of the Standing Rules of the Senate 2011(Amended), now reads: \u201cThe legislative business of the Senate which remains undetermined at the close of a session of the Senate shall be resumed and proceeded with in the same manner as if no adjournment of the Senate had taken place; and all papers referred to committees and not reported upon at the close of session of the Senate shall be returned to the office of the Clerk of the Senate and retained until the next session of the Senate when they shall be returned to the several committees to which they had previously been referred.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n